Again, no. These things are all just concepts and can't own anythingDoes the label ‘body’ owns the body?
Investigate this and write what feels true for you.
Are you sure that what makes thoughts go away is another thought?What makes the thoughts go away is another thought, though it is subtle and 'quiet.'
OK. You are talking as if thoughts were AWARE ENTITIES with their own FREE WILL and they can ACT according to their own DECISION. But is this so? Is this what is actually happening?V: Or is there a specific thought clearing other thoughts?D: Yes, this is what I perceived to be the case.
You say it SEEMS. But a seeming thing is not a real thing. It’s just a SEEMING THING.V: Or there are simply less thoughts appearing?
What feels truer in experience?D: What feels truer is that there is some kind of thought that seems to be able to shape or alter the presence or volume of other thoughts.
No, I can't be sure of this, it was just an impression I had while doing the exercise.Are you sure that what makes thoughts go away is another thought?
Doing this exercise again I paid better attention to the experience itself and found that thoughts were being silenced when attention was placed elsewhere. I focussed my attention on the rhythm of my breathing, or instance, and soon found that passing thoughts were rarer.Is this something observable in experience, or is it rather a logical conclusion?
Re-exploring again, it was also observed that the presence of the thought initially believed to be 'the silencer' may have seemed to be so because when attention is focussed on it, it is absorbed into that one thought rather than a plethora of them.And how does the another thought is ACTUALLY making the other thought away?
No, it seems unlikely and I havent observed them to have such powers either.Do thoughts have such magical powers?
No, that would be an imaginary belief.Are thoughts are entities who could do certain things?
It can relay imaginary information.What can a thought do?
No, my experience of them is that their content is generated without any awareness of volition.Does a thought have volition?
No, it can't perform an act in this way at all.Can a thought perform any ACT, like making another thought go away?
After looking again, no, thoughts are not aware entities able to act on their own decisions.OK. You are talking as if thoughts were AWARE ENTITIES with their own FREE WILL and they can ACT according to their own DECISION. But is this so? Is this what is actually happening?V: Or is there a specific thought clearing other thoughts?
D: Yes, this is what I perceived to be the case.
No, thoughts are temporary and lifeless and just reveal different types of information in some way, they are not aware of themselves or any other thought.I used capital letters to emphasises what capabilities thoughts have to have in order to make other thoughts go away.
So please examine the following possibilities:
Are thoughts aware?
Can one thought be aware another thought?
No, it's increasingly clear that whatever made the other thoughts o away was not itself a thought.Is the second thought that is seemingly making the previous thought go away aware of the presence of that previous thought?
Because if they can’t then how would that be possible to push away other thoughts?
Continuing from the previous answers from looking into this again, the answer to all of these is also 'no'Are thoughts real entities?
If not, how they could perform the act of making other thoughts go away?
Can any thought perform any act?
Can any thought do anything at all?
And can a thought make a decision?
If yes, how so?
I agree, and it was helpful to re-examine this.You say it SEEMS. But a seeming thing is not a real thing. It’s just a SEEMING THING.V: Or there are simply less thoughts appearing?
What feels truer in experience?
D: What feels truer is that there is some kind of thought that seems to be able to shape or alter the presence or volume of other thoughts.
You have to look until it’s not just SEEMS to be in a certain way, but rather it’s known how it’s actually is.
The problem is that you are paying attention to the content of thoughts, what thoughts are telling, instead of looking at the raw, unadulterated experience directly, BEFORE any thought interpretation.
Ignore what suggest how things SEEM to be, and rather look how things actually are.
Remember, we did all those exercises on seeing the difference between thought (imagination) and experience (reality) for the reason to be able to distinguish what the thoughts are telling (which is always fictional) and what is actually happening in reality.(/quote]
Yes, I see this better now. Thank you.
Dave
OK. So when attention goes to experience, there are less thoughts appearing.Doing this exercise again I paid better attention to the experience itself and found that thoughts were being silenced when attention was placed elsewhere.
In. my experience, there's nothing causing the decrease in thoughts, and it seems to happen by itself.But what is making the decrease in thoughts? Is there anything doing that at all?
Is silencing thoughts is a doing? Or it’s just happening on its own without any doer whatsoever?
From looking, nothing makes thoughts appear and there is no self doing the looking or thinking thoughts.There is no thinker and there is no location for it. And thoughts are only a happening, not a doing.What does make thoughts to appear?
What is doing the thinking? What is thinking thoughts?
Where is the thinker?
Is there a thinker + thought? Or there is only thoughts happening?
Is thinking a doing or a happening?
To experiment with this, I just rubbed my hands along the sides of my laptop. Paying attention to what I was experiencing, I was aware of the sensation of the laptop on my skin, but not the act of moving my hands. What is allegedly a 'doing' was perceived more as a 'happening.'Now look, what is not given?
What is the difference between a happening and a doing?
Is there any doing in reality?
No, I definitely can't. :)Look around, all colours are already given they are happening. It’s not that Dave character can choose and make colours that are present into different ones. Or choose not to see blue and see yellow instead. Or can he?
As seen in my laptop-touching exercise above, I observed that sensations are something that are happening rather than something I am doing.And what about sensations? Are they happening or the me-character doing them?
The Dave character doesn't take in part in doing the doing of feelings. They are happening to him.And how about feelings? Are they something the Dave character does or something that is also already given?
The separate self is no different from the Dave character, which can't be experienced in any way. Therefore the separate self's actions cannot possibly exist so it is an idea, not an entity.Is separate self doing anything in life?
Or is it given? As an idea? Or as an entity?
I can't perceive anything that isn't on autopilot.Is there anything, anything that all, that is not on autopilot?
Let’s look into this.The Dave character doesn't take in part in doing the doing of feelings. They are happening to him.
When looking for Dave there was no way of locating it.The Dave character does not reside at any location.You are saying that feelings are happening TO Dave.
So, WHERE is Dave?
WHERE is the exactly LOCATION where Dave-character RESIDES?
Feelings and sensations feel very physical and feel like they're coming from the body itself.Where is the exact location where feelings/sensations are felt FROM? – please tell the exact location
On trying to see if those physical responses had any other traceable location, nothing could be found. All there is is the awareness of the sensation or feeling.After you’ve found the exact location, investigate what is actually there.
There is no feeler located there, nor is there the Dave character or experiencer. All that can be felt there is the sensations themselves, but not entity who has the job of experiencing them.Is there an actual FEELER there?
Can you find the Dave-character at that location?
Is there a subject of experience there? Is there an experiencER?
What is that is actually there? Is there anything else there other than sensations?
The location is experienced only as a sensation. There is no experiencer there.Is the location (sensation) the experiencER, or is that location is experiencED as sensations?
And when not looking, where is Dave?When looking for Dave there was no way of locating it.
OK, but the questions wasn’t where sensations are coming from, but where are they FELT FROM.V: Where is the exact location where feelings/sensations are felt FROM? – please tell the exact locationD: Feelings and sensations feel very physical and feel like they're coming from the body itself.
Great looking :)There is no feeler located there, nor is there the Dave character or experiencer. All that can be felt there is the sensations themselves, but not entity who has the job of experiencing them.
The character Dave has no real existence, existing only in thoughts and imagination. Though the physical body attached to those ideas is real and present, the body is not Dave.And when not looking, where is Dave?When looking for Dave there was no way of locating it.
They are felt in thoughts, and can cause a rush of different thoughts related to the nature of the feelings.OK, but the questions wasn’t where sensations are coming from, but where are they FELT FROM.V: Where is the exact location where feelings/sensations are felt FROM? – please tell the exact location
D: Feelings and sensations feel very physical and feel like they're coming from the body itself.
So where is the location where sensations are FELT?
Or in other words, where is the receiver end on sensations?
What is receiving the feeling of sensations?
Yes, it is Dave or the 'I' that is supposed to be the receiver of the feelings, as well as the one thinking and experiencing things related to them. But examining this closely, a lot of these feelings are just strong thoughts that seem to reinforce the concept of 'Dave' in some way. They are particularly powerful thoughts that have the ability to cause great distraction.But isn’t it Dave who supposed to FEEL sensations?
Isn’t it Dave who supposed to experience sensation?
Isn’t the belief that Dave is the feeler, the thinker and the experiencer?
So what is the truth when you closely investigate this?
The body is attached to ideas that Dave is real and present? Are you sure about this?The character Dave has no real existence, existing only in thoughts and imagination. Though the physical body attached to those ideas is real and present, the body is not Dave.
Dave, you are not looking, you are speculating.V: OK, but the questions wasn’t where sensations are coming from, but where are they FELT FROM.
So where is the location where sensations are FELT?
Or in other words, where is the receiver end on sensations?
What is receiving the feeling of sensations?D: They are felt in thoughts, and can cause a rush of different thoughts related to the nature of the feelings.
Again, you are assuming that thoughts have abilities. But is this true? Can this assumption stand up to the scrutiny of experience?They are particularly powerful thoughts that have the ability to cause great distraction.
Bit of a misunderstanding here, I think. I didn't say 'The body is attached to ideas that Dave is real and present'The body is attached to ideas that Dave is real and present? Are you sure about this?
So I was saying the body was real and present, but it had a tendency to be associated (by thoughts) with the Dave character. Sorry if I wasn't too clear, but I ultimately concluded this attachment was false because 'the body is not Dave.'Though the physical body attached to those ideas is real and present, the body is not Dave.
I don't agree that it does.How is the body doing this exactly?
In my experience, no part at all.And which part of the body is doing the attaching to the idea that the character is real and present?
I don't feel it's the case that it does.How does the body knows that the character is real and present?
If I believed it were true, it would only be a thought.Where does this information is coming from?
No the body does not think, nor is it the thinker.Does the body think? Is the body the thinker?
My perception was that thoughts claimed an ownership or attachment to the body, not the other way around.Be very careful not to go to thinking, but actually observe, how the body is actually (literally) PERFORMING the ACT of ATTACHING to this idea.
Dave, you are not looking, you are speculating.[/quote]quote]V: OK, but the questions wasn’t where sensations are coming from, but where are they FELT FROM.
So where is the location where sensations are FELT?
Or in other words, where is the receiver end on sensations?
What is receiving the feeling of sensations?
D: They are felt in thoughts, and can cause a rush of different thoughts related to the nature of the feelings.
OK got it.First, I would like to ask you to NOT bulk-reply, rather reply to each question one-by-one. All of these questions are pointers for you where to look, and if you bulk-reply, you can easily miss important pointers.
They can be hard to distinguish from each other, but I don't feel they happen in thoughts, but rather that sensations can influence the subject matter of thoughts. It seems impossible for sensations to be contained within thoughts, but some thoughts have the same subject matter as the sensations being experienced.Are you saying that sensations are felt IN thoughts? Is that even possible?
In this case, both experience and thought.Where does this information coming from?
No, thoughts are incorporeal and empty of feeling.Can a thought FEEL?
Thoughts can convey imaginary information about events that have been experienced or that may be experienced in the future, but they don't do this as an act of volition of their own accord.What can a thought do?
Other than carrying imaginary information, no, though I do question whether problem solving abilities such as mental arithmetic could be classified as a way that thought can actually do something.Can a though do anything, anything at all?
From the above, I'd say it's more the case that the subject matter of thoughts can be influenced by stimuli. For instance, my window is currently open and I can feel a cold breeze on my arm, and because of that I have become aware of a thought arising about me closing the window to stop my arm from feeling cold.You are talking as if thoughts were some kind of alive entities, that are aware of what is going on, and have all sorts of capabilities, like feeling sensations and causing other thoughts.
I agree. I admit some difficulties in interpreting my experience of the relationship between feelings - i.e. emotional rather than physical sensations - and thoughts, as they feel quite closely related to each other. Or rather, they feel somehow intertwined with each other. However, I don't make the assumption that thoughts produce feelings, but rather that feelings can have an effect on the subject matter of thoughts.Please investigate this ASSUMPTION very thoroughly. Seeing thoughts clearly is the bases of seeing through the self. As long as it’s not clear what is a thought, what it can or can’t do, it could be very difficult to see through the illusion.
No, thoughts are not aware.So are thoughts aware?
No, they do not have their own awareness.Are thoughts knows what is going on?
No, it can't know one or have any awareness of sensation.Can a thought know a sensation?
No definitely not.Are thought an aware, living entities?
No, not at all.Can a thought make another thought to appear?
No, they don'tDoes a thought have such abilities?
In themselves, none at all.What abilities a thought have?
Do thoughts actually know and aware of the presence of sensations, OR there are just thoughts ABOUT sensations? Can you see the difference?
That there are thoughts about sensations.Which one is true?
What I'm saying is that some thoughts are more distracting than others, which is a conclusion of experience rather than assumption. I don't assume thoughts have abilities, though the language I used may have unintentionally conveyed otherwise. This was more a turn of phrase than a direct assumption however, and I can definitely see that thoughts do not have abilities.They are particularly powerful thoughts that have the ability to cause great distraction.
Again, you are assuming that thoughts have abilities. But is this true? Can this assumption stand up to the scrutiny of experience?
Thank you for the clarification.So I was saying the body was real and present, but it had a tendency to be associated (by thoughts) with the Dave character. Sorry if I wasn't too clear, but I ultimately concluded this attachment was false because 'the body is not Dave.'
But do sensations actually have the ability to influence thoughts or do anything at all? Or it’s just SEEMS that way?They can be hard to distinguish from each other, but I don't feel they happen in thoughts, but rather that sensations can influence the subject matter of thoughts
OK, let’s look into this.What I'm saying is that some thoughts are more distracting than others,
Thoughts certainly seem to be influenced by sensations, though at the same time they're also very separate from them. I am aware of sensations and I am aware of thoughts about those sensations, but I can't say for sure that there is an 'ability' to do so attributable to those sensations.But do sensations actually have the ability to influence thoughts or do anything at all? Or it’s just SEEMS that way?They can be hard to distinguish from each other, but I don't feel they happen in thoughts, but rather that sensations can influence the subject matter of thoughts
Sit for a few minutes, and just notice what sensations are present. Watch like a hawk for a thought to arise about the sensations.
Can it be observed that the sensation is performing the act of influencing thoughts? [/quote}
The sensation didn't directly influence the thought. I sat and observed the sensation of throbbing in the little finger of my left hand that I sometimes get due to having cut through its nerves in a childhood accident. Being aware of the sensation was shortly followed by the memory of the accident. However, paying attention to the thought, there didn't seem to be a direct causal link between it and the sensation.
This does seem very possible. The sensation itself was not followed by a thought, but by nothing. Then the thought also seemed to come from nothing. But before that thought, another very brief and quite sneaky thought was observed about the idea of sensations and thoughts being linked. It seems a narrative was then formed between the sneaky thought and the memory of my childhaood accident.Or is this influencing is just the content of another thought “that the sensation influenced the thought, since A (sensation) is followed by B (thought about the sensation)?
The Dave character - i.e. a non existent entity.OK, let’s look into this.What I'm saying is that some thoughts are more distracting than others,
So thoughts SEEM to be distracting.
But who/what is it exactly that thoughts distract?
On the imaginary narrative associated with the non-existent Dave character.Who/what do thoughts have an effect on?
No, definitely not.Is there a person outside of thoughts, whom thoughts have an effect and can distract?
That person doesn't exist. The thoughts are being directly observed by an innate sense of awareness, not a fictional character.Where is this person, whom thoughts distracting?
Dave
Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 7 guests
