advaita vedanta lead me to solipsism - please help!

[robbiemac]

Hi,

When walking, what do you do in order for the legs to move?

Nothing. There is no I 'making' the walking happen. Sometimes there is the thought 'I am walking' but really this is not true as walking is happening. Sometimes there is the thought 'I must walk faster' and the body may or may not respond to this thought. There is no thinker, just thoughts. It seems that there is a relationship between thoughts and the body in spite of there being no central figure controlling either. I am interested to see what you say about this!

Are you making walking happen, or it just happens automatically and effortlessly?

I do not make it happen. I (yes I still feel an I) notice it happening at times. And I see thoughts rising in relation to it and the body then responding or not.

When you sit down, or stand up, is this something you do, or something that is happening?

'I want to sit down' is a thought. Then the body sits. I watch the thought and the body. Can we say there is a relationship between thought and body?

Are you making the sensations happen, or they are there, without anyone or anything making them to be?

They happen and I notice them.

When breathing happens, are you making it to happen, or it happens automatically without anyone making it happen?

What is the thought comes 'take a deep breath' and the body takes a deep breath? The body is responding to the thinking. Most of the time the body does what the body does. But occasionally when the thoughts relate directly to the body then the body might engage thought. BUT whenever the body does anything at all... it is either just doing it's thing or working with thought. There is no I involved in the process. Vivien - what do you say about this please?!!!

When preparing food, or eating, washing your hands, typing, brushing your teeth, dressing up, are you making the hands move, or the hands just move by themselves?

I think the above reply applies for the next 2 questions too. And I am in a rush to get this back to you because of time difference!

Is there a central controller somewhere in the body, from where strings are pulled to lift the arms, and move the body? Or all of it just happening automatically?

No central controller at all. Thought which does its own thing and the body which does it own thing. Ocassionally the two work in unison seemingly.

Where I think I was wrong in my last replies was that I believed intention to be something other than thought. It is not though.

What do you think??

RM

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

It seems that there is a relationship between thoughts and the body in spite of there being no central figure controlling either. I am interested to see what you say about this!

Is this relationship something that can be observed (literally) or rather this is just a logical conclusion based on one event (movement) following another (thought)?
'I want to sit down' is a thought. Then the body sits. I watch the thought and the body. Can we say there is a relationship between thought and body?

Can you observe the thought making the body move?

Or this relationship is just another thought, trying to explain that there is a thought, and then a movement by implying a cause and effect?

Is there anything else that can be said, other than that there is a thought and then a movement?
Is there any observable link between the two?

BUT whenever the body does anything at all... it is either just doing it's thing or working with thought. There is no I involved in the process. Vivien - what do you say about this please?!!!

When there a thought “let’s stand up”, is the body ( = sensations) aware of this thought?

Do the sensations what you label ‘body’ know anything about the thought?

And does the thought “let’s stand up” know anything about the body/sensations?

Is there any sensation that is aware?
Is there any thought that is aware?

Where I think I was wrong in my last replies was that I believed intention to be something other than thought. It is not though.

Yes. When I asked you to look for THE intention itself, this is exactly what I wanted you to investigate. If there is anything to intention but a thought.
So is there?

Vivien

[robbiemac]

Hi Vivien,

Is this relationship something that can be observed (literally) or rather this is just a logical conclusion based on one event (movement) following another (thought)?

It’s just an assumption based on an action following a thought.

Can you observe the thought making the body move?

How about the thought ‘I am getting up from my seat’ as my body gets up from the seat? Is this a thought making the body move? Am I observing thought and body relating to the same thing at the same time? Could this be?

Or this relationship is just another thought, trying to explain that there is a thought, and then a movement by implying a cause and effect?

Yes, when they happen consecutively I think this could be true. But when thinking and moving are observed concurrently are they working in unison or just noticed as objects at the same time?

Is there anything else that can be said, other than that there is a thought and then a movement?

I agree with this.

Is there any observable link between the two?

No.

When there a thought “let’s stand up”, is the body ( = sensations) aware of this thought?

No. But how is it that the body seems to respond to the thought and the thought to the body?

Do the sensations what you label ‘body’ know anything about the thought?

I have previously observed that there is no relationship between any ‘objects of perception’ but there is a flow between these two.

And does the thought “let’s stand up” know anything about the body/sensations?

No. But as above.

Is there any sensation that is aware?

No sensation is aware. And this is a good question because if the body is a ‘bag of sensations’ then the body cannot know anything about thought!

Is there any thought that is aware?

Do thoughts rise from sensations? It seems as though thoughts are aware of sensations and circumstances.

Where I think I was wrong in my last replies was that I believed intention to be something other than thought. It is not though.
Yes. When I asked you to look for THE intention itself, this is exactly what I wanted you to investigate. If there is anything to intention but a thought.

So is there?

No, there is nothing to intention but a thought. But as above, it seems as though thoughts are aware of sensations and circumstances.

RM

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

How about the thought ‘I am getting up from my seat’ as my body gets up from the seat? Is this a thought making the body move? Am I observing thought and body relating to the same thing at the same time? Could this be?

What is the difference between a thought being followed by an action, or the thought and the action happening at the same time? Is there any other than the interpretation ABOUT them?

Just because there is correlation, it doesn’t mean that there is causation.
Just notice that all if this is coming from thinking analysing.
What is the point in trying to understand what is going on?
Can you see that all understanding is just intellectual?
That no understanding is needed to see how things actually are?

Here is a blog post I wrote recently along the same lines:
https://fadingveiling.com/2020/10/01/se ... r-answers/

Yes, when they happen consecutively I think this could be true. But when thinking and moving are observed concurrently are they working in unison or just noticed as objects at the same time?

Why is it so important to apply the notion of cause and effect?

So one thing follows the other. Or two things happen simultaneously. This is all that we can actually notice.
But thoughts jump in quickly trying to make sense of this mystery called life, and asserts the idea of cause and effect. One even causes the other.

But in reality, there are no separate events. It’s one movement, without division.
But thought artificially divides the whole into part, thus creating the illusion of separation, and then making claims about cause and effect.

And of course, cause and effect can be useful concepts in everyday life, but nevertheless they are just concepts.

Actually it’s an attempt to create safety for the fictional me, by asserting I know how things are.
But this process is about investigating these assertions and be open to not knowing.

No. But how is it that the body seems to respond to the thought and the thought to the body?

How do you know that the body respond to the thought?

The problem is not to find an answer, but the question itself.
Just notice that the question is already assuming something that is not there in reality.
The question assuming that the body is responding to thoughts, or thoughts to the body.

Don’t try to answer the question, rather question the question itself!

I have previously observed that there is no relationship between any ‘objects of perception’ but there is a flow between these two.

Just notice how much desire is here to want to understand it, and say “I get it!’, “I know how it is.”

What do you need this wanting for? What is the purpose? To divert investigation away from the one who is supposedly want to understand it? To keep the illusion intact? Not to uncover that there is no actual questioner behind these thoughts?

Why not look for the one, who is wanting to understand it? Look for the questioner.

It seems as though thoughts are aware of sensations and circumstances.

Are you sure about this? Or is this just another logical conclusion?

Is there any thought that is aware?
Or all thoughts, without exception, are aware-d / known?

In order for a thought to be aware of sensations, the thought has to be a conscious, living and separate entity. But is that so?

Vivien

[robbiemac]

Hi Vivien,

What is the difference between a thought being followed by an action, or the thought and the action happening at the same time? Is there any other than the interpretation ABOUT them?

This is such a good point. Sometimes they appear independently. Sometimes consecutively. Sometimes concurrently. So what?! Exactly. Doesn’t ‘mean’ anything. Just the way it all appears.

Can you see that all understanding is just intellectual?
That no understanding is needed to see how things actually are?

I can see this. It is the mind (which is just a collection of thoughts anyway, or so it seems) that wants to make sense of what is. Sure, it is possible to know things/experience as it is without trying to understand it. But we spend our whole lives trying to make sense or understand ourselves and the world around us. This takes us further from what is. I guess ‘relax and know what is’ is the message here.

Here is a blog post I wrote recently along the same lines:
https://fadingveiling.com/2020/10/01/se ... r-answers/

Well understood. I didn’t know you did this!

But in reality, there are no separate events. It’s one movement, without division.
But thought artificially divides the whole into part, thus creating the illusion of separation, and then making claims about cause and effect.

One movement? This is tough to know. I can see the unrelated nature of thought and doing, as above. Parts of the same movement?

How do you know that the body respond to the thought?

I don’t. It’s another assumption/thought.

The problem is not to find an answer, but the question itself.
Just notice that the question is already assuming something that is not there in reality.
The question assuming that the body is responding to thoughts, or thoughts to the body.

Yes. You’re right.

What do you need this wanting for? What is the purpose? To divert investigation away from the one who is supposedly want to understand it? To keep the illusion intact? Not to uncover that there is no actual questioner behind these thoughts?

Because all questions/thoughts when given attention create a ‘me’? All desire for understanding is driven by thoughts. But why these ones now? More thoughts about thoughts. It’s endless! Who gives up trying to understand when there is no who, there are only thoughts? The thoughts create the desire for understanding. Furthermore, they create the entire notion of an individual. The thicker the layer of thoughts, the more ‘person’ there is.

Why not look for the one, who is wanting to understand it? Look for the questioner.

The one wanting to understand it it an assortment of thoughts?

It seems as though thoughts are aware of sensations and circumstances.
Are you sure about this? Or is this just another logical conclusion?

Conclusion.

Is there any thought that is aware?
Or all thoughts, without exception, are aware-d / known?

No thoughts are aware. But do they not relate to circumstances? Surely! Or do we just say this is the flow of life. And any desire to understand it is just another thought stacked upon the original thoughts? Again... it’s endless!

In order for a thought to be aware of sensations, the thought has to be a conscious, living and separate entity. But is that so?

Where does the thought ‘this cut on my arm really hurts’ come from? It doesn’t arise when there is no cut. Thoughts aren’t conscious but they seem to arise in accordance with circumstances/sensations. An assumption (and therefore a thought) about what is going on. More thought I hear you say! Yes, I know!

I don’t mean to intellectualise everything. I realise that thoughts relating to thoughts and doing takes me into the mire of the mind all the damn time. But it seems too compelling to ignore this. And what’s to suggest that there isn’t something credible and ‘knowing’ about them? All we have to explain anything is thought-based. If we discredit all thought we undermine all understanding and we just know thoughts and doing as they are. Do we just stop at that?

Perhaps these conversations are best left to be had in person and I should just stick to the ‘drills’ you give me?! You’re the boss. You decide.

Thanks for this wonderful journey.

RM

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

But we spend our whole lives trying to make sense or understand ourselves and the world around us. This takes us further from what is.

Yes. But please look at the first sentence, and notice how much beliefs and assumptions are there.

There is a belief in separate selves, selves that are separate from the whole / life / existence, and each fragmented and isolated selves are living their lives IN a world, which these assumed selves are separate from.

One movement? This is tough to know. I can see the unrelated nature of thought and doing, as above. Parts of the same movement?

There is only existence, whatever is happening right now.
There are no parts, no fragments.
Existence is not like jigsaw puzzle with millions of pieces.
There is no pieces, there is only existence / life / what IS.

V: Why not look for the one, who is wanting to understand it? Look for the questioner.

R: The one wanting to understand it it an assortment of thoughts?

Don’t ask me :) rather look for yourself.

Where is the questioner in this very moment?
Is it here?
Does the questioner exist at all?
Or only thoughts ‘talk’ ABOUT a questioner? ‘Pretending’ to be there one, without an actual, real questioner in the background?

I don’t mean to intellectualise everything. I realise that thoughts relating to thoughts and doing takes me into the mire of the mind all the damn time. But it seems too compelling to ignore this.

It’s not simply about ignoring thoughts, but rather to SEE thoughts for what they are. Just fantasies, just the figment of imagination, without any roots in reality.

In order to ignore thoughts, there has to be someone outside of thoughts, who has a free will and the ability to ignore them.

So ‘ignoring thoughts’ are about dualism and separation and a belief in an agency with free will.

Thoughts are always out of step with reality, and it’s literally obstructs the clear SEEING how things actually are.
Reality is very simple.
Once you can see this, you will stop endlessly frustrating yourself by trying to figure out how things are.

What is it that is separate from what is, and trying to figure out how things are?
Is there a self/Robbie here, who is separate and isolated from ‘how things are’, from reality, and thus is need to understand reality?

Truth or reality isn’t an idea or a belief.
It cannot be grasped by thoughts.
It doesn’t need to be understood by the intellect.
Actually, it is impossible to understand through thoughts.
It is inconceivable, ungraspable.
And yet, it can be directly SEEN.

And what’s to suggest that there isn’t something credible and ‘knowing’ about them [thoughts]? All we have to explain anything is thought-based. If we discredit all thought we undermine all understanding and we just know thoughts and doing as they are. Do we just stop at that?

Please look at this question. And instead of trying to seek for an answer, look at the question itself, and just notice how much assumption and belief is there. Just notice that the question itself is based on false ideas.

This question is no different than the question “Why unicorns grow horn? And why just one? And why is it spiralling horn and not a straight one?”

Please look at your question, and write a list to me with all the beliefs are hidden in it.

Vivien

[robbiemac]

Morning Vivien,

Where is the questioner in this very moment?

It is a presumption, a thought. There is nothing more to it than this.

Is it here?

Everything is here, if you know what I mean by this. The presumption of a questioner only ever appears here.

Does the questioner exist at all?

There are thoughts/questions about thoughts/presumptions. Thoughts about thoughts. And there is nothing beneath/beyond this except the 'knowing' of it.

Or only thoughts ‘talk’ ABOUT a questioner? ‘Pretending’ to be there one, without an actual, real questioner in the background?

Yes, this is right! The questions are all thoughts about circumstances (or a reality) that is made of thoughts.

In order to ignore thoughts, there has to be someone outside of thoughts, who has a free will and the ability to ignore them.

So ‘ignoring thoughts’ are about dualism and separation and a belief in an agency with free will.

Thoughts are always out of step with reality, and it’s literally obstructs the clear SEEING how things actually are.
Reality is very simple.
Once you can see this, you will stop endlessly frustrating yourself by trying to figure out how things are.

Feels like thoughts create the bridge from nonduality to duality. Before thought appears, everything just happens. Thought appears to dice it up. But perhaps it is more accurate to say that thoughts appear as part of nondual experience and the belief in them creates an individual and a bridge into duality.

It might sound as though I am intellectualising here but I am not so sure. There is a greater understanding of how thought creates Robbie and duality and the experience of Robbie is fading (albeit very slowly!) along with it. The result is more presence and flow.

Truth or reality isn’t an idea or a belief.
It cannot be grasped by thoughts.
It doesn’t need to be understood by the intellect.
Actually, it is impossible to understand through thoughts.
It is inconceivable, ungraspable.
And yet, it can be directly SEEN.

Because a separate individual could only understand it using thought (which creates the individual and any understanding of it). And this is why reality can be experienced (by no one) but never understood (because this requires a someone).

What is it that is separate from what is, and trying to figure out how things are?

Only thought. Thought creating Robbie (subject) and world (objects). In reality there are neither subjects nor objects, there just is. Or so it seems before any thoughts come along and tear it up!

Is there a self/Robbie here, who is separate and isolated from ‘how things are’, from reality, and thus is need to understand reality?

Robbie 'exists' in thought and 'his' desire (thoughts) for understanding (thoughts) are in his thought-driven world. This is why Robbie will never understand it right? There is no Robbie and there is no understanding. There just is.

"And what’s to suggest that there isn’t something credible and ‘knowing’ about them [thoughts]? All we have to explain anything is thought-based. If we discredit all thought we undermine all understanding and we just know thoughts and doing as they are. Do we just stop at that?"

Please look at your question, and write a list to me with all the beliefs are hidden in it.

A strong belief (thought) in a Robbie (thought) and a desire (thought) for understanding (thought).

As I said above, I see now (and it is difficult to use words for this stuff) that there is no Robbie (thought) and there is no understanding (thought). There just is.

I'd like to talk to you about experience without a subject (and therefore objects) when we next chat please.

RM

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

Please put some chocolate (or something you think you shouldn’t eat or drink) in front of you. Look at it. Inspect it closely. Smell its delicious fragrance. And pay attention to emerging desire to eat it.

When the desire is there, pay close attention to the thought process.
See how thoughts list pros and cons why you should or shouldn’t eat the chocolate.
These opposing thoughts might even try to argue or convince each other what to decide.

What is it that is considering these options?
Is there anything that is listing the pros and cons, or only just thoughts appear about pros and cons? – look very carefully

Now, make a decision, but whatever you decide, don’t eat the chocolate (yet). Rather just pay very close attention when the decision is made. Particularly pay attention to thoughts, as the decision is made.

Let’s say a thought appear: “I decided not to eat the chocolate”
So the thought about the decision just appeared. What made that thought to appear?
Can you find the thing that made that decision, apart from the presence of the thought about the decision?
How exactly the decision is made?

Now, act according to the decision. (Either eat or don’t eat the chocolate.)
What is it that performed the chosen action?

--

We talked about seeing there being no separate self is a shift in perception. Here is a youtube video about a visual illusion of 8 balls moving in a straight line, creating an illusion as if the balls were rotating in a circle. Let’s say that the illusion of the rotating circle is the self. Each ball represents the building blocks of the self (like thought label ‘I’, sensations, visual thoughts, etc). When looking happens, meaning that you follow only one ball, then it can be seen that these balls are not moving in a circle but in a straight line. But when not looking, the illusion of the circle (self) can show up again. However, upon each looking (focusing on once ball) it can be seen that there is no self (moving circle) there at all.

So the only thing that changes is that it can be seen that those balls are actually not rotating in a circle, the circle is just an illusion. But the illusion of the rotating circle still can arise, just as the illusion of the self.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t7kwy3rN4k

Even science had discovered that decision and free will are just illusions. Here is a few minutes long youtube video about this. Sometimes I’m a bit reluctant showing this because at the second half of the video the explanation of the self is really off. Scientists discovered that this is just an illusion, but then they try to interpret it through the belief in the self, so don’t take the second half too seriously :)
https://vimeo.com/90101368

Here is a fascinating experiment showing that correlation between sensations and images is just a fabrication.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dphlhmt ... q0RhEFGLeA

Here is a similar experiment just now with the whole body.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rawY2VzN4-c

Vivien

[robbiemac]

Hi Vivien,

What is it that is considering these options?
Is there anything that is listing the pros and cons, or only just thoughts appear about pros and cons? – look very carefully

Pros and cons appear as a series of independent thoughts.

Let’s say a thought appear: “I decided not to eat the chocolate”
So the thought about the decision just appeared. What made that thought to appear?

Can you find the thing that made that decision, apart from the presence of the thought about the decision?
How exactly the decision is made?

I was really struggling to answer the first of these two questions until I read the second so I decided to group them together here...

The thought comes after the decision as if to validate the decision-maker. So the decision comes voluntarily and is followed by a thought describing how the decision was made. The decision and the thought don't belong to anyone, as such.

Now, act according to the decision. (Either eat or don’t eat the chocolate.)
What is it that performed the chosen action?

The act of eating just happens in the same way that the decision just happens and the thought just happens. Thought creates the idea of a decider and an eater. Can this really be right?

I will keep looking at this.

Thank you for the other resources. I enjoyed watching them. The one with the hand was crazy!!

RM

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

The thought comes after the decision as if to validate the decision-maker.

Look closely, what comes first:

- an impulse to do something
- the action itself
- or a thought about decision?

Does thought cause action or thought just describe action?

Vivien

[robbiemac]

Hi again,

Look closely, what comes first:

- an impulse to do something
- the action itself
- or a thought about decision?

Does thought cause action or thought just describe action?

Sometimes there is the thought ‘I think I will sit down’ followed by the body sitting down. There is no one deciding.
Sometimes there is the thought ‘I think I will sit down’ followed by the body doing nothing. No one deciding.
Sometimes the body sits down and this is followed by the thought ‘I just sat down’. No one deciding.
Sometimes the body sits down and there is no thought related to it at all. No one deciding.

No one is thinking or doing. There are just thoughts and actions. They converge at times. A decider is an idea (thought) that retrospectively appears (sometimes) to ‘claim’ action. It feels as though there is a relationship between thought and action because sometimes they appear in relation to circumstances concurrently. But there doesn’t seem to be anyone ‘pulling the strings’ in thought or action. There is just thoughts and actions doing their thing.

How to explain the impulse...? It appears as a thought. So back to the original question, sorry...! The impulse comes as a thought and is joined by other thoughts relating to whether I do or don’t want to eat the chocolate. These thoughts go on and on but they seem to have little bearing on the action that takes place and is then followed by further thoughts related to the action.

This is the way it seems to me at the moment.

RM

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

It feels as though there is a relationship between thought and action because sometimes they appear in relation to circumstances concurrently. But there doesn’t seem to be anyone ‘pulling the strings’ in thought or action. There is just thoughts and actions doing their thing.

OK, let’s assume that there is a relationship between thoughts and actions.
But even if there is a relationship, it doesn’t mean that there is a doer and a decider. Or is there?

Make an intention about something (like intending to stand up, walk, do the dishes, put something aside, etc.), but before you do that, check out if you can know in advance what the intention will be, BEFORE the thought of it arise.

Do this as often as possible during the day.
Let me know what happens.

Vivien

[robbiemac]

Morning,

But even if there is a relationship, it doesn’t mean that there is a doer and a decider. Or is there?

I have not found a doer or decider. I find thoughts that may or may not be followed by related action. I find action that may or may not be followed by related thoughts. I find related thoughts and action converging concurrently. No thinker or doer.

Make an intention about something (like intending to stand up, walk, do the dishes, put something aside, etc.), but before you do that, check out if you can know in advance what the intention will be, BEFORE the thought of it arise.

There is no telling what or when an intention/thought might be. There is no telling what or when an action might be. One might follow the other or they might both appear at the same time. It’s easy to believe that one causes the other but I see that the inconsistency undermines this idea.

I feel clear that there is no thinker or doing. There is no telling what will be thought or what will be done. I’ll keep looking at it throughout my day.

As an aside, I do wonder about the nature of thoughts. It would seem as though they emerge from the past. This is an assumption I know. Then, I wonder what the mind (which I feel to be a basket of thoughts anyway) creates dreams with! It seems to have a ‘bank’ of material far broader than the waking state mind. Not relevant to this conversation but it has me curious all the same because as I learn to watch thoughts I wonder about their origin!

Back to the day job... keep looking for intention before the thought of it arises and report back...

Good day!

RM

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

Back to the day job... keep looking for intention before the thought of it arises and report back...

So, what have you found?

As an aside, I do wonder about the nature of thoughts. It would seem as though they emerge from the past. This is an assumption I know. Then, I wonder what the mind (which I feel to be a basket of thoughts anyway) creates dreams with! It seems to have a ‘bank’ of material far broader than the waking state mind. Not relevant to this conversation but it has me curious all the same because as I learn to watch thoughts I wonder about their origin!

OK. There are several beliefs here what we can look at later.
Past – time
Thought emerge for this apparent past
Mind
Mind is the creator of the dream
Cause and effect
Belief in a doer or a creator
Thoughts have origins

So let’s start with the mind.

What is the experience of a mind here now in the moment you observe it?

Spend lots of time on looking at this repeatedly.

Vivien

[robbiemac]

Hi,

So, what have you found?

Nothing precedes intention. Intention is another name for thought and appears as such.

What is the experience of a mind here and now in the moment you observe it?

I feel the mind to be the label we give to the ‘house’ of thoughts. As an entity in its own right, it’s not observable. It doesn’t exist. Nothing creates, curates or houses thoughts. I guess the work we’ve done together on thoughts has led me to disregard the notion of a mind. This hit home a few weeks back with the realization that internal monologue (which I’ve always believed to be the mind) is name we give to compilations of thought doing what thoughts do. So, I see the mind as just another name we use for thoughts (words and images). As an entity in its own right, it’s not observable. But have I just traded one belief for another?!

I’ll report back on the truth of this later today. Gonna see if I can find a mind...

RM