Ready to cut through the BS

[swimmingly]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
I have read a lot about this topic and feel intellectually that it is correct. I also have faith that it is correct, if that makes sense - I trust the concept. But I haven't experienced it and remain convinced that my self is pretty important/real.

What are you looking for at LU?
I tend to be pretty intellectual by nature, and I have a sense that this is getting in the way of direct seeing. I'd welcome some techniques or pointers for cutting through the intellectual stuff. I am also looking for some encouragement along the path... I don't really know anyone in my daily life who shares these concerns with the nature of the self, so I'm looking for some community here.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
Guidance in finding ways to look at the self. To be surprised - to hear something that I didn't expect. I would like the guide to help keep me honest. That might be hard, as my brain is pretty good at rationalizing things. :) I would also hope for some compassion. I mean, I have read stories of old Zen masters hitting people with sticks, and the understanding is that this is compassionate if it helps the person achieve realization. But I'm not keen to be hit with a stick. :)

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
At the moment I still feel a great deal of spiritual urgency. I have a strong sense of the Buddha’s admonitions about the shortness of life and the need to use it well. I am not yet sure what that means for me, but I am realizing that a lot of what I do, and think, is not particularly free -- it’s conditioned and routine. I want to break out of that. I’m tired of the bullshit, to put it bluntly. I want to experience freedom, and to use that freedom to benefit other beings.

One more thing: Buddhism provides a framework for my spiritual life and I've found it's very comforting. I think Liberation Unleashed is consistent with the deepest teachings of Buddhism, but I'll admit that I'm not finding the spiritual teachers (or the spiritual "breakthrough") that I'd hoped for in this community. So this is what brings me to LU.

(Also, the Buddha was pretty insistent to his followers that they should investigate things for themselves, and not blindly follow any teachings, even his own. That's the attitude I bring to this search: I'm willing to question most anything.)

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?
8

[Vivien]

Hi,

Welcome to Liberation Unleashed. My name is Vivien and I'd be happy to assist you in your inquiry.

This is YOUR inquiry. I will not be giving you new ideas and beliefs; only assisting you in examining and questioning the ones that you already have. We can have a conversation and see where it takes you.
The purpose of which would be for there to be a realisation, more than just intellectually, that there never was and never will be a separate self, as, such. All our efforts will focus on that.

I will tend to ask many questions. That's my job here. These, will be pointers towards no self. It will be for you to examine your experience to find out what's true or not.

I would like to ask you to write only from your experience as you see it, what feels true, with whole honesty.
And also post daily. If you cannot post, or need more time, please let me know.
Can we agree on these?

Tell me, what are you really looking for. How would your life change if you find that?
What are you hoping for?
What do you want to happen?
What is incomplete right now?

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?
8

Could you please tell why you replied with 8? What is missing from being it 10?

Vivien

[swimmingly]

Hello, Vivien! It's good to meet you.

I'm sorry about my slow reply - I didn't realize you had responded to my post in the forum already.

I would like to ask you to write only from your experience as you see it, what feels true, with whole honesty.
And also post daily. If you cannot post, or need more time, please let me know.
Can we agree on these?

Yes.

Tell me, what are you really looking for. How would your life change if you find that?

I am looking for some clarity and a greater sense of freedom. I think my life would be a bit less complicated. To the extent that I can stop clinging to things that don't matter / aren't real, I will be freer to take good care of the things that do matter, like my family.

What are you hoping for?
What do you want to happen?
What is incomplete right now?

I'm hoping for insight, and I want to deepen the connection between my intellectual understanding of how the self works and my lived experience.

What's incomplete right now? Honestly, nothing. I recognize the world is complete as it is right now. But for some reason I feel like I don't fit -- there's a distancing. A pane of glass.

Could you please tell why you replied with 8? What is missing from being it 10?

I like myself! I feel like I've arrived at a point, after many decades, where I'm basically comfortable in my skin, and a lot of that has to do with giving up a lot of negative self talk (you're ugly, you're goofy, you're a geek) that I carried around for years.

Also, if I'm honest, I'm holding back slightly because I think there is a kind of doctrine to Liberation Unleashed -- that there really is no self and that it's completely fictional -- and I'm not 100% certain this is right. My experience, during flashes of insight lately, has been that the self is not exactly unreal, but that it's far less substantial than I had believed.

Here is how it's seemed to me in flashes of insight and in dreams: My self isn't exactly fictional like Batman, it's insubstantial like a rainbow. The rainbow is really there in a sense -- there really is light shining through water droplets -- although it's an optical effect that only appears to be where it is because of where you are standing. If you believe that it's a bridge to Asgard or that there's a leprechaun with a pot of gold at the end, well, that part is fictional. :) I think the self is like that. At least, that's been my experience.

[Vivien]

Hi swimmingly,

What name do you want me to call you?

Also, if I'm honest, I'm holding back slightly because I think there is a kind of doctrine to Liberation Unleashed -- that there really is no self and that it's completely fictional -- and I'm not 100% certain this is right.

Thank you for your honesty. What you are saying is very important.

What if no-self is not a doctrine?
What if it can be seen experientially, without any shred of doubt, that indeed there is no self in reality, since it’s completely fictional?
What if the self is a belief, not no-self?

What we are doing here is to investigate beliefs.
Seeing no self is not a belief, quite the opposite.
It’s the experiential recognition of this fact.

I won’t teach you anything. And the last thing I want is to BELIEVE me that there is no self.
Since, if you just adopt it as a new belief, then it won’t help you.

It would just stay on the level of an intellectual belief or understanding, and it wouldn’t become an experiential fact.

Seeing experientially (and not believing it intellectually) that the self is just an illusion, an exist ONLY as an illusion, as an imagination / fantasy / fiction, is the SOLE purpose of this inquiry.

If you cannot be open to this possibility, then you are cutting yourself off from actually investigating reality as it is.

This inquiry requires commitment, dedication and time out of your daily activities.

We won’t share ideas or concepts, we won’t analyse what the self is or isn’t, or how it operates.
We won’t make intellectual, logical conclusion.
We won’t speculate or theorize either.

We will only investigate the raw experience itself, BEFORE any interpretation or speculation.

So if you want to embark on this journey, you have to be:

- open to question ANY beliefs or assumptions you have about the self
- you have to start as a clean slate, like a child, who has no idea what a self is or isn’t
- you have to put aside considerable amount of time each day, to really investigate your immediate experience
- I’m going to give you exercises in a form of questions each day, which points to the direction where to look
- you need to be committed to do this inquiry as often as you can during the day, in the midst of daily life, and also reply daily
- you also need a commitment to stick with the inquiry as long as it takes, regardless how long it takes

My experience, during flashes of insight lately, has been that the self is not exactly unreal, but that it's far less substantial than I had believed.

This is just the first step. Just the first glimpse into that the self maybe not what you used to believe to be.
So you had a glimpse, but then you made an INTELLECTUAL CONCLUSION that the self is not substantial.
This is still a belief.

What I can offer you is to help you to EXPERIENTIALLY see through this belief for yourself.
I’m not going to teach you anything.
I’m only going to give you pointers (in form of questions) to SEE if for yourself that INDEED there is no self. It’s literally just the fiction of imagination.

I like myself! I feel like I've arrived at a point, after many decades, where I'm basically comfortable in my skin, and a lot of that has to do with giving up a lot of negative self talk (you're ugly, you're goofy, you're a geek) that I carried around for years.

This is might be something that could you back. And maybe this is why you are reluctant to consider that the self is imaginary.

Since behind this comment there might be some fear hiding, that you can use this self that you’ve learned to love.
But there is nothing to fear here, since the self cannot be lost.
Since what has never ever been there cannot die or cease to be.
It can only be recognized for what it is, just a mirage in the desert.

BUT, just because the self is seen to be fictional, it doesn’t mean that the illusion of the self will stop appearing. It won’t.
The self illusion will go on, it won’t disappear.

And there are no two you either.
The you (1) who could lose the self (2).
They are one and the same.
The same illusion.

My self isn't exactly fictional like Batman, it's insubstantial like a rainbow.

The rainbow is not insubstantial. There are different light waves, and water droplets or whatever, I don’t know the exact details. But it doesn’t matter, since we won’t analyse the rainbow. :)

The self doesn’t have any reality as a rainbow.
A rainbow can be seen, can be observed.
A rainbow is something.
The self is nothing. Not just not a thing, but literally nothing.
It’s simply not there.

And the self is EXACTLY like Batman.
There is as much reality to the self, like to Batman.
The both exist as a fantasy, as fictional characters.

And this can be seen experient

ially. No belief or doctrine is needed :)
I think the self is like that.
You say you THINK what the self is like.
But it’s not enough to think, we cannot rely on thinking.
We have to rely on the facts of reality, on experience, BEFORE any thought interpretation.

So please, read my comments a few times, and really consider what I wrote and whether this is what you want to see. Please consider, if you are willing and ready to look at experience directly, to see through the self-illusion.

Please let me know how you decide.
But if you take on the inquiry, you have to be open and committed, otherwise it won’t work.

Vivien

[swimmingly]

Dear Vivien,

You can call me Dylan.

I have been sitting with your comments this morning, and looking deeply. So, I am willing to go forward with this inquiry. Here's the thing, though: If I am being honest - completely honest and as direct as I can be - I don't know for sure that the self is as you say it is. I believe you when you say this is your experience. I have not experienced it this way.

I’m not going to teach you anything.
I’m only going to give you pointers (in form of questions) to SEE if for yourself that INDEED there is no self. It’s literally just the fiction of imagination.

If I sound reluctant, it's because this sounds like a foregone conclusion. Vivien, will you only be satisfied with my answers if I say that the self is nothing at all?

I am willing to investigate this deeply and to give it time, every day. I just don't know what I'm going to see yet. :) If I knew what I was going to see, I wouldn't need to investigate. So I am trying to keep my mind open and fresh.

Since behind this comment there might be some fear hiding, that you can use this self that you’ve learned to love.
But there is nothing to fear here, since the self cannot be lost.
Since what has never ever been there cannot die or cease to be.
It can only be recognized for what it is, just a mirage in the desert.

BUT, just because the self is seen to be fictional, it doesn’t mean that the illusion of the self will stop appearing. It won’t.
The self illusion will go on, it won’t disappear.

Thank you, these comments are reassuring to the part of me that is feeling fear about this process.

The self is nothing. Not just not a thing, but literally nothing.
It’s simply not there.

Now this feels to me like a contradiction. The illusion will continue to appear, but it's also literally nothing? If it's literally nothing, how does it continue to appear? I do not understand this. That confusion is troubling me a little.

So please, read my comments a few times, and really consider what I wrote and whether this is what you want to see. Please consider, if you are willing and ready to look at experience directly, to see through the self-illusion.

Please let me know how you decide.
But if you take on the inquiry, you have to be open and committed, otherwise it won’t work.

I am open and committed. Do I want to see this? I am not sure that "wanting" "this" comes into it. I want to see things as they are. If that is how things are, then when I am seeing clearly, that is how I will see them!

Thank you for your words and your attention, Vivien.

Dylan.

[Vivien]

Hi Dylan,

Here's the thing, though: If I am being honest - completely honest and as direct as I can be - I don't know for sure that the self is as you say it is. I believe you when you say this is your experience. I have not experienced it this way.

That’s all right. That’s why you are here, since you haven’t seen it experientially (yet).

If I sound reluctant, it's because this sounds like a foregone conclusion. Vivien, will you only be satisfied with my answers if I say that the self is nothing at all?

No. :) And why? Because your answer is coming from thinking, from analysing. And not from looking at experience directly.

For this inquiry you won’t need your intellect.
Actually, intellectualizing/thinking is in the way of experiencing.

I am willing to investigate this deeply and to give it time, every day. I just don't know what I'm going to see yet. :) If I knew what I was going to see, I wouldn't need to investigate. So I am trying to keep my mind open and fresh.

Great :)

Thank you, these comments are reassuring to the part of me that is feeling fear about this process.

If fear or resistance come up at any part of the inquiry, please let me know, so then we can have a look on it.

Now this feels to me like a contradiction. The illusion will continue to appear, but it's also literally nothing? If it's literally nothing, how does it continue to appear? I do not understand this. That confusion is troubling me a little.

The thing is that if I tried to explain this to you, that would be just more intellectual knowledge, just more beliefs for you, and not an experiential seeing.

So I don’t attempt to explain it any further.
You don’t have to understand it intellectually.
You will have the intellectual understanding WHEN it’s clearly seen experientially.

I want to see things as they are. If that is how things are, then when I am seeing clearly, that is how I will see them!

Yes!

This investigation will be very simple. You won’t need your intellectual mind to figure out anything.

We are only ever looking for experiential facts of reality, but not intellectual knowledge about reality.

We are going to strip away as much intellectualization as possible. We are going down to bare bones. To the simplest simplicity.

Intellectual understanding is what moves the needle the wrong way on the dial. We're going to move it back to the simplest position possible.

You have to look at each questions with the eyes of a little child, who has no intellectual knowledge about how things work.

I will at times ask things repeatedly, or in very simple language. If that happens, trust the process as it's meant to stop the intellectualizing an allow exploration of the experiential.

All right, let’s start it. We are going to start to investigate thoughts. Seeing thoughts clearly is essential part of the inquiry.

It is very important that you never think or ponder on the questions. Rather you actually have to look what you can see in your immediate experience without any thought interpretation.

Please always be thorough with looking. Look repeatedly several times before replying.

Please sit, doing nothing for a few minutes. Watch thoughts coming and going.

Can you trace a thought back to where it came?
In the same way, can you follow a thought to its destination?
Can you tell where thoughts come from and go to, without using any imagination or speculation?

Vivien

[swimmingly]

Hi Vivien.

It is very important that you never think or ponder on the questions. Rather you actually have to look what you can see in your immediate experience without any thought interpretation.

Please always be thorough with looking. Look repeatedly several times before replying.

OK, I can do this.

Please sit, doing nothing for a few minutes. Watch thoughts coming and going.

Can you trace a thought back to where it came?
In the same way, can you follow a thought to its destination?
Can you tell where thoughts come from and go to, without using any imagination or speculation?

I sat for awhile on my bed, breathing and watching what arose in my mind. I have done this kind of thing before, in meditation, so it is not unfamiliar to me. I tried to bring as much of a fresh, childlike awareness to it as possible.

I absolutely cannot trace most thoughts back to where they came from.

Sometimes there is a thought that arises in response to an obvious stimulus. For instance, my wife is in the other room and she coughed. I heard the sound and my mind said "Cough," labeling the experience of the sound. And then I started thinking about her being sick, which she has been for a few weeks. So I can see where that thought came from.

But many other thoughts just seem to bubble up, and then turn into long strings of connected thoughts. One association leading to another. By the time I've noticed that I'm thinking a string like this, I usually cannot tell how it got started.

Similarly, I can't predict where these thoughts go. I might start out thinking about the bread that I'm making and then the thought jumps to how I'm going to bake it tomorrow and then I'm planning how I also want to go swimming and is it time for dinner yet and ... and ....

These strings of thoughts just go along from one thing to another, without any predictability. Sometimes I can figure out the logic of how they connect, but that's after I've already thought them.

If I focus, I can direct the overall line of thought, in order to solve a problem, or write a sentence, or something. I can also return my attention to my breathing, or my heartbeat, in order to not get too caught up in the thoughts. But I don't even really know where that focus comes from or how it gets started.

Can I tell where thoughts come from or go to? Not really. It feels like they just arise in the mind. Like clouds or bubbles. Some kind of thinking substance.

I assume that they arise due to neural activity in my brain, but I know that's because I've been educated on how brains work -- someone taught me, I read about it, I believe what I have read. If I leave that knowledge/speculation aside, the experience is just like a blank sky on which thoughts fly around like birds in a flock. I have no direct experience of how they got there, where they're going, or why they exist at all.

Perhaps I am not looking closely enough though... I am interested to hear what you have to say about this.

Thank you,

Dylan.

[Vivien]

Hi Dylan,

Perhaps I am not looking closely enough though... I am interested to hear what you have to say about this.

Yes, not closely enough. But that’s all right. We’ve just started the investigation.

You might not see it (yet), but many of your comment are coming from logical conclusions, and from actually looking at experience directly. I will point out some, but not all.

I assume that they arise due to neural activity in my brain, but I know that's because I've been educated on how brains work -- someone taught me, I read about it, I believe what I have read. If I leave that knowledge/speculation aside, the experience is just like a blank sky on which thoughts fly around like birds in a flock.

It’s very good that you put the neural activity in the brain topic aside, since that is NOT coming from looking at experience, but as you said, from a learned, intellectual knowledge.

And here we are investigating the raw experience itself.

But saying that “it’s just like a blank sky on which thoughts fly around like birds in a flock” is still intellectual.
Since you are already interpreting (by thinking) the experience by using a metaphor.

A metaphor or an analogy is already belongs to the realm of thinking or speculation, and not the pure unadulterated description of the raw experience.

Similarly, I can't predict where these thoughts go. I might start out thinking about the bread that I'm making and then the thought jumps to how I'm going to bake it tomorrow and then I'm planning how I also want to go swimming and is it time for dinner yet and ... and ....

It's not about prediction. When I ask where thoughts come from or to go, I mean it literally.
I don’t mean what caused them or triggered them, and what other topics they will lead to.
That would be just more thinking, more speculation.

What I mean is to literally find the exact location where thoughts are coming from and going to.

Wait for the next thought to appear.

Where is the location this thought came from? Where is the place it arrived from?
And when this thought is gone, where did it go?

Can I tell where thoughts come from or go to? Not really. It feels like they just arise in the mind.

Does it really FEEL like that thoughts arise in a mind?
Is it actually a FEELING?
Or ‘mind’ is just another learned concept?

Can you actually (literally) observe arising in a mind?

How does this mind is experienced?
As a sensation? Sound? Taste? Smell? Color? Or an imagination?

Some kind of thinking substance.

This also an intellectual conclusion.

How does this ‘thinking substance’ is actually experienced?
As colors? Sounds? Smells? Taste? Sensations? Or as an imagination?

And then I started thinking about her being sick, which she has been for a few weeks. So I can see where that thought came from.

Saying that you know where the thought came from is also a logical conclusion.
But I don’t want to overburden you with lots of questions, but we will come back to this later.

Please spend lots of time with these questions for a whole day.
Look at these again and again repeatedly for a whole day before replying.

Vivien

[swimmingly]

Hi Vivien.

This has been an interesting day. I spent most of the day offline (as I try to do every Saturday) so I had plenty of time to look at my thoughts and try to "catch" them when they appear or disappear.

My best answer is: Nowhere! They really seem to come from nowhere and go to nowhere. They just sort of appear and then disappear.

Unless I am reading a book or listening to someone talk, then I can sort of see how the images of the letters or the sounds of another person's words turn into thoughts in my head. But if I am just sitting there by myself, I can't find a source for them.

A metaphor or an analogy is already belongs to the realm of thinking or speculation, and not the pure unadulterated description of the raw experience.

It is going to be very hard to describe the experience of thoughts without using any kind of metaphors at all, but I will try. :)

Wait for the next thought to appear.

Where is the location this thought came from? Where is the place it arrived from?
And when this thought is gone, where did it go?

There is a bit of a physical sense where I can feel thoughts in my body, I think. They feel like they are appearing somewhere behind my eyes, roughly in the middle of my head - or if my eyes are closed, maybe projected in front of me in a way that I can imagine I'm "seeing" them or "hearing" them. But that's not the same as really seeing or hearing - it's an imagination of what certain words or pictures would look like.

Does it really FEEL like that thoughts arise in a mind?
Is it actually a FEELING?

I'm not sure what you mean by FEELING here, as thoughts and feelings are kind of the same thing? I mean, I am noticing things happening. Some of those things happening are in my sense of vision - things I can see right in front of me, like the screen and the keyboard and my hands. Some of those are in my sense of hearing - the dishwasher behind me in the kitchen that's cleaning dishes for me right now. I can feel the sensation of the couch under my legs and the keyboard under my fingers. All of those senses then produce thoughts.

But some of the things I'm noticing are just thoughts by themselves, which aren't really attached to the other 5 senses except in a sort of imagining way. Thoughts in which I'm imagining seeing myself doing something, or saying something, for instance. Isn't that a kind of feeling?

Or ‘mind’ is just another learned concept?

This comment confused me all day. "A concept" is just another way of saying "a thought" - so I guess this is true: "Mind" is just another kind of thought I have learned. But I don't know if you mean something different by this.

Can you actually (literally) observe arising in a mind?

I see what you mean here. No, I cannot observe a mind directly. I assume it is there, because there are thoughts - so if there are thoughts, there must be something thinking. In the same way that if I see a bright light, there must be something emitting that light. I suppose that's logic though ... so if I go to direct experience, I would say I can experience thoughts, but I don't yet have any direct experience of mind without thoughts.

Let me modify that: I have had some experiences in meditation where thoughts subside, only briefly though, and leave nothing behind. In those short moments I would say there's still something, some kind of feeling or awareness, but not specific thoughts.

How does this mind is experienced?
As a sensation? Sound? Taste? Smell? Color? Or an imagination?
...
How does this ‘thinking substance’ is actually experienced?
As colors? Sounds? Smells? Taste? Sensations? Or as an imagination?

So, it's sort of ridiculous to think of the mind as having a sound, a taste, or a smell. I have a sense of space, I guess - a feeling of openness. A relaxed feeling.

When thoughts appear it feels somewhat like there's a background on which they appear, which is sort of greyish blackish I guess? I am probably imagining this as a metaphor, a way of trying to describe the experience, but that's where I run into difficulty describing the experience.

Thoughts appear. I can't figure out where they come from exactly, or where they go to. They seem to appear like words or sometimes sounds in front of me - but I know I'm just imagining those words or sounds.

This is how it feels today anyway.

Thank you!

Dylan.

[Vivien]

Hi Dylan,

My best answer is: Nowhere! They really seem to come from nowhere and go to nowhere. They just sort of appear and then disappear.

Exactly! This is the clearest answer in your whole post.
Saying anything else would be just speculation.

I have to mention that you misunderstood some of the questions, or you didn’t take them literally, since some of your replies are about something else.

Please be very careful when you reply to see if you really answering the questions.

Unless I am reading a book or listening to someone talk, then I can sort of see how the images of the letters or the sounds of another person's words turn into thoughts in my head. But if I am just sitting there by myself, I can't find a source for them.

This is not coming from looking at experience directly, it’s already a logical conclusion….

Can you actually observe (literally) the process itself as these words on the screen turning into thoughts in your head?

Next time when somebody talks, watch very carefully.
Can you actually SEE their words/sounds turning thoughts inside your head?
Are you 100% sure that this is what is really happening?

Or there are the words/sounds the other person saying (1), and then there are a thought appearing (2) and that’s all?
Isn’t saying that 2 was caused by 1 is just a logical conclusion?
Is there anything observable in experience which is linking 1 and 2?

It is going to be very hard to describe the experience of thoughts without using any kind of metaphors at all, but I will try. :)

It’s actually very simple.
Try to describe it as if you were trying to explain it to a child.
Nothing complicated, just simple words.
I cannot emphasize the simplicity enough.
Any complication is coming from thinking/analysing.

There is a bit of a physical sense where I can feel thoughts in my body, I think. They feel like they are appearing somewhere behind my eyes, roughly in the middle of my head - or if my eyes are closed, maybe projected in front of me in a way that I can imagine I'm "seeing" them or "hearing" them. But that's not the same as really seeing or hearing - it's an imagination of what certain words or pictures would look like.

We will look into this.

For now, I just would like to ask you to read your first sentence in the above comment. Do you see that you finished it with “I think”?

So this is coming from thinking, not from looking at experience as it is.

V: Does it really FEEL like that thoughts arise in a mind?
Is it actually a FEELING?

D: I'm not sure what you mean by FEELING here, as thoughts and feelings are kind of the same thing? I mean, I am noticing things happening. Some of those things happening are in my sense of vision - things I can see right in front of me, like the screen and the keyboard and my hands. Some of those are in my sense of hearing - the dishwasher behind me in the kitchen that's cleaning dishes for me right now. I can feel the sensation of the couch under my legs and the keyboard under my fingers. All of those senses then produce thoughts.
But some of the things I'm noticing are just thoughts by themselves, which aren't really attached to the other 5 senses except in a sort of imagining way. Thoughts in which I'm imagining seeing myself doing something, or saying something, for instance. Isn't that a kind of feeling?

You misunderstood my above questions, and didn’t really look where those questions are pointing to.

We often say or think “It FEELS LIKE” and with this thought it’s automatically believed that what will follow that phrase is actually FELT.

While it is not true. It’s just a figure of speaking, but we end up believing that ‘thoughts arise in a mind’ can actually be felt.

I'm not sure what you mean by FEELING here, as thoughts and feelings are kind of the same thing?

Definitely not.
Feeling and thinking are two very different things.

Feeling = sensation
Thinking is just thinking… a thought can never be felt.
But we will come back to this later.

"Feels like" usually points to a thought not to a sensation. A sensation would be when you pinch yourself and then you really bodily, physically feel something.
So the "It feels like thoughts arise in a mind." appears as a thought.

Also, careful with expressions with ‘SEEMS’. A SEEMING thing is NOT an actual thing.

Every time a sentence starts with “it seems” or “it feels like” or “as if” is the sure sign that what will follow is just an analogy or metaphor, just the content of a thought, and not an actual bodily sensation. It’s not coming from looking at experience directly, rather from thought speculation.
Can you see this?

V: Or ‘mind’ is just another learned concept?

D: his comment confused me all day. "A concept" is just another way of saying "a thought" - so I guess this is true: "Mind" is just another kind of thought I have learned. But I don't know if you mean something different by this.

The thing is that with this question you didn’t look at experience directly, but rather you analysed the question. When you say “I guess” then you can know for sure that you are thinking and speculating and not checking reality/experience.

V: Can you actually (literally) observe arising in a mind?

D: I see what you mean here. No, I cannot observe a mind directly. I assume it is there, because there are thoughts - so if there are thoughts, there must be something thinking. In the same way that if I see a bright light, there must be something emitting that light. I suppose that's logic though ...

Yes, it would be just logic saying that there must be a mind if there are thoughts.
But we have to test this logical assumption against reality/experience.

so if I go to direct experience, I would say I can experience thoughts, but I don't yet have any direct experience of mind without thoughts.

Please ready your above sentence carefully.

You did look and had glimpses into seeing that mind as such is simply not there, but then you made a conclusion that ‘there isn’t any direct experience of mind without thoughts’. So this conclusion assumes that with the presence of thoughts there is a mind, but without thoughts there isn’t. But is this so?

If there is such thing as a ‘mind’ then it has to be there all the time, regardless of the presence or the absence of thoughts.

And what is a mind in an everyday sense? Don’t we believe that the mind is the ORIGIN and the PLACEHOLDER for thoughts? That thoughts are generated INSIDE a mind and BY a mind?

I’m not asking these above questions to prompt further speculation, but rather trying to describe the SUPPOSED thing, the supposed origin and placeholder of thoughts.

So this is (or something similar) what we mean by the mind in the everyday sense. But what we are doing here is to examine these generally accepted beliefs or assumptions to see if they are in line with experience/reality.

Let me modify that: I have had some experiences in meditation where thoughts subside, only briefly though, and leave nothing behind. In those short moments I would say there's still something, some kind of feeling or awareness, but not specific thoughts.

All right, we will come back to this later.

But do you see that you wrote about a PREVIOUS experience from memory, and not what you see here now in this very moment?

With this inquiry we cannot rely on memories, since those memories are already concepts/thoughts in this very moment.
So with every question we have to investigate what can be seen here now, in this very instant.

And it’s easy since experience is always IS. Always ‘present’ so to speak so it can be looked at any moment.

So, it's sort of ridiculous to think of the mind as having a sound, a taste, or a smell. I have a sense of space, I guess - a feeling of openness. A relaxed feeling.

And is a ‘sense of space’ = mind?
Or a ‘feeling of openness’ = mind?
Or a ‘relaxed feeling’ = mind?

If you say yes to any of the above, HOW do you know exactly that X means that it’s a mind?

When thoughts appear it feels somewhat like there's a background on which they appear, which is sort of greyish blackish I guess?

Please read your above comment carefully.

Do you see that you used the expression “feels like”? And also “I guess”?

I am probably imagining this as a metaphor, a way of trying to describe the experience,

Yes, you are imagining this.

And what is an imagination exactly?
Isn’t imagination is a visual thought?

Please close your eyes, and imagine an apple.
Do you see that this imagined apple appear as a visual thought?

Thoughts appear. I can't figure out where they come from exactly, or where they go to. They seem to appear like words or sometimes sounds in front of me - but I know I'm just imagining those words or sounds.

If you really investigate thoughts, then you can see that ALL the 5 senses can be imagined.

But the most common ‘type’ of thoughts are:

- visual or pictorial thoughts
- and verbal or auditory thoughts.

Just as you mentioned, words can appear as imagined sounds which is nothing else then a verbal/auditory thought.
But if you ‘see’ those words letter by letter, then it’s a visual/pictorial thought.
Do you see this clearly?

Now look for the mind.
“like there's a background on which they appear, which is sort of greyish blackish” – isn’t this appear as a visual thought?

Vivien

[swimmingly]

Dear Vivien,

Okay, I will do my best with your questions today.

I must admit I'm feeling some irritation because I think that your questions are leading questions ... you are pushing me towards a certain conclusion rather than asking for my experience. But as you request I will do my best to answer simply, as if I were speaking to a small child. :)

D: My best answer is: Nowhere! They really seem to come from nowhere and go to nowhere. They just sort of appear and then disappear.
Exactly! This is the clearest answer in your whole post.
Saying anything else would be just speculation.

Thank you! :)

Can you actually observe (literally) the process itself as these words on the screen turning into thoughts in your head?

Next time when somebody talks, watch very carefully.
Can you actually SEE their words/sounds turning thoughts inside your head?
Are you 100% sure that this is what is really happening?

Or there are the words/sounds the other person saying (1), and then there are a thought appearing (2) and that’s all?
Isn’t saying that 2 was caused by 1 is just a logical conclusion?
Is there anything observable in experience which is linking 1 and 2?

When someone is talking their words appear to me as sounds "in my head". It is quite direct.

The same with reading. When I look at the bird guide next to me and I see the title "Yard and Garden Birds," the words appear directly to me.

There is no separation between the seeing or hearing and the thought.

I cannot see how they are connected.

But also I cannot find how pinching myself is connected to "feeling pain." If I do it over and over again, the same thing happens. So for this reason I learn that they are connected, and I think even a child could learn that there is a connection. :)

In fact, there is not really a 1 and 2. I pinch myself and there is pain. I see words and I am immediately "reading" those words. There is not a separate experience of 1: "seeing words" and then 2: "thinking the words that I am reading."

Feeling = sensation
Thinking is just thinking… a thought can never be felt.
But we will come back to this later.

OK, this is an interesting definition. A thought can never be felt ... this seems like an unusual definition to me but I understand your terms.

D: Every time a sentence starts with “it seems” or “it feels like” or “as if” is the sure sign that what will follow is just an analogy or metaphor, just the content of a thought, and not an actual bodily sensation. It’s not coming from looking at experience directly, rather from thought speculation.
V: Can you see this?

Yes. When I use a phrase like "it seems" or "it feels like," this means I am not certain about the experience. So it is very clear that I follow up that uncertainty with speculation.

If there is such thing as a ‘mind’ then it has to be there all the time, regardless of the presence or the absence of thoughts.

I do not understand why you say this, and I do not know whether it is true.

And is a ‘sense of space’ = mind?
Or a ‘feeling of openness’ = mind?
Or a ‘relaxed feeling’ = mind?

If you say yes to any of the above, HOW do you know exactly that X means that it’s a mind?

No to all of the above. You asked me how this sense of "mind" or "thinking substance" feels, and I was answering with how it feels. I would not say that these terms are the same as mind. They are just characteristics of how it feels when I am thinking.

For instance, when I am in a room with other people talking (as I was just now) it's difficult for me to think about what I want to type to you. Their words get mixed up with the thoughts I am thinking and it gets hard to type.

When I move to a quiet room, there is a feeling of spaciousness that allows me to notice my thoughts. That's why I say it's like the "background" of those thoughts.

D: When thoughts appear it feels somewhat like there's a background on which they appear, which is sort of greyish blackish I guess?
Please read your above comment carefully.

V: Do you see that you used the expression “feels like”? And also “I guess”?

Yes, absolutely, I see this.

And what is an imagination exactly?
Isn’t imagination is a visual thought?

Yes. I would describe it this way: All of my thoughts are imaginations of some kind. Some times they are visual thoughts, sometimes auditory thoughts, sometimes smell thoughts or taste thoughts or touch thoughts. But they are all thoughts, yes.

The same is true for memories. When I pause and remember a walk I took with friends last weekend, these are just imaginations -- mostly visual thoughts -- appearing to me.

Please close your eyes, and imagine an apple.
Do you see that this imagined apple appear as a visual thought?

Yes, very clearly.

The apple is pretty clear: A greenish apple tinged with some reddish towards the bottom, and speckles of darker color. It's sort of floating in space in front of me. But I can clearly see that it's a thought of an apple, not a perception of an apple in front of me.

Just as you mentioned, words can appear as imagined sounds which is nothing else then a verbal/auditory thought.
But if you ‘see’ those words letter by letter, then it’s a visual/pictorial thought.
Do you see this clearly?

Yes.

Now look for the mind.
“like there's a background on which they appear, which is sort of greyish blackish” – isn’t this appear as a visual thought?

Yes, that's exactly it. It's a visual thought. An imagination. A metaphor.

(Does that mean it isn't real? Or just that I cannot describe it without using imagination? But now I am speculating, and trying to use logic, which you asked me not to do for this conversation. :) )

So, sticking to the rules of this conversation, I must say I cannot directly see "mind" ... it is just a kind of thought. A thought about thoughts.

I still don't know where thoughts come from or where they go to. :)

Take care,

Dylan.

[Vivien]

Hi Dylan,

I must admit I'm feeling some irritation

Thank you for your honesty. You’ve brought up an important topic.

I think that your questions are leading questions

Yes, my questions are leading questions, but not in a way you think.

you are pushing me towards a certain conclusion rather than asking for my experience.

If you think that I’m pushing you towards a certain conclusion, then you are thinking and NOT looking at experience.
Since conclusion can happen only in thinking, there is no other way to conclude anything.

And you might think that you are looking at your experience, but actually you are not.
You are mixing imagination (thinking) into experience, but you are not seeing that you are doing it.

When I ask you to look at your experience it’s always about the 5 senses, what can be known through the five senses. This is what we call experience in this investigation.

Every interpretation is already thinking, not the raw experience itself.

If we were on the same spot, looking at the same object from the same angle, then our experiences should be identical. If we would report any difference, then one or both of us, were mixing imagination (thinking) in, without even realizing that we are doing so.

We all do this. In everyday langue when we say that “I’m hurt because my best friend said something nasty to me”, we believe that this our experience. But actually it’s not, is totally out of line with experience. This is just a thought interpretation layering over the raw experience of the contracted sensation that is present in that moment. That thought doesn’t point to the experience at all, it’s just pointing to other thoughts/concepts.

However, the thought “there is a contracted sensation present labelled by thought ‘feeling hurt’” is in line with experience, thus point to experience.
Can you see the difference?

So yes, my questions are leading questions, because I’m trying to help you to see the difference between experience (5 senses) and imagination / thought interpretation of experience.

We humans usually don’t see the difference between the two, and we take our thoughts as if they were actual experience, as if they were facts of experience. And this inability to see the difference between reality/experience and thoughts/imagination is the source of the self illusion and many other beliefs.

But also I cannot find how pinching myself is connected to "feeling pain." If I do it over and over again, the same thing happens. So for this reason I learn that they are connected, and I think even a child could learn that there is a connection. :)

But that’s the whole point that it’s learned and NOT an INHERENT part of the raw experience.
What we are doing here is that we are testing these learned conclusions against reality.

And when I said that feeling is when you pinch yourself, it was to point out that the sensation that is felt in that moment, that is a FEELING.
It wasn’t about making a conclusion or connection between the two seeming events.

OK, this is an interesting definition. A thought can never be felt ... this seems like an unusual definition to me but I understand your terms.

Try everything you can and TASTE the thought ‘sweet’. Don’t imagine how sweetness taste like, but actually TASTE the word/thought sweet. Is it possible?

Now, try to FEEL the word/thought ‘hot’. Not imagining how hotness feels like, but actually FEELING the thought ‘hot’. Do you FEEL hot when you think the thought ‘hot’?

Do you taste sweetness when you think the word ‘sweet’?

Can you SMELL the thought ‘fragrant’?

Please don’t just think about the answers, but literally do it.
This inquiry is very literal.

I never ask you to contemplate any of the questions, I always ask you to actually try it out.

Yes. When I use a phrase like "it seems" or "it feels like," this means I am not certain about the experience. So it is very clear that I follow up that uncertainty with speculation.

Great. It’s very good that you can see this. So please watch out for these thoughts.

No to all of the above. You asked me how this sense of "mind" or "thinking substance" feels, and I was answering with how it feels. I would not say that these terms are the same as mind. They are just characteristics of how it feels when I am thinking.

But I didn’t ask how you feel when you are thinking. Dear Dylan, you are not taking my questions literally.
My question is how ‘mind’ ITSELF is felt. Now how you feel when you are thinking. But the thing you call mind, the placeholder of thoughts itself how is felt, or experienced.
Can you see the difference?

For instance, when I am in a room with other people talking (as I was just now) it's difficult for me to think about what I want to type to you. Their words get mixed up with the thoughts I am thinking and it gets hard to type.
When I move to a quiet room, there is a feeling of spaciousness that allows me to notice my thoughts. That's why I say it's like the "background" of those thoughts.

I understand what you say, and in everyday sense this makes sense. But this doesn’t work with this inquiry.
Since it’s coming from thinking and not from the immediacy of the unadulterated raw experience.

Yes. I would describe it this way: All of my thoughts are imaginations of some kind. Some times they are visual thoughts, sometimes auditory thoughts, sometimes smell thoughts or taste thoughts or touch thoughts. But they are all thoughts, yes.
The same is true for memories. When I pause and remember a walk I took with friends last weekend, these are just imaginations -- mostly visual thoughts

Excellent! This is exactly what I was trying to show you… to see that these are just imaginations. Very good.

So do you see that there are either
- the sense perception of the 5 senses (sound, taste, smell, color, sensation)
- or thought of these, or in other words, the imagined version of these?

But I can clearly see that it's a thought of an apple, not a perception of an apple in front of me.

Yes, exactly.

(Does that mean it isn't real? Or just that I cannot describe it without using imagination? But now I am speculating, and trying to use logic, which you asked me not to do for this conversation. :) )
So, sticking to the rules of this conversation, I must say I cannot directly see "mind" ... it is just a kind of thought. A thought about thoughts.

And how did you come to this conclusion? By actually seeing it in experience that mind as such simply cannot be found, it’s simply not there, or by logic?

Vivien

[swimmingly]

If we were on the same spot, looking at the same object from the same angle, then our experiences should be identical. If we would report any difference, then one or both of us, were mixing imagination (thinking) in, without even realizing that we are doing so.

Yes. I do want to add something: At any moment there are millions of sense impressions hitting me, and probably thousands of things I could be looking at, or even hundreds of things to focus on with a single object, even without moving my eyes. You might focus on something different than I would. But in principle, yes, I agree, we should be seeing the same thing.

However, the thought “there is a contracted sensation present labelled by thought ‘feeling hurt’” is in line with experience, thus point to experience.
Can you see the difference?

Yes, this is very clear. It clears up a lot of problems, in fact - being clear about what I am really sensing vs. what I am *thinking* about what those sensations are.

Try everything you can and TASTE the thought ‘sweet’. Don’t imagine how sweetness taste like, but actually TASTE the word/thought sweet. Is it possible?

Now, try to FEEL the word/thought ‘hot’. Not imagining how hotness feels like, but actually FEELING the thought ‘hot’. Do you FEEL hot when you think the thought ‘hot’?

Do you taste sweetness when you think the word ‘sweet’?

Can you SMELL the thought ‘fragrant’?

Please don’t just think about the answers, but literally do it.
This inquiry is very literal.

OK, so I did this. There is no taste to the word/thought "sweet." It is just a thought. The same for the word "hot" and the word "fragrant." These are concepts ... thoughts without sense impressions.

But I didn’t ask how you feel when you are thinking. Dear Dylan, you are not taking my questions literally.
My question is how ‘mind’ ITSELF is felt. Now how you feel when you are thinking. But the thing you call mind, the placeholder of thoughts itself how is felt, or experienced.
Can you see the difference?

Yes. I see the difference between "how I feel when I am thinking" and "the thing I call 'mind.'" In fact, I cannot directly sense "mind".

So do you see that there are either
- the sense perception of the 5 senses (sound, taste, smell, color, sensation)
- or thought of these, or in other words, the imagined version of these?

Yes. I see this!

I want to add something though. When people talk about the five senses they usually include "touch" as the fifth. But that's not quite complete. I don't know if you would call it a sense, but there is a FEELING of the body, for sure. I can feel hot or cold (not just the sense touch of cold water on my body, for instance, but the feeling of my body being hypothermic from having been in cold water for half an hour or an hour). I can feel my body expanding when I breathe. I can feel my heartbeat. I can feel the pain of muscles when they are sore from swimming or running. And I can feel (more or less exactly) where my arms and legs are in space without looking (proprioception).

I don't think these are the sense of "touch" because in all of these cases, nothing is touching me. I just have a feeling, a sensation, of the body.

So if you allow that there are maybe 6 senses -- sound, taste, smell, vision, touch -- plus the sense of the body -- this lines up with my experience.

Maybe that is included in what you meant by "sensation" though, in which case we have just 5. :)

So, sticking to the rules of this conversation, I must say I cannot directly see "mind" ... it is just a kind of thought. A thought about thoughts.

And how did you come to this conclusion? By actually seeing it in experience that mind as such simply cannot be found, it’s simply not there, or by logic?

This one is by logic. By sensing, I cannot sense "mind." But just because I can't sense it doesn't mean it's not there. I have never seen Australia but I believe it is there because I have heard about it from people I trust - so I have a *thought* of Australia, but logically I believe it to be a real thing.

And I have read a lot and heard a lot from teachers who talk about "mind". I know it is not something that can be sensed but it sounds like something that can be experienced.

I *think* that I have experienced something like that in the brief moments of meditation that I mentioned earlier, where thoughts stopped briefly. But I don't have direct experience of it. And I know I can't sense it through the other 5 (or 6) senses, except indirectly through that sensation (bodily almost) of spaciousness, or the analogy of blackness/blankness in a visual sense. I can see that the visual metaphor of a background is a metaphor. I think (there I go again) that the sense of spaciousness which allows me to notice these thoughts is also a metaphor, but that's a little trickier, because it's a bodily metaphor, which feels like a sensation. A sensation of relaxation and openness that accompanies my ability to notice thoughts.

But no, to be honest, I do not have any experience of "mind" directly.

Does that mean it doesn't exist? Or does it mean it's like Australia, and I just haven't seen it yet?

Dylan.

[Vivien]

Hi Dylan,

Yes, this is very clear. It clears up a lot of problems, in fact - being clear about what I am really sensing vs. what I am *thinking* about what those sensations are.

Yes, it’s very good that you can see this.

OK, so I did this. There is no taste to the word/thought "sweet." It is just a thought. The same for the word "hot" and the word "fragrant." These are concepts ... thoughts without sense impressions.

Great. So is it clear now that thoughts cannot be felt?
If not 100% clear, then please list some thoughts/words that can be actually felt.

Maybe that is included in what you meant by "sensation" though, in which case we have just 5. :)

Yes. When we touch something, what is being experienced is a sensation. It doesn’t matter if the sensation is appearing on its own, or it’s ‘caused’ by touching something. A sensation is a sensation, regardless of how it appears.

I have never seen Australia but I believe it is there because I have heard about it from people I trust - so I have a *thought* of Australia, but logically I believe it to be a real thing.

In this very moment I’m writing to you form Australia. So it’s real :)

But putting joking aside, you could easily test it in reality. And you know exactly what you have to do in order to see if Australia exists or not. You know how to get there, you just have to book a flight and be on time to the airport at the assigned time.

So it’s easy to test, and you know exactly how to get there… by taking a plane.

But can go to the mind?
Do you know the route there?
What steps you have to take to get to the mind and see or experience it?

Please don’t just fantasize about it, but LITERALLY do everything you can and go (or turn to) the mind to experience it.

Please sit for about 15 minutes, and your only task is to find the mind itself and experience it directly.
Do whatever it takes to experience it.
This should be easy. Just as easy as to see Australia when you got off the plane.

After you’ve experienced the mind itself, please tell me in detail when it is exactly, how does it look like, how big it is, what shape it has, what color, what its texture and temperature. Describe me the mind itself as precisely as possible.

But you can only talk about experiential facts. No fiction, no theory, no speculation, no philosophy, no analogy, just the pure unadulterated experiential facts.

But I don't have direct experience of it. And I know I can't sense it through the other 5 (or 6) senses, except indirectly through that sensation (bodily almost) of spaciousness, or the analogy of blackness/blankness in a visual sense.

HOW do you know exactly that the experience of certain bodily sensations what you call ‘spaciousness’, and the experience of the black color what you call ‘blackness/blankness’ means that there is indeed a mind?
How do you know that these are the proofs of a mind?
What is giving you the information that the experience of sensation and black color is the PROOF of a mind?

Does the sensation called ‘spaciousness’ communicate or suggest in any way that it’s the sign of a mind?
Does the color labelled ‘blackness/blankness’ suggest or communicate in any way that there is a mind?
What is communicating this information, and how exactly?

Dylan, please be very careful NOT to THINK or FANTASIZE or PHILOSOPHIZE about the answer, but actually CHECK it in experience by feeling the sensation of ‘spaciousness’ and investigate in that very moment of feeling it, if it’s actually communicate anything.

Please spend lots of time with these investigation.
Don’t rush to make any conclusion.
Don’t think.
Don’t analyse.
Don’t go to memories.
Don’t try to compare whatever is happening with what this or that teacher said.
Go directly to you immediate experience, but be very-very careful not to mix in any imagination or interpretation.
Just pay attention to the raw experience, not to imagination.
Ignore all thoughts, just experience.

Vivien

[swimmingly]

Hello Vivien!

Great. So is it clear now that thoughts cannot be felt?
If not 100% clear, then please list some thoughts/words that can be actually felt.

This is 100% clear! Thoughts are thoughts, and sensations are sensations. Both of them are experiences I can notice but the difference is very obvious to me.

But can go to the mind?
Do you know the route there?
What steps you have to take to get to the mind and see or experience it?

Please don’t just fantasize about it, but LITERALLY do everything you can and go (or turn to) the mind to experience it.

This one is more difficult than finding Australia! Because I don't know the way there. If I were studying Vipassana or Vajrayana, I know there are meditations or exercises that I could study in order to experience different aspects of consciousness. Maybe one of those could lead me to an experience of "mind." But I don't know what that path is, and for this conversation, we are just talking about direct experience. So I will stick to what I can literally experience, as you asked.

Please sit for about 15 minutes, and your only task is to find the mind itself and experience it directly.
Do whatever it takes to experience it.
This should be easy. Just as easy as to see Australia when you got off the plane.

After you’ve experienced the mind itself, please tell me in detail when it is exactly, how does it look like, how big it is, what shape it has, what color, what its texture and temperature. Describe me the mind itself as precisely as possible.

This is not easy! I could not find it. There is no airplane that can take me to the mind. :)

So - maybe the mind exists and I don't know how to experience it directly yet.

But here is what my experience is when sitting down quietly and looking for it: I can't find "mind."

What I notice are thoughts, and sensations (feelings).

HOW do you know exactly that the experience of certain bodily sensations what you call ‘spaciousness’, and the experience of the black color what you call ‘blackness/blankness’ means that there is indeed a mind?
How do you know that these are the proofs of a mind?
What is giving you the information that the experience of sensation and black color is the PROOF of a mind?

Does the sensation called ‘spaciousness’ communicate or suggest in any way that it’s the sign of a mind?
Does the color labelled ‘blackness/blankness’ suggest or communicate in any way that there is a mind?
What is communicating this information, and how exactly?

For all of these, I don't know at all. Does spaciousness or blackness communicate the existence of a mind? No, not at all. They aren't proofs at all - they are just experiences that I am noticing alongside the experience of thoughts appearing and disappearing.

What I was describing as a sense of spaciousness or a "blank" or black field -- this is actually a feeling / sensation of the body. It's the blankness of the visual field behind my eyes, and the sense of relaxation and calm that my body feels when it settles down.

When the body is calm, the thoughts are less confused and it is easier to perceive each individual one. So there is some connection between the body and the thoughts that appear.

But I can't see a specific "mind" that is somehow containing the thoughts. If anything, the thoughts are contained within the experience of the body (vision, sound, etc - all of these are the "background" of the thoughts).

OK, one more thing, Vivien: I am noticing a little bit of fear, a sense of panic, when I notice this. If there's no mind "containing" these thoughts, where are they? Who or what is actually perceiving the thoughts and how do they appear? Who do they appear to? If there's nothing there but sensations (feelings) and thoughts, what's holding it all together?

There is a part of me that is rather disturbed by this perception. It's like looking under your feet and suddenly noticing that you're standing on the edge of a cliff. (OK, another metaphor!) To put this more literally: When I notice this emptiness, I also notice thoughts of coldness and fear and aversion.

It's not a big emotion but it's there, so I thought I would mention it.

I hope you are doing well there in Australia, Vivien. :)

Thank you,

Dylan.