No idea

Welcome to the main forum. When you are ready to start a conversation, register and once your application is processed a guide will come to talk to you.
This is one-on-one style forum, one thread per green member.
User avatar
TomnotTom
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:24 am
Contact:

Re: No idea

Postby TomnotTom » Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:11 pm

Hi Vivien,

I apologise for how slow I have been to respond. I’ve been very busy with work and that’s been taking all my focus. I have some down-time next week so I hope to put a lot more focus on this enquiry again.
HOW do you SEE intelligence? How does intelligence ITSELF look like?
What color it has? What shape? How big it is? What is its texture?

Can you actually SEE intelligence without thinking and imagining?
If you drop or ignore all thoughts and mental images, what is left of it?
I can see that intelligence is a label, a layer of judgement on top of what is, created by thought.

If the rules of this enquiry are to disregard all thought, then there is no intelligence - only this. Any kind of verbal or written description of experience is deeply inadequate in describing this. If I’m trying to describe how something tastes or smells, I can point to something that has a similar taste or smell. In the case of awareness though it includes all and therefore there is nothing to compare it to.

In that sense there are no words that can come close to an accurate description of awareness. I want to argue for intelligence as a way of describing the fundamental nature of what is. But I also have to concede that it’s coming from a thought and a sense of ‘me’ that wants to be clever. :)

Please spend as much time as you can in the midst of your daily life observing and noticing how the body moves, how it feels, what it does.

You can notice how the legs are moving as walking happens.
When walking, what do you do in order for the legs to move?
Are you making walking happen, or it just happens automatically and effortlessly?
When you sit down, or stand up, is this something you do, or something that is happening?

Notice all sorts of sensations in the body.
Are you making the sensations happen, or they are there, without anyone or anything making them to be?

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

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?

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?
I have been examining this and it seems pretty clear that there is no central controller and that all these movements are just happening, just as thoughts are happening, without anyone running the show.

I have been looking for times when the sense of ‘I’ is most evident. For example in interactions with people, where there is fear of looking bad.

What is it that might look bad and what is it that fears the judgement of others?

It requires quite a complex arc of thought which imagines something being perceived by another person and their subsequent thoughts based on that perception. Thoughts about thoughts about thoughts. It’s really a huge fabrication and yet it is so well rehearsed that it happens almost instantaneously. It’s all predicated on the idea that there is an identity that must be protected.

I am still not free of this identification with the imagined ‘doer’ and decision maker. Do you have any advice on how I can work with this?

Thank you!

Tom

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 7037
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: No idea

Postby Vivien » Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:24 am

Hi Tom,
If the rules of this enquiry are to disregard all thought, then there is no intelligence - only this.
OK, this is something very important.
It’s not about rules. Thoughts are not disregarded by rules.

Please Tom, can you tell me what is this inquiry about? And how does it relate to thoughts?
And why thoughts are ‘disregarded’?

sense of ‘me’ that wants to be clever.
Please describe to me this ‘sense of me’.
But don’t go to thinking, just share the raw experience of this sense.
I am still not free of this identification with the imagined ‘doer’ and decision maker. Do you have any advice on how I can work with this?
What is it that is still not free?
Do you believe that there is an I that can be free?
Where is this I exactly in this very moment that wants freedom?


Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
TomnotTom
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:24 am
Contact:

Re: No idea

Postby TomnotTom » Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:32 pm

Hi Vivien,

It’s not about rules
Ok, because rules are just more thoughts right?
Please Tom, can you tell me what is this inquiry about? And how does it relate to thoughts?
And why thoughts are ‘disregarded’?
As I understand it, this enquiry is about seeing the truth beneath all the preconceptions and beliefs that make up the sense of an independent and separate self. All these preconceptions and beliefs are functions of thought. The separate self is an idea which exists only as a thought. In order to see the truth I must disregard thought, or disidentify with it.
Please describe to me this ‘sense of me’.
But don’t go to thinking, just share the raw experience of this sense.
It’s something that emerges as I write or speak. I can sit here in silence and look and see no self, but when I think about writing these words to you, there becomes a sense of a self here and another over there. There is a sense that wants you to be impressed by what I write and a sense of frustration when the right words don’t appear. I can see all this as thoughts right now.

It still seems as I write though, that there is some kind of ‘thinker’ formulating these words, without which there would only be an incoherent stream of words from the fingers randomly tapping keys on the keyboard.

Inspecting this more deeply, I can observe the fingers now typing these words and I can also hear the words in the mind, reading out the words as they are typed. The mind ties itself up in knots trying to work out whether it is commanding the fingers or if the thoughts are emerging after the words have been typed. Whether I’m writing or not writing, if the words make sense or not. It is just happening, without a localised director of some kind. It’s all just happening isn’t it? The sense of ‘me’ is just happening. The thing that makes it so compelling is the idea that I am one who is controlling this whole mechanism called Tom. But it’s a mechanism isn’t it? There can be a mechanism and there can be a controller of a mechanism but they are 2 different things. Like a car and a driver. Am I like a car dreaming I am a driver?
What is it that is still not free?
Do you believe that there is an I that can be free?
Where is this I exactly in this very moment that wants freedom?
It’s all more thoughts isn’t it?
The I that wants freedom from thought is a thought. More mind gymnastics!

I can feel the mind swirling and struggling with all this. It’s so natural to try to solve questions this way, with a thought. Sitting and being present comes more easily, but examining and describing this question of I feels quite awkward and uncomfortable. It feels much easier to dive back into the river of thoughts. The belief in I is still there as long as there is belief in thoughts. It’s like I don’t believe for while and then I fall asleep again and the belief comes back.

How do I stay awake?

Tom

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 7037
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: No idea

Postby Vivien » Mon Oct 19, 2020 2:00 am

Hi Tom,
Ok, because rules are just more thoughts right?
Rules are based on beliefs. But we don’t exclude thoughts based on beliefs. Rather we are investigating the validity of thoughts.
As I understand it, this enquiry is about seeing the truth beneath all the preconceptions and beliefs that make up the sense of an independent and separate self. All these preconceptions and beliefs are functions of thought. The separate self is an idea which exists only as a thought. In order to see the truth I must disregard thought, or disidentify with it.
Yes, but do you see that there is still a belief that there is someone here who must disregard thoughts or disidentify with them?

So what is it? What is it that is currently identified with thoughts?
What is it that needs an identity?
What does identity stick to? What is it that it hooks onto?
What is the glue of identity made of?

It’s something that emerges as I write or speak. I can sit here in silence and look and see no self, but when I think about writing these words to you, there becomes a sense of a self here and another over there. There is a sense that wants you to be impressed by what I write and a sense of frustration when the right words don’t appear. I can see all this as thoughts right now.
“I can sit here in silence” – what is it exactly that is sitting in silence?
Is there an I sitting?
Is there a sitter? Someone who is sitting?
Or there is only sitting happening?

“I look and see no self” – What is it exactly that looks and sees no self?
What is it that is doing the looking and seeing?
Is there a looker and a seer at all?
Or looking and seeing just happen on their own, without anyone or anything making them happen?

There is a sense that wants you to be impressed
Is this a sense? Sense = sensation

Is there a sensation that wants me to be impressed? Or this is just another story taken for granted?
It still seems as I write though, that there is some kind of ‘thinker’ formulating these words
OK, this is important.

So where is the location of this thinker?
How do you know that thoughts are thought by a thinker and they not just appear on their own?

Inspecting this more deeply, I can observe the fingers now typing these words and I can also hear the words in the mind, reading out the words as they are typed. The mind ties itself up in knots trying to work out whether it is commanding the fingers or if the thoughts are emerging after the words have been typed.
You are talking as if there were an actual thing, and actual entity called mind.
Where is the location of this mind here now?
I can feel the mind swirling and struggling with all this.
You can FEEL a mind? Are you sure about this?
What is the actual FEELING of a mind?
How does the mind itself felt?
Is there an actual mind in reality at all?

Or mind is just another concept taken for granted without investigating the validity of this notion?
Whether I’m writing or not writing, if the words make sense or not. It is just happening, without a localised director of some kind. It’s all just happening isn’t it? The sense of ‘me’ is just happening. The thing that makes it so compelling is the idea that I am one who is controlling this whole mechanism called Tom. But it’s a mechanism isn’t it? There can be a mechanism and there can be a controller of a mechanism but they are 2 different things. Like a car and a driver. Am I like a car dreaming I am a driver?
The thing is that you are speculating. You go to thinking and try to theorize how things are.
But why do you rely so much on thoughts?
Can a thought will ever give you a satisfying answer?
Can you see through the self illusion by thinking, speculating and theorizing?
No, you can’t. No matter how much you think, it won’t happen.
It’s a total dead end.

All answers are here in this very moment.
There is nothing outside of this here-now that could give you any answers.
There is only this.
There is nowhere else to go or be then here now.
There is nowhere else to look and see than here now.

Here is a blog post a wrote about seeking for answers:
https://fadingveiling.com/2020/10/01/se ... r-answers/

Please read this too. Also investigate with the pointers that are there:
https://fadingveiling.com/2020/10/04/no ... -here-now/
How do I stay awake?
Do you believe that there is an I that can stay or be awake?
What is it that could be awake?
What is it that awakening could happen TO?


I’ve given you lots of pointers this time. Please spend several days deeply and repeatedly investigating them.

Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
TomnotTom
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:24 am
Contact:

Re: No idea

Postby TomnotTom » Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:03 am

Hi Vivien,

Thank you for all the pointers. I have been feeling quite frustrated some days but there seems to be a slow and gradual shift happening.

I found your blog posts very helpful. In particular the line “stopping seeking is finding”
So what is it? What is it that is currently identified with thoughts?
What is it that needs an identity?
What does identity stick to? What is it that it hooks onto?
What is the glue of identity made of?
It keeps coming back to thoughts. Thought disguised as something else.
I can see why it is so important to keep looking and questioning because these thoughts are very attractive. There is something compelling about the idea that “I should do something”. It is a very common narrative that applies itself in many different ways. Here it is attaching to this process of enquiry and turning it into a story with a main character, a past and a future.

This is the glue of identity - Another thought. One which is so common and familiar that it is difficult to spot at first. It’s a kind of foundational thought upon which many other thoughts are based.
“I can sit here in silence” – what is it exactly that is sitting in silence?
Is there an I sitting?
There is awareness, which is not sitting but is aware of the body sitting. The I that is doing the sitting is just a story laid on top.

“I look and see no self” – What is it exactly that looks and sees no self?
What is it that is doing the looking and seeing?
Is there a looker and a seer at all?
Or looking and seeing just happen on their own, without anyone or anything making them happen?
Perhaps here is where I get a little stuck.

Awareness is looking and seeing no self. Awareness is a process, a verb and not a “thing”. Nobody and no thing are making it happen but awareness is looking. Is it not appropriate to use the word I in this sense? To describe, not the seer but the Seeing?
Is there a sensation that wants me to be impressed? Or this is just another story taken for granted?
There is a sensation, like an emotional response, connected to a thought. It is present when the thought “I must do it right” is present and believed.
So where is the location of this thinker?
How do you know that thoughts are thought by a thinker and they not just appear on their own?
This was a thought. You are totally correct, it was speculation. The thinker of thought exists only in imagination. Thank you for making this clear.
Where is the location of this mind here now?
The mind is a magical thing. It appears and disappears seemingly at will, never in any fixed location. Of course it is not a real thing but a conception. It is a way that thought identifies itself. In this way it makes thought seem more substantial, like thought has a home called mind which is located inside the brain.

It’s quite absurd when examined. It’s like an idea of the brain as a little house with a front door and windows and maybe even a little chimney with all these little thoughts running around inside.
You can FEEL a mind? Are you sure about this?
What is the actual FEELING of a mind?
How does the mind itself felt?
Is there an actual mind in reality at all?
Or mind is just another concept taken for granted without investigating the validity of this notion?
It does seem silly now you point it out. I was imagining this thing called mind that lives in my head. There was a sensation of energy in my head and thoughts creating an image of something happening in there. I can see how inherited ideas are at work here. I have never seen any direct evidence of a mind or of thoughts living in my head. It’s just an assumption, reinforced by imagination.
Do you believe that there is an I that can stay or be awake?
What is it that could be awake?
What is it that awakening could happen TO?
That question “how do I stay awake” is coming from thought. It is the seeking that obstructs finding. I could equate it to the question “how do I keep existing?”. Thoughts construct a separation and obstacles that aren’t real. When I drop the dualistic thought of awake or not awake there is suddenly nothing but awake. It’s like trying to climb a huge wall and then suddenly realising that there is an open door in it.

Tom

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 7037
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: No idea

Postby Vivien » Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:46 am

Hi Tom,
I found your blog posts very helpful. In particular the line “stopping seeking is finding”
I’m glad you find it helpful.
Awareness is looking and seeing no self. Awareness is a process, a verb and not a “thing”. Nobody and no thing are making it happen but awareness is looking. Is it not appropriate to use the word I in this sense? To describe, not the seer but the Seeing?
You are objectifying and personifying the knowing / aware-ing aspect of experience.
Knowing of experience is happening, but there is no awareness that is aware of experience.

Awareness is a very popular concept nowadays, and most of the time it is personified into something that is aware and knows things. But this is just another story based on the belief of separation.

So let’s look into this.
Awareness is looking and seeing no self.
How do you know that there is awareness is looking?
How do you know that seeing no self is done by an awareness?
What if there is no subject doing anything?
What if looking is happening, but not done by or known by an awareness, or anything at all?


What is seeing that there is no separate self can happen, but not seen by an awareness? What if there is no seer at all? Not even as an awareness?
seeing no self
Can no self be actually seen? Can the absence of something be seen?

Look around in the room.
Can you see the absence of a unicorn?

Can you recognize that there is no unicorn by seeing the absence of it (seeing no unicorn)?

Awareness is a process, a verb and not a “thing”. Nobody and no thing are making it happen but awareness is looking.
But HOW do you know that that awareness is looking?
How do you know that there is a looker, a subject that is doing the looking?

Do you see that this is just an intellectual conclusion?

If you don’t think about awareness, then what is it left of it?

Is it not appropriate to use the word I in this sense?
No it's not. Since there is no independent awareness looking and seeing.

Just notice what is here-now.
Is there an experience of a looker or a seer?
Or all there is what is ‘looked at’ / seen?
To describe, not the seer but the Seeing?
That would be just the same belief of a self under the cloak of awareness or seeing.
There is a sensation, like an emotional response, connected to a thought. It is present when the thought “I must do it right” is present and believed.
And believed by what?
What is believing?
I can see how inherited ideas are at work here. I have never seen any direct evidence of a mind or of thoughts living in my head. It’s just an assumption, reinforced by imagination.
Exactly, nice investigation.
So what if that awareness (the way you conceive it) as a looker and seer (or looking and seeing), just as much an imagination as the mind?

Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
TomnotTom
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:24 am
Contact:

Re: No idea

Postby TomnotTom » Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:06 pm

Awareness is looking and seeing no self.

How do you know that awareness is looking?
How do you know that seeing no self is done by an awareness?
What if there is no subject doing anything?
What if looking is happening, but not done by or known by an awareness, or anything at all?
Right! I see this tendency to relate things into subject/object dualities is deeply ingrained. It has become a default way of seeing and describing experience. This is only a way of relating to things from the perspective of thought. An artificial layer superimposed onto reality.
There is no seer. Only seeing.

What is seeing that there is no separate self can happen, but not seen by an awareness? What if there is no seer at all? Not even as an awareness?

Can no self be actually seen? Can the absence of something be seen?

Look around in the room.
Can you see the absence of a unicorn?

Can you recognize that there is no unicorn by seeing the absence of it (seeing no unicorn)?
I get this point but it brings up another question. I find no thing here, no self, but how can I know that there isn’t something I’m missing hidden that is not perceived?
Awareness is a process, a verb and not a “thing”. Nobody and no thing are making it happen but awareness is looking.

But HOW do you know that that awareness is looking?
How do you know that there is a looker, a subject that is doing the looking?

Do you see that this is just an intellectual conclusion?

If you don’t think about awareness, then what is it left of it?
Yes, I see this is the same habit of separating things into subject and object. The description of awareness looking is the way thought makes sense of what is happening. Without thought, subject and object don’t exist. There isn't even awareness. There just is. Any words or description fail to capture this.
Just notice what is here-now.
Is there an experience of a looker or a seer?
Or all there is what is ‘looked at’ / seen?
To describe, not the seer but the Seeing?
That would be just the same belief of a self under the cloak of awareness or seeing.
Yes, I am seeing how sticky this idea of self can be. It is just so familiar. It reminds me of a story I heard about the native Americans who couldn’t see Columbus’ ships coming to shore because it was too far outside of their understanding of the world and they couldn’t process what they were seeing. I’m not sure if it’s true but it seems to relate to this process.

I’m so used to seeing things through the lens of thought that creates its own version of reality. This “me” - the subject relating to objects is just a habit of thought. It’s like pointing to the map and saying “I am here” but I am not on the map. The map is just a tool for navigation. It has nothing to do with the area it represents.

There is a sensation, like an emotional response, connected to a thought. It is present when the thought “I must do it right” is present and believed.
And believed by what?
What is believing?
Hmm, thought again! There can be no belief without thought.

I can see why you call it liberation. Freedom from belief, not having to know or understand anything or have an opinion about it. I have only had a taste but I want more :)

User avatar
TomnotTom
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:24 am
Contact:

Re: No idea

Postby TomnotTom » Sun Nov 15, 2020 10:26 pm

Oh and hi Vivien :)

Sorry for my impolite response. I write my explorations in another document and paste them in here to send. Sometimes I forget my manners.

I want you to know that I appreciate your guidance very, very much.

Thank you
Tom

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 7037
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: No idea

Postby Vivien » Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:21 am

Hi Tom,
Sorry for my impolite response. I write my explorations in another document and paste them in here to send. Sometimes I forget my manners.
No problem. But you haven’t replied for a long time just as your previous replies were also very sparse. Also, all your replies in your last posts were just more thinking. You didn’t look.

The thing is that this inquiry cannot work without hard work, without daily investigations (50-100 times a day) repeatedly, with daily posts. The inquiry has a momentum which is not there for you. It cannot be there without daily investigations and replies. And this shows up in your replies. You are keeping this on the intellectual level. But we cannot go on like this. There is no point.

So you have to really consider if you really want to do this, and what is it that you are willing to do for it?

Because it seems that you might not have enough motivation or willingness to really cut deep, and go to the core and actually let go of the intellect and just stay with the immediate experience.

Please be very honest with yourself.
On the scale of 1-10 how committed you are to do the inquiry?
And on the scale of 1-10 how committed and willing you are to let go of the realm of thoughts and actually look?
And how committed you are to post daily?
How committed you are to look as often as possible EACH day again and again and again and again (50-100 times a day)?

Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 7037
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: No idea

Postby Vivien » Mon Nov 16, 2020 3:40 am

Tom, you might find my comments too blunt, but if you want to see through the self (if you really want it) then something has to change. But if your desire is not that strong, that's ok too. You will do an investigation when you will be ready.
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
TomnotTom
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:24 am
Contact:

Re: No idea

Postby TomnotTom » Mon Nov 16, 2020 7:46 am

Hi Vivien,

Thank you for being blunt. I need it and I really appreciate it.

I have been a bit confused as to how to approach the enquiry. At first I felt my answers were unsatisfactory or I felt stuck so I waited until I felt there were insights to share. I thought it would be better to post less regularly and wait til I had something that felt useful.

If it requires posting every day I will make time for that.

If I am honest my commitment to the enquiry has dropped lately ut 6/10. I work as a freelancer and sometimes (like now) I get a big job that takes a lot of my focus. Its difficult to balance that with the enquiry work. I realise this is just an excuse. If I were drowning and gasping for air then nothing would get in the way of that desire.

I know this is a matter of commitment and I am 100% committed to letting go of thought. 10/10 no doubt. I feel I can continue this enquiry and continue to do my job to get paid.

I appreciate your honesty and direct pointing to the truth as always.

I would like to continue and start looking 50-100 times a day and post every day if you are willing to continue to guide me.

If I can't keep it up then I will stop wasting your time. I'm happy for you to call me out any time on that and I have no complaints if you decide not to continue because I am not committed enough.

With gratitude,

Tom

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 7037
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: No idea

Postby Vivien » Mon Nov 16, 2020 8:02 am

Hi Tom,

I’m glad you didn’t take my comments personally. This is a good sign :)
If I am honest my commitment to the enquiry has dropped lately ut 6/10. I work as a freelancer and sometimes (like now) I get a big job that takes a lot of my focus. Its difficult to balance that with the enquiry work. I realise this is just an excuse. If I were drowning and gasping for air then nothing would get in the way of that desire.
Yes… the thing is that without a deep desire to see things how they are, is quite difficult. But looking can happen in the midst of your busy life. You just have to try. There are plenty of opportunity in daily life to look. When you wash your hands, going down the street, having a shower, going to the toilet, preparing a dinner, having the dinner, drinking coffee, waiting in a line, etc. Repetition is essential. Just as when you want to learn a new skill.

Can you tell me in simple words where you find a self?
In the body, in the story, in the fridge – wherever?


So spend a whole day on this, looking as often as you can. You just simply turn your attention where the self is.

Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
TomnotTom
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:24 am
Contact:

Re: No idea

Postby TomnotTom » Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:09 pm

Hi Vivien

These are my observations from today.

I am not really sure what the best way is to approach this. Please tell me if this is just thinking or the looking you are talking about. I seem to be having trouble discerning what is what.

Here is what I got anyway:
Can you tell me in simple words where you find a self?
In the body, in the story, in the fridge – wherever?
I look in the mirror and I see a face that seems like me.

Is it my self?

What I see is the image of a person. There are thoughts attached to this image. Sometimes emotional feelings and thoughts about whether the person looks good or bad.

The thoughts about the image in the mirror looking good or bad are compelling because of the thought that it's me and because there are expecations for how I should look. This is based on an idea of self but when I look closer at this idea there is nothing besides some shifting thoughts and feelings in the body. None of it is fixed. Not a 'thing'

The image of this person is only here for a moment in direct experience. I look away from the mirror and that image is gone but 'I' am still here. It is not here now so how can it be my self?

I look and see hands and a body. Is there a self here?

I only see hands and a body. They are connected to the source of vision. This is where I am looking out.

Is there a self looking out?

If I am looking out it means that I am inside. Inside this body. I can't see inside this body though. I can feel sensations that come from inside. Is there a self here?

If there is I don't see it.

I called my dad today to congratulate him on his birthday. For most of that conversation there was a me and a him. My self talking to his self.

There was a moment during the conversation when I was aware of my body and the things in the room and the words coming out of my mouth. At that point I was also aware of the self. The self who has a dad and a history of growing up with him.

If I was aware of the self then there there are 2 selves. The self talking to Dad and the seer of that self. The self talking to Dad is a collection of memories, thoughts and feelings. It is not present here now. It can't be what I am. Not exclusively at least.

The self seeing the self talking to Dad is here now, as it has always been. Or is it?

I see images, sounds and other sensations.

I see them or I am them? - I don't see a separation between this I and the images, sounds and sensations.

The word "me" seems insufficient to describe this unseparated collection of images, sounds and sensations.

I create a self - an abstract notion of one - when I talk about things or have thoughts about past or future. It isn't something tangible though. I have never directly been in contact with this self any more than I have touched a thought.

Is this on the right track or more thinking?

Tom

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 7037
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: No idea

Postby Vivien » Tue Nov 17, 2020 3:41 am

Hi Tom,
I am not really sure what the best way is to approach this. Please tell me if this is just thinking or the looking you are talking about. I seem to be having trouble discerning what is what.
Here is the basics of how to look.

You can tell me what is behind your back in two ways:
1. You can think about it, remember and tell me from thinking.
2. You can turn around, see it and describe.

So in this investigation I ask you to look at and describe what you experience and not what you think, remember or imagine.
Can you see the difference?

When you look what is behind your back, or when you look at your socks, you are DIRECTLY EXPERIENCING what is seen. There is no inference, it’s direct and immediate. You know the color without any thought about the color. No thought is needed to see/know.

When you just remember what is behind your back and what color your socks are, that is in inference, it’s not a direct experience. It’s about having thoughts about it. All your information is coming from thoughts, and not from immediate experience (which is BEFORE thoughts).
Can you see this?

So with every single question I give you, I’m asking you to check your immediate experience, and never ever rely on thought, memory or imagination.
Is this on the right track or more thinking?
This was much better :) you are on the right track, well done :)
There was a moment during the conversation when I was aware of my body and the things in the room and the words coming out of my mouth. At that point I was also aware of the self. The self who has a dad and a history of growing up with him.
But when you are aware of the story “the history of growing up with your Dad”, isn’t that just a thought?
Is there an actual self IN that story?
Or there is only a thought story ABOUT a self/me?


Self is thought to be the thinker of thoughts, the doer of deeds, the chooser, the decider, the experiencer, the observer and as that a tangible entity, isn't it?

So is that story the thinker of thoughts? The doer of deeds? The chooser? The decider? The experiencer? The observer? Or that is just a plain thought, just a story repeatedly told / thought?
The self talking to Dad is a collection of memories, thoughts and feelings.
But how can a self be the collection of memories? Remember, the self is the thinker, doer, decider, feeler, etc.

Is there any memory that is thinking thoughts? Or feeling emotions? Are memories the doer and the decider?
Or memories just more thoughts (verbal and pictorial) appearing on their own here-now?

And what about thoughts? Is a self a lifeless, inert, ephemeral thought? Is a thought an autonomous enduring entity, the doer, the observer, the feeler? Or a thought is just a thought?

You also mentioned feelings. Which feeling is the doer, thinker, feeler, etc? Or feelings are just feelings, sensations coming and going unbidden, free-floating, without anchoring to anything?


Please make sure that you don’t just think these through, but you actually investigate them in experience. How? You just take a memory and then investigate if that particular memory is thinking, doing, deciding, feeling. If there is an entity there. So you look just as you would look to check the color of your socks.

Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
TomnotTom
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:24 am
Contact:

Re: No idea

Postby TomnotTom » Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:07 am

Hi Vivien,
So in this investigation I ask you to look at and describe what you experience and not what you think, remember or imagine.
Can you see the difference
?

Yes that is clear.
When you just remember what is behind your back and what color your socks are, that is in inference, it’s not a direct experience. It’s about having thoughts about it. All your information is coming from thoughts, and not from immediate experience (which is BEFORE thoughts).
Can you see this?
Yes
But when you are aware of the story “the history of growing up with your Dad”, isn’t that just a thought?
Is there an actual self IN that story?
Or there is only a thought story ABOUT a self/me?
No it was just a sense of self that exists as a thought. History isn't here now. It only exists as a thought.
So is that story the thinker of thoughts? The doer of deeds? The chooser? The decider? The experiencer? The observer? Or that is just a plain thought, just a story repeatedly told / thought?
No, it has no autonomy. It is just an appearance being experienced like a story in a book
But how can a self be the collection of memories? Remember, the self is the thinker, doer, decider, feeler, etc.
You say that I should describe what i experience and not what I think. I don't see how I can answer that question without using thought. There is no self here now to observe. How can I know what it is without making something up?

The the self i observed speaking to my dad was an idea of self. A thought.
Is there any memory that is thinking thoughts? Or feeling emotions? Are memories the doer and the decider?
Or memories just more thoughts (verbal and pictorial) appearing on their own here-now?
Yes, memories are just more thoughts.
And what about thoughts? Is a self a lifeless, inert, ephemeral thought? Is a thought an autonomous enduring entity, the doer, the observer, the feeler? Or a thought is just a thought?
No thought is just thought. It's just appearances that come and go like the weather.
You also mentioned feelings. Which feeling is the doer, thinker, feeler, etc? Or feelings are just feelings, sensations coming and going unbidden, free-floating, without anchoring to anything?
Yes feelings are just input. Sensations in the body.
Please make sure that you don’t just think these through, but you actually investigate them in experience. How? You just take a memory and then investigate if that particular memory is thinking, doing, deciding, feeling. If there is an entity there. So you look just as you would look to check the color of your socks.
I have tried to really look and not just think these through. There doesn't seem to be much to say about it though. It seems obvious that none of the things you point to are the thinker, doer, decider, feeler.

It seems like maybe i should have more detailed answers but I don't see what else there is to say other than "there is no self on this".

Tom


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests