Subside the story

[NYX]

Hi Vivien,

Attractive for who?
Is there someone being attracted to certain thoughts?
Where is this one?

It's another way of labelling it ...instead of ''positive'' and ''negative'' thoughts, the new label is ''more attractive''....it's attractive to the story, but no one is there to be attracted to them.

1. Take a piece of paper and divide it in two parts.
- In one part you mark each thought which content points to the intake of senses,
- on the other part you make a mark for all thoughts which don't point to anything in DE, like into the so called future/daydreams/plans or past/memory.

2. Play around and notice thoughts during the day, and label them according to which category they belong to.

As I tried to categorize the thoughts that appeared...there was a bit of confusion.
Although there were thoughts that didn't point to anything in DE, they were triggered by something that was seen or heard in DE. Would these thoughts be part of number 1 or 2?
There were twice as much thoughts that appeared which didn't point to anything in DE or were triggered by DE but came in a form of a memory/future, than something that was directly associated with the senses.

DE: I saw a quote on this page... a thought appeared that ''it could be used as a design mantra''.
Heard a song by Ludovico Einaudi ... a memory appeared about the time I showed that song to someone special.
Seeing the word Bauhaus in design ... a thought with lyrics of a song by the band Bauhaus appeared.
I saw my journal on the shelf...a thought appeared about the time my friend gave it to me as a gift.

Thoughts that had absolutely nothing to do with DE...
A thought about a friend appeared...next thoughts about future travels and other scenarios followed.
Lyrics of song with the word ''thought'' appeared...then a thought about this forum appeared.
A thought in a form of ''I should get a small gift for my friend'' appeared randomly.

Greta

[Vivien]

Hi Greta,

Although there were thoughts that didn't point to anything in DE, they were triggered by something that was seen or heard in DE. Would these thoughts be part of number 1 or 2?

Are those ever pointing to experience directly, or those are only interpretations only (which is already a story)?

There were twice as much thoughts that appeared which didn't point to anything in DE

Only twice as much? :) Usually less than 1% of thoughts point to experience. All the rest is just story. So probably you missed some.

DE: I saw a quote on this page... a thought appeared that ''it could be used as a design mantra''.

What is the DE of ‘it could be used as to a design mantra’?
Is a color? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Or only a thought?

What is the DE of mantra or design? Is there such experience?

Can you see that this is just a story ABOUT seeing something?

Heard a song by Ludovico Einaudi ... a memory appeared about the time I showed that song to someone special.

Is that memory an experience? Or that is that only a thought?

What is the DE of ‘someone special’?
What is the DE of ‘special’?
Is a color? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Or only a thought?

So there was the DE of a sound, which then got labelled by thought as ‘song’, then that got further labelled as ‘song by Ludovico Einaudi’, and then a memory thought appeared with more story.

Can you see that this a layer upon layer of thoughts/concepts on the simple experience of a sound?

Seeing the word Bauhaus in design ... a thought with lyrics of a song by the band Bauhaus appeared.

Same as above.

There is the raw experience of seeing something -> thought label ‘word’ -> another thought layer “this word is designed” -> thought of a memory

Can you see that all there is in experience is seeing, or color/shape? And everything else is just interpretation, thought narration only?

I saw my journal on the shelf...a thought appeared about the time my friend gave it to me as a gift.

Raw experience of seeing -> seeing is labelled by thought ‘I see my journal on the shelf’ -> thought story

Can you see that all there is in experience is seeing, or color/shape? And everything else is just interpretation, thought narration only?

Vivien

[NYX]

Hi Vivien,

Only twice as much? :) Usually less than 1% of thoughts point to experience. All the rest is just story. So probably you missed some.

Can you see that all there is in experience is seeing, or color/shape? And everything else is just interpretation, thought narration only?

Things are much clearer now. The activity began with no confusion and the more time was spent thinking about it, the more confusing it became. Looking at the notes again, most of those were only stories/ thoughts.

Eventually the DE was missed and focus moved straight to the story.
By trying to figure it out, it just complicated it all.
The simplicity of solely looking at the direct experience...the senses was overlooked.

The less attention is paid to thought, the more focus is on the senses. All senses have become more focused, especially seeing and hearing. Everything became clearer in the last week or so. Everything has intensified.

There was a lot of agitation all day that was caused by paying too much attention to thoughts....There was anger towards a situation but once focus shifted towards DE, sensations of the hands (I was getting my nails done at the time) there was this realization of pleasure that was present.
This has been happening more and more over the last week too. A thought appears, all these emotions appear and then shortly focus moves to DE and there is only piece of mind/ happiness.

Greta

[Vivien]

Hi Greta,

There was a lot of agitation all day that was caused by paying too much attention to thoughts....There was anger towards a situation but once focus shifted towards DE, sensations of the hands (I was getting my nails done at the time) there was this realization of pleasure that was present.

Yes, all suffering comes from taking thoughts seriously and not questioning their validity.

Please always reply to each and every question I give you. All questions are pointers for you where to look and help you to see things for yourself. If you don’t reply to them, you are depriving yourself from the possibility to recognize something more.

Could you please go back and reply to them? You might discover something new, or some insights might go deeper.

Vivien

[Vivien]

Hi Greta,

Are you still with me? It has been quite a while since your last post.

Vivien

[NYX]

Hi Vivien,

Are you still with me? It has been quite a while since your last post.

I want to apologize for not replying for so long. For some reason I kept putting it off to reply and before I knew it a couple of weeks past and there was a lot of procrastination and a bit of resistance.
Then there was a death of someone very close and everything else, including this was put on hold.

If you are still interested in continuing I would appreciate it, if not, that's okay too.

Thank you,
Greta

[Vivien]

Hi Greta,

Yes, we can continue. But at first, please go back to the beginning of our thread, and read all my posts and work through the questions. You don’t have to read your replies, it’s enough if you work through the questions and pointers. Look again with each pointer.

When you are done, please write to me about your discoveries and insights. From there, we can look at what is left of the belief of the self.

Vivien

[NYX]

Hi Vivien,

The person/ Greta is an illusion, a thought, a story that appears as a thought. 'A being', 'one' are just labels and other ways of referring to the story. There is experience happening but there isn't some sort of a being or a thing experiencing it. There are sensations, feelings, thoughts appearing in the experience but they are not appearing to someone, they are just happening.

Reading the thread from the very beginning, everything you said seems so much clearer now. There was a lot of confusion at the beginning, now I understand. There is no Greta, no being, nothing. Looking at direct experience it's obvious that that was just a story. Once no attention is paid to the content of thoughts, labels fall away and with that there is only sensual experience.

Visually, everything became more vivid. There are no clear boundaries between the body, sensations and objects, once the labels fell away it's like they all merged.

I can see through the illusion of thoughts that appear, thoughts themselves are not positive or negative, they are just appearing.
Saying all this, there is still some dipping in and out of the story, or thought content but quiet quickly it is seen for what it is, an appearance in experience, something that appears randomly and disappears. The need to investigate thought content and why "I" feel this or that way has fallen away, because it's an illusion.

There seems to be no separation between senses, they seem to be appearing in the same "field", experience.

There is no one that wants to be present. A thought may appear saying "I'm not present enough", but it is just a thought and its content does not matter, as you said before, it's just babbling. Something clicked and now it is obvious that it is impossible to not be present, everything that is happening is happening. Thoughts,feelings, sensations are all appearing in the present moment, any concepts of past/future are just thoughts appearing in the now.
There's acceptance of everything that is happening, the thoughts that are appearing. The desire to "stay present" all the time makes no sense anymore because I AM present and always have been.

Although I haven't replied in a while, I have been constanly investigating and bit by bit, old beliefs fell away because it was clear that they were false, there wasn't any actual evidence of them or Greta. And a thought is not evidence, it's a random uncontrollable appearance, something that isn't solid, that is constantly changing. A thought has no influence on direct experience. DE is always present, thoughts are just inconsistent commentary.

There was clear evidence of no one being in control of what the body does and the brain comes up with. My mum would say something, or pass a comment and in an instant the body and brain reacted. And the more this happened the more obvious it became that these reactions were just happening with nothing controlling them. There used to be constant suffering associated with that situation, however the suffering ceases to exist when there's a realization that no one is in control of it.

Similarly, there was sadness regarding losing my family member but there was no suffering. Crying and sadness were happening but there wasn't a person or a thing wrapped and entangled in those emotions. It didn't seem personal, no overthinking, just emotions happening, reacting to the situation on their own with no one in control.

Saying all this, all this tends to fluctuate from time to time. In this very moment, all this is crystal clear. Some times the story and old beliefs reappear and take over but not as often as it used to.


Greta

[Vivien]

Hi Greta,

Thank you for your beautiful reply, you did a nice investigation :)

Saying all this, all this tends to fluctuate from time to time. In this very moment, all this is crystal clear. Some times the story and old beliefs reappear and take over but not as often as it used to.

At the beginning, for almost everybody, there is a flip-flopping back and forth between seeing and identifying. Even after the self is seen through. The old conditioning of identifying is still strong, and there is a pull back to identify. So at this stage, which can last some time (and it cannot be known in advance how long it will take, maybe years), looking should go on to help to stabilize this flip-flopping.

There's acceptance of everything that is happening, the thoughts that are appearing. The desire to "stay present" all the time makes no sense anymore because I AM present and always have been.

What is this I that is present?

What is it that makes the statement that “I AM present”?

If you don’t think of the thought “I AM present” what is it that is left of this I?

Vivien

[NYX]

Hi Vivien,

Thank you! :)

What is this I that is present?

There is no I that is present, there is just presence, with things appearing in it.

What is it that makes the statement that “I AM present”?

The statement "I AM present" is just another thought appearing, trying to explain what is happening.

If you don’t think of the thought “I AM present” what is it that is left of this I?

There is only presence left, here, now, this very moment. No being, nothing witnessing anything, just this live-ness.


Greta

[Vivien]

Hi Greta,

The statement "I AM present" is just another thought appearing, trying to explain what is happening.

We have to be careful with words… since it’s very easy to swap identities… so instead of believing that I am the body-mind, the belief in the existence of a real I can move to a subtle form of identification with the thought “I am presence”. Can you see this?

There is no I that is present, there is just presence, with things appearing in it.

How do you know that there is a presence in which things appear IN?

Is there an independent presence waiting in the background for things to appear in?

Is there a presence which is something special, apart from the five senses?
Is presence something independent of and prior to sense perception?

Vivien

[NYX]

Hi Vivien,

We have to be careful with words… since it’s very easy to swap identities… so instead of believing that I am the body-mind, the belief in the existence of a real I can move to a subtle form of identification with the thought “I am presence”. Can you see this?

As in the belief in the separate self is exchanged for a belief that I am some sort of presence? Like swapping Greta for "being".

How do you know that there is a presence in which things appear IN?

By presence I'm not referring to a substitute for the separate self or anything that is objective or conceptual. It is hard to describe with words without getting caught out, without making it sound like there's an entity present. Everything, including senses and thoughts are constanly changing, appearing and disappearing but perception of them seems to always stay.

Is there an independent presence waiting in the background for things to appear in?

No, that's giving it an entity, separation. What I'm talking about is not separate from anything that is occurring...thoughts, feelings, senses etc.

Is there a presence which is something special, apart from the five senses?

No, there isn't. I can see how quickly thoughts turn it into a something.

Is presence something independent of and prior to sense perception?

It is nothing independent from what is constantly occurring or is perceived. It's direct experience.

Feelings and emotions appear and can be felt through senses. For example the feeling labeled anxiety, not the concept but the actual physical tightness in the chest etc... but what about thoughts? A quick glimpse of a visual thought appears, is it seen the same way a chair would be seen?

Greta

[Vivien]

Hi Greta,

As in the belief in the separate self is exchanged for a belief that I am some sort of presence? Like swapping Greta for "being".

Yes, just using a different label… something to identify with, and thus not seeing that there is no I whatsoever that could be anything at all….

V: How do you know that there is a presence in which things appear IN?

By presence I'm not referring to a substitute for the separate self or anything that is objective or conceptual. It is hard to describe with words without getting caught out, without making it sound like there's an entity present. Everything, including senses and thoughts are constanly changing, appearing and disappearing but perception of them seems to always stay.

Yes, I didn’t assume that you meant an entity by the word ‘presence’… I meant a non-physical ‘thing’…. If perceptions are actually appearing IN a non-physical, invisible, untouchable something. So is this how it is? Is this what experience shows?

Do things appear and disappear in this invisible, untouchable, unheardable, unsmellable, untestable something?

Feelings and emotions appear and can be felt through senses. For example the feeling labeled anxiety, not the concept but the actual physical tightness in the chest etc... but what about thoughts?

We can conceptualize and say that there is a ‘sixth sense’ which is to notice any kind of mental phenomena… like verbal thoughts, or pictorial/visual thoughts, or the imagination of a sensation (like imagining the sensation of a feather stroking the skin), or imagining a sound, or taste or smell.

A quick glimpse of a visual thought appears, is it seen the same way a chair would be seen?

I have a simple exercise for this :) . I would like to ask you to actually do the exercises, and not just think through them. Although they are very simple exercises, but exactly because of the simplicity it’s often overlooked. So please actually do them.

Here is an experiment for you. You will need a chair.

Choose a spot where there is some space both to your left and right.
Put the chair to your right.
Now turn slightly to your left, where there is some empty space.

Not turn back to your right, and investigate the chair thoroughly. Touch it, feel the fabric or the material it’s made of, look at its size, shape, color, texture.
Now turn back to your left to the empty space and try to imagine that there is the same chair you observed on your right. If it helps close your eyes. Imagine its fabric, size, color, shape, texture. Make it as vivid as you can. So you have two chairs, one on your right, and an imagined copy of it on your left.

Now open your eyes, and sit on that imagined chair of your left. Literally sit on it.
Can you do that? Why not?

Now turn to your right, and sit on the chair.
Can you do that? Why?

While sitting on the chair, investigate these:

Can the thought ‘sweet’ be tasted?
Can the thought ‘warm’ be felt?
Can the thought ‘fragrant scent’ be smelled?
Can the thought ‘beautiful sunset’ be seen?
Can the thought of ‘loud noise’ be heard?

Can the thought of drinking water make your thirst away?

Can the thought of ‘walking on a beach’ make your feet wet and sandy?
WHY not?

So what is the difference between real and imagined?

What is the difference between a chair and the THOUGHT OF a chair?

Vivien

[NYX]

Hi Vivien,

If perceptions are actually appearing IN a non-physical, invisible, untouchable something.
So is this how it is? Is this what experience shows?

Maybe not necessarily in it, as I can't perceive it through senses, there's just awareness of it ... It is not separate from things appearing either. There are no boundaries between this spaceless space and things that appear. Boundaries only appear when a thought appears with indication of separation/labels. Yes, that is what experience shows. There are senses in DE but also there's awareness of these senses.

Do things appear and disappear in this invisible, untouchable, unheardable, unsmellable, untestable something?

''in'' would indicate that it is something objective, which it is not. Whatever appears and disappears, are constantly changing, however this invisible, untouchable, unheardable, unsmellable, untastable something is constantly there. It's awareness of things appearing and disappearing.

Now open your eyes, and sit on that imagined chair of your left. Literally sit on it.
Can you do that? Why not?

No I can't, because it is imagined. It does not exist in DE where it could be touched.

Now turn to your right, and sit on the chair.
Can you do that? Why?[/color]

Yes, because it physically exists in DE.

While sitting on the chair, investigate these:

Can the thought ‘sweet’ be tasted?
Can the thought ‘warm’ be felt?
Can the thought ‘fragrant scent’ be smelled?
Can the thought ‘beautiful sunset’ be seen?
Can the thought of ‘loud noise’ be heard?

No to all these questions. What occurs/is imagined in a thought cannot be experienced in direct experience.

Can the thought of drinking water make your thirst away?

Can the thought of ‘walking on a beach’ make your feet wet and sandy?
WHY not?

No, because neither are real experiences. The appearance of a thought itself can be experienced but not content. The content cannot be perceived through senses. The feeling of thirst is happening in DE. A thought is objective, however the content of it is not real and does not matter.

So what is the difference between real and imagined?

Real can be sensed through senses, while something imagined cannot be touched, smelled, tasted etc.
..... Looking at this and speaking about an ''invisible, untouchable, unheardable, unsmellable, untastable something'' would indicate that it is imagined....however there is an awareness/perception of senses that exists.

What is the difference between a chair and the THOUGHT OF a chair?[/color]

A real chair can be experienced through senses ...while an imagined chair does not exist, it cannot be experienced through senses. A thought of the imagined chair appears, but there is nothing solid about the content..the chair within that thought. The more vivid I tried to imagine it, the further and more conceptual the chair seemed. The more focus was given to the content...the more vague it became.

Greta

[Vivien]

Hi Greta,

Real can be sensed through senses, while something imagined cannot be touched, smelled, tasted etc.
..... Looking at this and speaking about an ''invisible, untouchable, unheardable, unsmellable, untastable something'' would indicate that it is imagined....however there is an awareness/perception of senses that exists.

Are you absolutely clear that awareness and experience are not two separate / distinct things?

Because your explanation still sounds as that… so let’s look at this way…

Imagine a gold ring. The ring is experience, and the gold is awaring/knowing’.

Can there ever be a ring without gold? Can you even imagine that?

And can there be gold without a ring? Can there be a gold without any sort of shape (ring, necklace or a blob of melted gold)?

Can you even imagine gold without any sort of shape?

Can you see that gold and the ring are totally inseparable?
Even less than that.... There is not even two things there? The gold and the ring are the ONE and the SAME?

Can you see that it’s the same for experience and awareing?

Vivien