To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

This is a read-only part of the forum. All threads where seeing happens are stored here and come from this forum, the Facebook guiding area and various LU blogs. The complete list, sorted by guide, contains all links. The archives include threads of those that came to LU already seeing as well.
User avatar
Tintu
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:57 pm

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby Tintu » Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:56 pm

Hi Kay,
Is the sensation labelled "I" any different to the sensation labelled 'pain'? Look at this very carefully.
I did not have a sensation of pain now to look at. I am looking at fear, which is a constant companion :-).
"I" was trying to see how the sensation "I" appears compared to the sensation of "fear".
The sensation of "I" as i mentioned before is a base sensation which is labeled as "I" sensation by the thought (this much more prevalent than other sensations).
Before you mentioned "The sense of I", I even did not think of the sensation as "sense of I", even though this was present without any name and without thought associating the sensation with that. so I can see that thought now after learning the word, instantaneously translate that sensation to the "sense of I".

The sensation of fear can be described from a thought perspective commonly expressed as "butterflies in the stomach" or "heart sinking" or "Heart in my throat" sensation etc.

I tried to look at them, initially, it looked like the sensation of fear is attached to the sensation of "I" in the sense that the sensation of "I" is present when the fear sensation is present. but later I see instances where these sensations are not related and see as different sensations.
when "I" reflect on the word "I", or when "I," think that "I" am thinking. then a base sensation is present. There is nothing in it to associate it with me except this sensation is known throughout and prevalent. the "fear" sensation feels more like a sensation arising from "stomach" or "heart", even though there is actually no "heart" or "stomach". even though these sensations have nothing inherent to suggest that it is "me" or "fear", somehow the "fear" sensation seems to occur distinctively from a place in the body (such as stomach, heart etc). I do not see how thought associates these sensations with parts of body (even though parts of body does not exist in actual seeing).

Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4494
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby forgetmenot » Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:08 pm

Lovely Tintu,
I do not see how thought associates these sensations with parts of body (even though parts of body does not exist in actual seeing).
Are they actual parts of the body or are they colour which thought then labels as different parts of the body?

Once you have responded to my other questions, we will have a look at fear.

Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Tintu
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:57 pm

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby Tintu » Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:25 am

Hi Kay,

"I" know that "I" have to look at the questions pointed, but difficult not to share the following with you.
The thing I see, when "I" think of "I" or "I" related thoughts is simply repeating.

I think I did not communicate correctly. I mentioned that the "thing" I see when I think as sensation (something felt on the body).
when thinking happens there is something which is associated by thought as me emerges, it is not a thought, not a sensation, not a feeling.
."I" cannot say it as a mental image or a belief, yet this seems to be the "I" behind the "I".
This may be the central belief which looks so familiar, never questioned, this feeling that "I know" this for ages come through.
There is something about it which is taking all "my" attention. Never discovered something as fascinating before.
It feels like the essence of"me" itself and without which there is no relevance to anything.
This looks like the stone by which everything related to "I" is built.
This is so every day but never recognized. is it the me "I" am questioning?.

Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4494
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby forgetmenot » Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:41 am

Tintu...you are trying to find something that isn't. There is nothing emerging from anywhere. There is no real YOU trying to make its way out of the cocoon of illusion! That is what that sounds like to me. There is sensation which thought calls 'me'. Look to see if you can find anyone anything in the sensation/idea/thought...whatever you want to call it. There is simply a knowing of sensation. It is nothing more special than sensation labelled 'fear', 'pain', 'excitement' and sensations are no more special than colour, smell, taste, thought or sound. And you will see why as we move along.

Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Tintu
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:57 pm

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby Tintu » Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:58 am

Hi Kay,

I will look at the questions now :-). Maybe it is the simple knowing of a sensation and maybe it is the excitement of thought when finding some unrecognized sensations (whatever it is). "I" will hold on to the statement in your footer "Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists." :-).

Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
Tintu
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:57 pm

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby Tintu » Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:50 pm

Hi Kay,
If the noise is no longer heard, then can be actually be appearing/known…it is actual experience as you see it in the moment?
No.
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Sound in actual experience can only be known if listening happens. otherwise, it is thought inferring.
Coming back to attention. If something in not in your awareness in this very moment…then is it known?
if it is not in awareness, actually it is not known.
Place a finger to the top of the head. Now ignore all thoughts, images, sounds. What is the actual experience?
Is the head actually known?
The head is not known in actual experience, it is thought that divides and categorizes into the body and its parts.
If there is no head...then how is it known that the sensation or sound (buzzing) have a location?
The location of the "buzzing" sensation cannot be found in actual experience.
The body cannot be known as the apple cannot be known.
similar to the label 'apple', there is an experience of senses about the label "body".
When you close your eyes and focus on the area where thought says the forehead is located...a mental image/outline of the eyes/forehead may appear…
does that make them real. In other words are they actually known in that moment or only thoughts about them?
The forehead is not known in actual experience. thought creates a forehead.
The mental image does not make it any real.
We are focussing on the sensation labelled as ‘forehead’. When you look carefully, did you find a forehead or only thoughts about a forehead?
If there is no forehead…and there is simply the appearance of sensation…can thoughts come from those sensations?
Thoughts do not come from the sensation. a general observation is that a sensation is interpreted by thought as something.
Yes..so can a thought come from; be created by a mental image or vice versa?
No.a preceding thought cannot create a succeeding thought.
Is the feeling an actual sensation or is it simply an idea (nonverbal thoughts) ABOUT there being a body and a me?
feeling is an idea created by thought when a sensation is recognized and interpreted by thought.

Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4494
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby forgetmenot » Thu Oct 04, 2018 2:11 am

Hello Tintu,
Maybe it is the simple knowing of a sensation and maybe it is the excitement of thought when finding some unrecognized sensations (whatever it is). "I" will hold on to the statement in your footer "Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists." :-).
It being an “unrecognized sensation” is the best way to see it. It is only thought that points to sensation and tries to define it, describe it and give it meaning. Without thought, it is simply a sensation. And to take that one step further…drop the label ‘sensation’ and all there is, is experience/THIS appearing exactly as it is.

Having said that….that sensation that has now been noticed is what thought points to and says is the “me”. Without thought, how could this be known? But this is how the story of separate self - that is separate from other ‘things seems to work. If you have a close look at this…there is no ‘me’ in the sensation, so is sensation walking around, eating, thinking, seeing, sleeping etc? Thought also suggests that colour is ‘me’ because thought points to colour and says that it is a body/me. So colour must be eating, thinking, seeing, sleeping, walking etc. Quite humourous when you have a look!
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Sound in actual experience can only be known if listening happens. otherwise, it is thought inferring.
Yes, and if the colour labelled ‘forest’ aren’t AE in the current moment..does the forest exist at all?
Place a finger to the top of the head. Now ignore all thoughts, images, sounds. What is the actual experience?
Is the head actually known?
The head is not known in actual experience, it is thought that divides and categorizes into the body and its parts.
Exactly! No head is found…so can eyes, nose, mouth, forehead or a brain be found?
When you close your eyes and focus on the area where thought says the forehead is located...a mental image/outline of the eyes/forehead may appear…
does that make them real. In other words are they actually known in that moment or only thoughts about them?
The forehead is not known in actual experience. thought creates a forehead.
The mental image does not make it any real.
Yes, thought points to sensation and labels it ‘forehead’, gives it a location by giving the impression/idea that the head is above the rest of the body.
We are focussing on the sensation labelled as ‘forehead’. When you look carefully, did you find a forehead or only thoughts about a forehead?
If there is no forehead…and there is simply the appearance of sensation…can thoughts come from those sensations?
Thoughts do not come from the sensation. a general observation is that a sensation is interpreted by thought as something.
Lovely, yes.
Is the feeling an actual sensation or is it simply an idea (nonverbal thoughts) ABOUT there being a body and a me?
feeling is an idea created by thought when a sensation is recognized and interpreted by thought.
Unless the feeling is an actual ‘body’ sensation…then it is simply an idea/thought. An example:- Imagine you lost your keys and you could swear you left them in your pocket. But when you go to check, they are not there. You empty out all your pockets, still no keys. You feel very strongly that they must be there because that was the last place you saw them. But they are simply not there. In this case, your actual experience contradicts what it is you are feeling. This happens all the time. The problem is that believing in your feelings and not your direct experience will keep you from understanding clearly. It is important to understand that just because you feel something is true, does not mean that it is. You can simply look and see what is true and what is not.

Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Tintu
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:57 pm

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby Tintu » Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:06 am

Hi Kay,
And to take that one step further…drop the label ‘sensation’ and all there is, is experience/THIS appearing exactly as it is.
This is to say in actual seeing without thought interfering, the sensation of seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, thoughts, sensations etc are something unknowable and inexpressible. and all there is is this indescribable "sensations" and the rest everything is thought stories. and there is no "me" in any of these "Sensations". why do there is a seeing or hearing in the first place. until the "reason" comes up and "reasoning" starts, neither meaning nor meaninglessness is found. it is simply as it is.The body "appears and disappears in the sensation of seeing" as thoughts and other sensations.
Having said that….that sensation that has now been noticed is what thought points to and says is the “me”. Without thought, how could this be known?
There cannot be an identification without thoughts to sensations. This cannot be known without thinking.
Yes, and if the colour labelled ‘forest’ aren’t AE in the current moment..does the forest exist at all?
if it is not in AE, The forest does not exist in AE.
Exactly! No head is found…so can eyes, nose, mouth, forehead or a brain be found?
These are concepts around the sensation of seeing and hence they cannot be found in AE.


Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4494
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby forgetmenot » Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:47 am

Hey Tintu,
And to take that one step further…drop the label ‘sensation’ and all there is, is experience/THIS appearing exactly as it is.
This is to say in actual seeing without thought interfering, the sensation of seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, thoughts, sensations etc are something unknowable and inexpressible. and all there is is this indescribable "sensations" and the rest everything is thought stories. and there is no "me" in any of these "Sensations". why do there is a seeing or hearing in the first place. until the "reason" comes up and "reasoning" starts, neither meaning nor meaninglessness is found. it is simply as it is.The body "appears and disappears in the sensation of seeing" as thoughts and other sensations.
They don’t “come up”. It is only thought that divides experience into different categories and then labels the categories and further sub labels the categories. Without thought - experience/THIS simply IS.
Having said that….that sensation that has now been noticed is what thought points to and says is the “me”. Without thought, how could this be known?
There cannot be an identification without thoughts to sensations. This cannot be known without thinking.
Exactly…it simply IS.
Exactly! No head is found…so can eyes, nose, mouth, forehead or a brain be found?
These are concepts around the sensation of seeing and hence they cannot be found in AE.
Lovely…yes!

Although we have done a quick exercise as the one below when we looked at focus/attention, I wanted you to do it again...just a little different , in order to investigate the idea of ‘doer/doership’ which goes along with the belief in there being a chooser/decider. So let’s have a look at this as it has to do with the sense of seeing.

Take a few relaxed breaths to let the dust settle for a while, and then:
Look on your right.
Then look on your left.
Finally, bring your head back to centre, close your eyes and look in front.

Okay, so when you look on the right, the view on the right is seen (whatever that is).
When you look on the left, the view on the left is seen (whatever that is).
And then, when you look in front of you with eyes closed, the view in front is seen (ie ‘black space’).

So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ not to see? I’m not asking can you ‘choose’ to see something else like another view or ‘black space’ if you close your eyes. The question is, can you turn seeing off? Can you NOT see what is seen?

Same thing with the view on the left, can you NOT see the view on the left?

Same thing with the view in front with closed eyes, can you NOT see the ‘black space’?

Can you turn off seeing?

What did the 'chooser' choose? Did a 'self' choose something?

If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?


Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Tintu
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:57 pm

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby Tintu » Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:51 am

Hi Kay,
So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ not to see? I’m not asking can you ‘choose’ to see something else like another view or ‘black space’ if you close your eyes. The question is, can you turn seeing off? Can you NOT see what is seen?
No, "I" cannot unsee what is seen. I cannot willfully turn off the seeing when "eyes" are open or closed.
Same thing with the view on the left, can you NOT see the view on the left?
No, This is not possible either.
Same thing with the view in front with closed eyes, can you NOT see the ‘black space’?
it is not under "my" control or "will" to do anything about what appears in seeing.
Can you turn off seeing?
I cannot turn off seeing.
What did the 'chooser' choose? Did a 'self' choose something?
There is no chooser. there is a thought about "turning right" or "left" etc and the movement happened.
Then what is seen is seen, there was no choice to choose what to see or where to focus in that seeing.
There is no chooser to be seen. There is a "sense of seeing" present when seeing.
There is no self to be seen. Thought suggests that the "sense of seeing" is the "Sense of self".
If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?
This means that you cannot choose, the choice is already made.


Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4494
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby forgetmenot » Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:40 pm

Hello Tintu,
If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?
This means that you cannot choose, the choice is already made.
What exactly is it that is making the choice for the choice to be "already made"? This suggests time.
What is the AE of 'choice'?

Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Tintu
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:57 pm

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby Tintu » Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:40 am

Hi Kay,
What exactly is it that is making the choice for the choice to be "already made"? This suggests time.
What is the AE of 'choice'?
"I" cannot say anything about it. What is known is that "I/me" did not make that choice. The AE of "choice" is thought.

Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4494
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby forgetmenot » Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:58 am

Hi Tintu,
What exactly is it that is making the choice for the choice to be "already made"? This suggests time.
What is the AE of 'choice'?
"I" cannot say anything about it. What is known is that "I/me" did not make that choice. The AE of "choice" is thought.
Yes the AE of choice is simply thought. The label ‘choice thought’ is just given to a particular thought that thought suggests is somehow different to other thoughts. However, there is no hierarchy of thoughts.. a thought is simply a thought.

So let’s move onto having a look at the body.

Okay, so let’s have a look at the body.
Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.
Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?


Look very carefully, especially with the last question. Take your time, don’t rush. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, having a short break from work, walking, etc.) before replying.

Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Tintu
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:57 pm

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby Tintu » Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:04 am

Hi Kay,

Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:
Can it be known how tall the body is?
This cannot be known.
Does the body have a weight or volume?
This cannot be known as well.
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
Thought divides and forms shapes and form. in Actual seeing, there is no division and hence no shape or form.
Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
it was not possible to see a boundary between body and clothing. Thought creates the boundary.
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?
It cannot be determined, "I" was not able to see a boundary. in AE.
Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?
inside and outside is created by thought. without thought in direct seeing, there is no inside and no outside.

I will look into the next two questions a bit more and come back to you.

Note: All the questions about the body triggers thought in such a way that, it appears with all kind of "scientific" explanations. it required a lot of "pushing away" to start seeing. "I" had to remind myself(" reflective thoughts") that "Ok direct/Actual seeing is a way of seeing without the division of thought, let us get to the end of the rabbit hole, and we can always come back and use thoughts later".


Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
Tintu
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:57 pm

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby Tintu » Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:35 am

Hi Kay,
What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
The word/label 'body' refers to a thought.
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
The Actual experience of the body is color when seeing the 'body', a sensation of touch when touching the 'body', a sensation of sound when hearing to the body (sound of breathing etc), the sensation of smell when smelling the body. The thought is not an AE of the body. even though sensations seem to be sensed in the body, on looking, the location of sensations cannot be found. The Actual experience of color,touch,smell,sound etc points to something which is not nameable.

Thanks
Tintu.


Return to “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest