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 » Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:17 pm

Hi Kay,

Sorry, I did not get enough time to do the experiments. Moreover I was involved in a minor accident, noone harmed. But my car was hit by another one( imagine a speeding car in reversre). Was a good test of whether there is a feeler when sensations pour in :-). The car was an extended self for "me". I will get back to you as early as possible.

Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4495
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 20, 2018 11:19 pm

Hi Tintum

That would have been a shock...but you are unharmed, which is good. There would have been many emotions appearing, especially if you thought of the car as an 'extended self' of you. Not the easiest to do at the time, but can be looked at later when everything is calmer. Respond when you are ready.

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 22, 2018 9:38 am

Hi Kay,
So try this exercise with sensation and sound…and see if there is a feeler and a hearer.
"I" do not see a separation between hearing, hearer and heard.
Feelings are a separate ball game altogether. when the accident happened, There were too many emotions involved.
while at the heat of experiencing the emotions, it is difficult to discern or say there is no feeler.
Later when the dust settled a bit, "I" can see that the sensations are translated by thought to emotions. in many cases it seems the underlying sensation is same, whereas the feeling is something interpreted by thought (feeling of guilt,fear, failure, etc are derived from the same underlying sensation), I do not know how a sensation is associated with a specific feeling. This is not taught by anyone. how do thought discern a sensation of guilt from the sensation of fear?.
The crux of the matter is with thoughts, there is a lack of stickiness, knowing that they are just thoughts. but with emotions, the knowledge that the sensations are interpreted by thought does not change the amount of feel of the feelings. or is it that I have some hidden expectation that the feelings will be less severe once I know that there is no feeler.

Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4495
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 23, 2018 12:40 am

Hello Tintu,

Terrific observations, Tintu!
Later when the dust settled a bit, "I" can see that the sensations are translated by thought to emotions. in many cases it seems the underlying sensation is same, whereas the feeling is something interpreted by thought (feeling of guilt,fear, failure, etc are derived from the same underlying sensation), I do not know how a sensation is associated with a specific feeling. This is not taught by anyone. how do thought discern a sensation of guilt from the sensation of fear?.
Can thought discern anything? How is it known that the thought and sensation go hand in hand?

1. Put aside 10-15 minutes and sit quietly with your eyes closed.
2. Think of a story that seems to bring up the sensation ‘anxiety’ - one that you can feel in the body but not too intense that it overwhelms you.
3. Then with eyes still closed, I want you to LOOK very very carefully to see if you can find/see an actual link between the thought and the sensation. You are looking to find if there is something that links the thought/story with the sensation.
4. If the sensation starts to dissipate/weaken, then bring the story to mind again until the sensation is felt, then continue looking to see if you can see/find a link. You are looking for an actual link that connects the thought/story with the sensation.
5. If you find yourself following thought instead of looking carefully for the link, just bring your attention gently back to the sensation and continue looking.

Do this exercise at least 3-4 times throughout the next 2-3 days making sure to look very carefully.
Let me know what you find.

The crux of the matter is with thoughts, there is a lack of stickiness, knowing that they are just thoughts. but with emotions, the knowledge that the sensations are interpreted by thought does not change the amount of feel of the feelings. or is it that I have some hidden expectation that the feelings will be less severe once I know that there is no feeler.
Yes, it is an expectation that the feelings will be less severe once it is seen there is no actual feeler. What is it exactly that is controlling the intensity? How is it known that a sensation is more intense than another?

If you don’t think about it, do you know that this sensation is something called ‘fear’?
Is there any inherent fear in the sensation itself?
Go to the sensation at the soles of the feet. Would you label that sensation ‘fear’? Or is it just a neutral, undefined tingling sensation?
Now compare the sensation of the soles of the feet – which is just neutral sensation – and the sensation in your chest (labelled ‘fear’)…what is the difference between them?
Thought would say one is a little more ‘intense’, but apart from that – any difference?


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 25, 2018 10:04 am

Hi Kay,
1. Put aside 10-15 minutes and sit quietly with your eyes closed.
2. Think of a story that seems to bring up the sensation ‘anxiety’ - one that you can feel in the body but not too intense that it overwhelms you.
3. Then with eyes still closed, I want you to LOOK very very carefully to see if you can find/see an actual link between the thought and the sensation. You are looking to find if there is something that links the thought/story with the sensation.
4. If the sensation starts to dissipate/weaken, then bring the story to mind again until the sensation is felt, then continue looking to see if you can see/find a link. You are looking for an actual link that connects the thought/story with the sensation.
5. If you find yourself following thought instead of looking carefully for the link, just bring your attention gently back to the sensation and continue looking.

Do this exercise at least 3-4 times throughout the next 2-3 days making sure to look very carefully.
Let me know what you find.
"I" actually cannot see a link between "the thought which generates anxiety" and the "sensation". in direct seeing, the thought occurs, then sensation appears, then further thoughts describing what the sensation is etc appears. sometimes sensation appears and then thought appears about the sensation. even the idea that one happened before or after the other seems to be thought created. in both cases, there is no linkage found. This exercise helped to realize that life is a continuous wave of sensations (along with thoughts, seeing, hearing, touching and smell). This experience is all there is.

Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4495
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 25, 2018 10:24 am

Hi Tintu,
"I" actually cannot see a link between "the thought which generates anxiety" and the "sensation". in direct seeing, the thought occurs, then sensation appears, then further thoughts describing what the sensation is etc appears. sometimes sensation appears and then thought appears about the sensation. even the idea that one happened before or after the other seems to be thought created. in both cases, there is no linkage found. This exercise helped to realize that life is a continuous wave of sensations (along with thoughts, seeing, hearing, touching and smell). This experience is all there is.
Absolutely wonderful observing, Tintu! Yes, there is no link between thought and sensation…it is only thought that says they are linked. And yes…life is fluid…experience (thought, sound, colour etc) in motion :)

Let’s have a look at the idea of time. There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time, or an event that is moving forward on this linear time, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Any actual experience of one event following another?

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

How long does the ‘now’ last?

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?


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 25, 2018 10:57 am

Hi Kay,
Yes, it is an expectation that the feelings will be less severe once it is seen there is no actual feeler. What is it exactly that is controlling the intensity? How is it known that a sensation is more intense than another?
There seems to be nothing which controls the intensity. feeling just feels like seeing and other sensations.
without thought, sensations cannot be differentiated or compared against. even to say they are same or different is a comparison. without thought, the sensations will remain as is.
If you don’t think about it, do you know that this sensation is something called ‘fear’?
No, without thought no feelings are known. only sensations are known.
Is there any inherent fear in the sensation itself?
"sensation" in itself does not have any fear in it. many different feelings seem to stem from seemingly similar sensations.
Go to the sensation at the soles of the feet. Would you label that sensation ‘fear’? Or is it just a neutral, undefined tingling sensation?
Thought label it as neutral(devoid of 'feeling') tingling sensation.
Now compare the sensation of the soles of the feet – which is just neutral sensation – and the sensation in your chest (labeled ‘fear’)…what is the difference between them?
Thought would say one is a little more ‘intense’, but apart from that – any difference?
in direct experience, these sensations are these sensations. from a thought perspective, they feel the same. similarly if i see between a sensation which evokes laughter and a sensation which evokes fear, they 'feel' the same. it is thought story which makes one sensation intense and another mild.

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 » Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:20 pm

Hi Kay,
But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?
No, "now" is not found in direct experience. experience happens.
The Actual experience of the label "Now" is thought.
Thought divides experience into an idea called time.
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
No, "moment" is a label as well.
Any actual experience of one event following another?
without thought, there is no before or after. thoughts create an ordering of events.
How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?
There is no fast and slow with respect to the actual experience. "fast and slow" are conceptualizations.
Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?
No.
How long does the ‘now’ last?
it is not known where there is anything other than the "now".
Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?
"now" itself is a thought and start and end of "now" is thoughts about thought.
When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?
'past and future' are artifacts of thought.
What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?
Thought.
So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?
in Actual experience Time is not found, only thoughts about time is found.

Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4495
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 26, 2018 1:51 am

Hi Tintu,
Yes, it is an expectation that the feelings will be less severe once it is seen there is no actual feeler. What is it exactly that is controlling the intensity? How is it known that a sensation is more intense than another?
There seems to be nothing which controls the intensity. feeling just feels like seeing and other sensations.
without thought, sensations cannot be differentiated or compared against. even to say they are same or different is a comparison. without thought, the sensations will remain as is.
Yes, sensation is simply sensation..it just is.
Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?
"now" itself is a thought and start and end of "now" is thoughts about thought.
The here/now is not a place or a time. It is experience/THIS appearing exactly as it without all the conceptualisations.

Look into the mirror throughout the day. Body image appears... notice that all that's really there are some colours, and a thought-story saying 'these colours are my body'

When you return to the mirror each time, consider whether these 'body colours' have ever appeared before.

Has this body image + story ever appeared before - or is this the only time you have ever been aware of these *exact* colours and this exact story about the body?

Can you find any previous appearances of the body? Where are they? If not how can it be known that the body has appeared before?

Is the appearance just appearing 'now' with only a thought-story claiming you've seen this body before?

Do that for today and report back what you find.


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 » Sun Oct 28, 2018 12:06 pm

Hi Kay,
Has this body image + story ever appeared before - or is this the only time you have ever been aware of these *exact* colours and this exact story about the body
?
The *exact* body image and story never appeared before.it is only the "now" that is known from direct experience.
Can you find any previous appearances of the body? Where are they? If not how can it be known that the body has appeared before?
In direct experience only the "current appearance" is known.all previous thought stories about body appearing before is not known without thought.
Is the appearance just appearing 'now' with only a thought-story claiming you've seen this body before?
Yes.

It can be seen that the illusion of time and the illusion of memory is created by thought stories.Thanks kay.

Regards
Tintu

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4495
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 » Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:47 pm

Hello Tintu,.

Past and memory go hand-in-hand as almost everybody believes that a memory thought is referring to something that has happened; that a memory thought is a different thought than a non-memory thought.

Please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it.

What is memory exactly?
What is the memory ‘made of’?

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

WHEN does the memory actually appear?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?

WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?


Look at what is actually going on and not what thoughts say… but what actually is.

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 » Tue Oct 30, 2018 9:56 am

Hi Kay,
What is memory exactly?
What is the memory ‘made of’?
The label 'memory' correspond to the AE of thought and sensation. The label 'memory' is 'made up 'of images, words, and sensations.
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
in direct experience there seems to be no difference between 'general thought' and 'memory thought'. every thought seems to have a "psychological time"(another thought) associated with it. sensations and thought stories about the sensations ( such as guilt, embarrassment, happiness, sadness etc) appears.
WHEN does the memory actually appear?
similar to other thoughts, it appears when it appears.
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?
nice one. I was thinking about thinking in a dream and thought by a "mad" person etc. where the thought suggesting something happened is not "real". Thoughts aside, without thoughts it cannot be known whether the "thing" thought /memory referring to has happened before.
Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?
The AE of future thought is thought and sensation (images superimposed from past thought, words, and sensations). thought stories suggesting anxiety etc.
WHEN does the future thought appear?
it appears when it appears.
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
without thought differentiating them, there is no difference. thought stories suggest that future thought is a projection of past or imagination.
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?
it cannot be known.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?
Both are thought stories, without thoughts their difference cannot be known.
however, the thought stories corresponding to the past feels "more real" ( such as the thought stories suggesting that "I have seen this before", "I" remember etc) than the thought stories about the future.

Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4495
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 31, 2018 1:17 am

Hello Tintu,
What is memory exactly?
What is the memory ‘made of’?
The label 'memory' correspond to the AE of thought and sensation. The label 'memory' is 'made up 'of images, words, and sensations.
The label ‘memory’ is AE of thought. Thought may infer that sensation and a ‘memory’ thought go hand-in-hand, however if you look, can you find a link?

Does sensation itself, suggest in any way that it is associated with a thought?
Does sensation itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about ‘memories’?
Does thought know anything about sensations or memories?


What is it exactly that is feeling sensations?

Please close your eyes for this exercise, just notice any ‘mental’ images or thoughts that appear and put them aside.

Place a hand on a table and close your eyes.
Now 'go to' the sensation which we would normally refer to as 'hand on table' and answer from what you can FIND.

1) How many things do you find? Are there two things (hand and table) or is there one thing – AE of sensation.
2) Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'? Or is there just 'sensation'?
3) Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just 'sensation'?
What do you find?

Look very carefully. Where does ‘feeling’ end and sensation begin? Can a dividing line between ‘feeling’ and sensation be found? Or is there just sensation?

Can a ‘feeler’ be found in 'what is being felt' – AE sensation?

If that is all, and no INHERENT FEELER is found . . . would anything that is suggested as the feeler be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
in direct experience there seems to be no difference between 'general thought' and 'memory thought'. every thought seems to have a "psychological time"(another thought) associated with it. sensations and thought stories about the sensations ( such as guilt, embarrassment, happiness, sadness etc) appears.
And if we break down those thought stories about sensation eg guilt…what is actually appearing ie what is known?

The label ‘guilt’ is AE of thought and not AE of guilt
Sensation labelled ‘guilt’ is AE of sensation and not AE of guilt
Image labelled ‘me’ is AE of colour and not AE of guilt
The thoughts about guilt, what it is and the thought story about why ‘guilt’ is appearing are AE of thought and not AE of guilt or a guilty person.

So what is actually appearing (AE) is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT guilt, however is guilt actually known?
What is it exactly that is feeling 'guilt'?

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?
nice one. I was thinking about thinking in a dream and thought by a "mad" person etc. where the thought suggesting something happened is not "real". Thoughts aside, without thoughts it cannot be known whether the "thing" thought /memory referring to has happened before.
When are the thoughts about a so called ‘memory’ actually appearing?
Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?
The AE of future thought is thought and sensation (images superimposed from past thought, words, and sensations). thought stories suggesting anxiety etc.
A future thought is simply a thought which is given the label ‘future’. Thought may infer that sensation and a ‘future’ thought go hand-in-hand, however if you look, can you find a link?
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?
Both are thought stories, without thoughts their difference cannot be known.
however, the thought stories corresponding to the past feels "more real" ( such as the thought stories suggesting that "I have seen this before", "I" remember etc) than the thought stories about the future.
And what is this ‘feeling’ exactly? Does this ‘feeling’ suggest in anyway that it knows what is “more real” and what isn’t “more real”? Is it the nature of a 'feeling' to know anything? What suggests that the feeling suggests this?

This is a dream analogy of how all time is contained in an instant.
In the opening instant of a dream you find the 1st person dream character speeding along a highway towards the airport, because he is late for his holiday flight, because his wife couldn't find her passport.
Now you will notice that this is just the opening instant of the dream, yet it contains a whole "history" of being a person who is an adult and is married to a woman who left her passport behind, etc. It contains "memories" of having the drama with the lost passport, and it has a whole imaginary future too, in the flight and the holiday.
Do you see the analogy that is being drawn?

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 Nov 01, 2018 1:02 pm

Hi Kay,
The label ‘memory’ is AE of thought. Thought may infer that sensation and a ‘memory’ thought go hand-in-hand, however if you look, can you find a link?
"I" cannot see a link in AE. what I meant is that with "memory" thoughts , there is also sensation present. "I" did not mean that one is due to the other.so the actual experience of the memory thought is thought and sensation?. I see both when looking at a memory which generally brings about emotional response.

Does sensation itself, suggest in any way that it is associated with a thought?
No.
Does sensation itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about ‘memories’?
No.
Does thought know anything about sensations or memories?
No.
What is it exactly that is feeling sensations?
The sensations are seen/felt, There seems to be no-thing which feels sensations.

1) How many things do you find? Are there two things (hand and table) or is there one thing – AE of sensation.
There is only AE of sensation.
2) Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'? Or is there just 'sensation'?
There is just sensation.
3) Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just 'sensation'?
There is just sensation.

Look very carefully. Where does ‘feeling’ end and sensation begin? Can a dividing line between ‘feeling’ and sensation be found? Or is there just sensation?
There is just sensation. without thought there is no 'feeling'.
Can a ‘feeler’ be found in 'what is being felt' – AE sensation?
There is no feeler found. yes the actual experience of the "feeling" is sensation.
If that is all, and no INHERENT FEELER is found . . . would anything that is suggested as the feeler be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
feeler and feeling seems to a concept/idea/thought.
So what is actually appearing (AE) is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT guilt, however is guilt actually known?
What is it exactly that is feeling 'guilt'?
guilt is not known. the feeling 'guilt' is a thought about the sensation (AE of guilt).

When are the thoughts about a so called ‘memory’ actually appearing?
'memory' appears when it appears. a thought occurs which want to see a "memory" thought. a random thought which has certain story pops up.
A future thought is simply a thought which is given the label ‘future’. Thought may infer that sensation and a ‘future’ thought go hand-in-hand, however if you look, can you find a link?
There is no link between a thought and sensation. but when i look at a specific 'future thought' "which generally induces fear", there seems to be a thought and sensation is seen in actual experience.
And what is this ‘feeling’ exactly? Does this ‘feeling’ suggest in anyway that it knows what is “more real” and what isn’t “more real”? Is it the nature of a 'feeling' to know anything? What suggests that the feeling suggests this?
without thought there is no feelings and feeler. believe in feelings is already thought. the "more real" is more thought on top of the thought.The AE of feeling is sensation. feeling and other thought stories are nothing more than thought stories.

Do you see the analogy that is being drawn?
"I" see that one thought story can contain symbols which point to past and future thought stories.
but to say that I see "all time is contained in an instant " is a lie.

Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4495
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 Nov 02, 2018 12:50 am

Hello Tintu,
The label ‘memory’ is AE of thought. Thought may infer that sensation and a ‘memory’ thought go hand-in-hand, however if you look, can you find a link?
"I" cannot see a link in AE. what I meant is that with "memory" thoughts , there is also sensation present. "I" did not mean that one is due to the other.so the actual experience of the memory thought is thought and sensation?. I see both when looking at a memory which generally brings about emotional response.
The actual experience of a memory thought is simply thought. And the actual experience of a LABEL is thought.

Is a memory thought any different to any other thought, other than the fact it is given a label ‘memory’?

What is the AE of ‘emotion’?

What is it exactly that is feeling sensations?
The sensations are seen/felt, There seems to be no-thing which feels sensations.
There SEEMS to be? I want you to look and see if you can actually find anyone/anything that is feeling a sensation. If need be...go back and do the body exercise.

Where does sensation end and the knowing of it begin? Is there a dividing line between the knowing of the sensation and the appearance of the sensation or are they one and the same?


When are the thoughts about a so called ‘memory’ actually appearing?
'memory' appears when it appears. a thought occurs which want to see a "memory" thought. a random thought which has certain story pops up.

"A thought occurs which want to see a "memory" thought"? Is thought an entity? Is thought aware? Can you find a controller/thinker of what thoughts appear and when?
A future thought is simply a thought which is given the label ‘future’. Thought may infer that sensation and a ‘future’ thought go hand-in-hand, however if you look, can you find a link?
There is no link between a thought and sensation. but when i look at a specific 'future thought' "which generally induces fear", there seems to be a thought and sensation is seen in actual experience.
Yes, a thought and sensation may appear simultaneously, but how is it known that they go hand in hand?

If you don’t think about it, do you know that this sensation is something called ‘fear’?
Is there any inherent fear in the sensation itself?

Is there any inherent fear in the label ‘fear’ or the thoughts about fear or the future thought story?

Is there any link between the sensation and the thought? In other words is the sensation ‘coming from’ the thoughts that are labelled as ‘fearful’, or only thought and mental constructs link them?

And what is this ‘feeling’ exactly? Does this ‘feeling’ suggest in anyway that it knows what is “more real” and what isn’t “more real”? Is it the nature of a 'feeling' to know anything? What suggests that the feeling suggests this?
without thought there is no feelings and feeler. believe in feelings is already thought. the "more real" is more thought on top of the thought.The AE of feeling is sensation. feeling and other thought stories are nothing more than thought stories.
So to clarify…what you are saying is that there is no one who is the feeler of sensations…that there are only sensations?

Is the experience (ie sensation) and the awareness of the sensation two things? Is there experience AND awareness, or is experience self-aware without a separate thing which is aware?

Do you see the analogy that is being drawn?
"I" see that one thought story can contain symbols which point to past and future thought stories.
but to say that I see "all time is contained in an instant " is a lie.
No one is asking you to see “all time is contained in an instant”. As long as there is an understanding of it, then that is all that is required. The core belief of a separate self is what is seen through in this exploration and is only a beginning and not an ending. There will be other core beliefs that have to be fully realised and that won’t happen in this exploration.

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


Return to “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests