Got stuck in tiger's mouth

[poppyseed]

Hi Shafigh

It’s good to hear from you!

As I was exploring the concept of fetters, I came across the third one, which includes the idea that "Any action done with a purpose, for something, is a diversion." This struck me hard—like hitting a wall. It completely disrupted my usual way of thinking. Maybe because this idea isn't abstract; it's tangible and real in my day-to-day life. I'm not sure how to proceed from here.

I am not sure what you are talking about here. As far as I know, the third fetter is about enlightenment “practices” and “rituals”. They become redundant, as there is no self to benefit out of these practices, and there is nothing to be achieved. Is there still seeking? If there is seeking, there is a need for a practice to make things better (for whom?). What could possibly benefit from these practices? What is outside of THIS and trying to make things better? Also, is there an absolute “better” to be achieved? Is there an absolute “worse”? Or they are all relative to the conditioning (how thoughts are organized to describe reality)

Decision-making is still difficult for me, especially when I'm caught up in thoughts about right and wrong. This is when I feel the most friction and the most separate from life. I believe there's something underlying this struggle that I can't quite identify.

Again, what is “right” and what is “wrong”? Is “decision-making” (aka thinking) necessary for things to happen? Maybe give me a specific example that you are struggling with…

Love
Rali

[bysa]

Hi Rali,

I am not sure what you are talking about here. As far as I know, the third fetter is about enlightenment “practices” and “rituals”. They become redundant, as there is no self to benefit out of these practices, and there is nothing to be achieved.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear earlier. I’ve been watching videos on Fetters with Pernille, and this is the third one in the series. Here’s the quote I mentioned if you’d like to watch it: https://youtu.be/EIev2LopF6k?list=PLIoW ... pWizmHvVVD

Is there still seeking?

There’s definitely no seeking, just pure curiosity and exploration. That might be why I sometimes get caught up in certain mental concepts. It can feel like a struggle at first, but I can’t deny the joy I feel when I move through it.

If there is seeking, there is a need for a practice to make things better (for whom?). What could possibly benefit from these practices? What is outside of THIS and trying to make things better?

Even though there’s no seeking, I still notice the effort to make things better. Isn’t that natural? Even animals and plants strive for food, water, play, and getting away from danger.

Also, is there an absolute “better” to be achieved? Is there an absolute “worse”? Or they are all relative to the conditioning (how thoughts are organized to describe reality)

Whether there’s an absolute "better" or "worse," I’m not sure—that much is clear to me. I have many examples of events I initially considered good or bad, but they turned out to be different than I expected.

what is “right” and what is “wrong”?

I think this is something I sometimes forget and struggle with. In hindsight, it’s easy for me to look back and say, "Oh, that was silly—of course, there’s no 'right' or 'wrong.'" But in the heat of the moment, it’s not my default way of being.

Is “decision-making” (aka thinking) necessary for things to happen?

I’m not sure what "necessary" means in this context—necessary for whom? But from my experience, it seems like "I" need to make a decision, for example, saying yes or no to a request. For example, if someone is waiting for me to act, it feels I need to decide for that thing to happen.


All the love,
Shafigh

[poppyseed]

Hi Shafigh

The fetters are coming from Buddhist teachings and how people interpret them is very much a “new age” thing. This is much closer to the original teachings:
https://www.simplytheseen.com/3rd-fetter.html

I didn’t have 90 min to spare so to be honest I skimmed through it, but diversions and distractions from what – life – and for whom – “no self”? Thoughts are very much part of THIS. Again, the need to make THIS better seems ridiculous – it just is – perfect the way it is because it can’t be any other way. Better for “no-self”? Old thought patterns change by themselves when they are checked vs DE. Thoughts about DE change old patterns. There is no doer, no thinker, no decision-maker… I thought we saw that

There’s definitely no seeking, just pure curiosity and exploration. That might be why I sometimes get caught up in certain mental concepts. It can feel like a struggle at first, but I can’t deny the joy I feel when I move through it.

What gets caught in mental concepts???? What is trying to solve reality? What does "NO SELF" look like? The minute you have a “problem” to resolve, it should be a loud sign that there is “life improvement” in process – thinking vs reality.

Even though there’s no seeking, I still notice the effort to make things better. Isn’t that natural? Even animals and plants strive for food, water, play, and getting away from danger.

Are we talking about DE or fairy tales here? How do you know that? Is that something you experience or is it learned stuff??? What are animals in DE? The minute you start mixing DE with learned stuff, they clash. It’s something that is not comparable - apples vs mountains. THIS is indescribable but experienceable. The thing with self-organisation is that it just happens - it doesn't have a goal (e.g. more food, less suffereing), because "it" is not a thing. But even that is a story as there are no "things" in THIS - even thinking, seeing,... are labels describing patterns... So what could possibly have a goal - THIS? Does THIS suffer or need food? Does THIS think or do stuff?? Is there any meaning outside of thought content?

I’m not sure what "necessary" means in this context—necessary for whom? But from my experience, it seems like "I" need to make a decision, for example, saying yes or no to a request. For example, if someone is waiting for me to act, it feels I need to decide for that thing to happen.

Is thought necessary for seeing, smelling, hearing ... to happen? BUT Really??? Someone (others?)? You act? What is an action in DE? Give me a proper example of a decision making so we can work with it, please!

But just to cover some basics…
What makes what “others” say theirs? Do they own the question? Are "they" thinkers? In DE, there is hearing and thinking – labelled “others’ speech”. The interpretation of the sound is just thinking – not yours nor theirs. Where is this interpretation happening – outhere, here? Or nowhere? Also, in interpretation aka thinking, “your” reply ( yes or no) – is it really considered or is it just an old pattern? In a situation like this “I” do this because of my moral values, upbringing, previous experience… So where exactly do “you” come in the picture to decide? What does the decision maker look like?

If there was a decision maker, then there is a thinker (you decide what to think). How do you do that – where do you go to retrieve what you will say? Also there should be a doer – a listener, a seer, …

Here is an exercise for you

So let’s see if you are in control of seeing – decide what to see .
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 ‘blackspace’).
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/decide?
Did a 'self' choose/decide anything?
If you are unable to choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

And another one…
Sit quietly for 20 to 30 minutes and think of only one action which has happened during the day where you are 100% certain that you were the doer of that action. Then investigate it. And see where the investigation takes you to see if you were the doer (decider, chooser, controller) of any of it.

Did you at any moment decide to do that action?
How did that action begin?
Look and see if a particular thought arose which was the decision to do the action. Did a sound, sensation, smell, taste or image appear that was the decision to do the action. Were you in control of any of that? Or did those things just appear?

Did a thought, for example appear saying “I’d like a cup of coffee” and you got up and made a coffee? Or maybe it was a smell? You walked past a coffee shop and smelled the coffee and you found yourself buying a cup of coffee. Maybe it was a sound or an image that brought about the action. If a sensation arose, did you think the thought that seemingly created the sensation? Investigate every bit to see if you took part in any of how the action came about from beginning to end. If something hadn’t appeared like a thought, sound, image etc..then would have the action happened? Watch how some actions happen without any thought, sound, image etc.

Work with this and if you are still struggling give me a specific example that we can work with

Love
Rali

[bysa]

Hi Rali,

I didn’t have 90 min to spare so to be honest I skimmed through it

Didn't expect you to watch the whole 90 minutes, that's why I linked to part of it. But, generally, I don't like to quote others since it can be out of context. I came across her videos from Vince meetings that I joined a few times.

but diversions and distractions from what – life – and for whom – “no self”?

I don't know, that's where it wasn't clear to me, there is nothing except just what is then there is no distraction, anything is included.

the need to make THIS better seems ridiculous – it just is – perfect the way it is because it can’t be any other way. Better for “no-self”?

isn't the need to make THIS better also included in THIS? You never have the experience of wanting to change anything? like for example if you made your dinner and it doesn't have enough salt, do you just say it is perfect the way it is because it can't be any other way? or you go ahead and add salt to it?

What gets caught in mental concepts????

It feels like getting caught up, struggling to find the answer at the moment.

What is trying to solve reality?

I don't have a name for it, reality is trying to solve reality? as you mentioned above there is nothing besides reality

What does "NO SELF" look like?

I don't know

The minute you have a “problem” to resolve, it should be a loud sign that there is “life improvement” in process – thinking vs reality.

Loud sign? really? is there a clear line between thinking vs reality? isn't everything just reality? including thinking to solve a "problem"? Again, very curious if you can give me an example of your day-to-day life and how you approach events. I'm sure you still do things and move, but probably not phrasing it as a problem to resolve. Maybe in your life, there is no evaluating different options happening and just only one option appears and it gets executed. Maybe you're always in the flow of life, and never ever the sense of separate self appears. Genuinely curious

Are we talking about DE or fairy tales here?

Maybe you have a different definition of DE but anything that I experience is direct experience. Sometimes I feel DE is held as another concept, with rules and guidelines, this is DE this is not DE. I don't find anything outside of DE

How do you know that? Is that something you experience or is it learned stuff??? What are animals in DE?

Is learned stuff separate from THIS? Is there a line between learned stuff and other thoughts or even anything else? aren't learned stuff and thoughts, which as you mentioned are very much part of THIS? It feels like we're arbitrarily deciding what is in DE and what is not based on the situation and questions which I can understand because no one really knows what is truth

The minute you start mixing DE with learned stuff, they clash

Mixing? Is there anything that is not just THIS?

THIS is indescribable but experienceable.

Hmm, I don't follow the line you're drawing, all the things I mentioned are from my experience, they might be different than your experience but they are in my experience

The thing with self-organisation is that it just happens - it doesn't have a goal (e.g. more food, less suffereing), because "it" is not a thing. But even that is a story as there are no "things" in THIS - even thinking, seeing,... are labels describing patterns

you're pretty much describing your definition and the labeling you have for what is happening. If we take what you mentioned above that THIS is not indescribable, then I'm not sure your description is any "truer" than mine or anyone else

So what could possibly have a goal - THIS? Does THIS suffer or need food? Does THIS think or do stuff??

I don't see why not, it surely appears as suffering or needing food or thinking or doing stuff

Is thought necessary for seeing, smelling, hearing ... to happen? BUT Really??? Someone (others?)? You act? What is an action in DE?

No thoughts are not necessary for seeing, smelling, hearing ... to happen, but I think you and I agree that thoughts are also part of THIS. Action is the same as seeing, hearing, thoughts, it's a movement, changing what is seen, etc.

Where is this interpretation happening – outhere, here? Or nowhere? Also, in interpretation aka thinking, “your” reply ( yes or no) – is it really considered or is it just an old pattern?

nowhere. "my" reply is the result of old patterns + what is happening

So where exactly do “you” come in the picture to decide? What does the decision maker look like?

"I" is the result of all the moral values, upbringing, and previous experience including thoughts happening at this moment.

If there was a decision maker, then there is a thinker (you decide what to think). How do you do that – where do you go to retrieve what you will say? Also there should be a doer – a listener, a seer, …

There is no ownership of thoughts, and there is no thinker or decision maker but thoughts are happening, and "I" am aware of them, not in the sense of little Shafigh inside my head but there is awareness of thoughts coming and going, there is also awareness of gravitating toward some thoughts, evaluating them, going back and forth and making a decision happens

Here is an exercise for you

So let’s see if you are in control of seeing – decide what to see .
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 ‘blackspace’).
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/decide?
Did a 'self' choose/decide anything?
If you are unable to choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

There is no turning off anything. The experience of choosing is also part of THIS, isn't it? Again very curious to know how is your day-to-day experience when not talking about this stuff here, because choosing is happening in my experience.

And another one…
Sit quietly for 20 to 30 minutes and think of only one action which has happened during the day where you are 100% certain that you were the doer of that action. Then investigate it. And see where the investigation takes you to see if you were the doer (decider, chooser, controller) of any of it.

Did you at any moment decide to do that action?
How did that action begin?
Look and see if a particular thought arose which was the decision to do the action. Did a sound, sensation, smell, taste or image appear that was the decision to do the action. Were you in control of any of that? Or did those things just appear?

There is no doubt that decision-making just happens by itself and all the moral values, upbringing, and previous experience of this body-mind organization are also part of this process

Did a thought, for example appear saying “I’d like a cup of coffee” and you got up and made a coffee? Or maybe it was a smell? You walked past a coffee shop and smelled the coffee and you found yourself buying a cup of coffee. Maybe it was a sound or an image that brought about the action. If a sensation arose, did you think the thought that seemingly created the sensation? Investigate every bit to see if you took part in any of how the action came about from beginning to end. If something hadn’t appeared like a thought, sound, image etc..then would have the action happened? Watch how some actions happen without any thought, sound, image etc.

Passing by the coffee shop, smelled the coffee, thoughts popping up about oh coffee! let's have coffee! no, it's too late to have coffee! but remember coffee? it tastes good! no, if we have coffee then can't sleep well tonight! hmm, should I get a coffee or not? getting far, if you want a coffee stop! but no let's continue and just have a coffee, it's better to skip coffee! okay moving on



All the love,
Shafigh

[poppyseed]

Hi Shafigh

I can see doubt and confusion have returned :) Are they your confusion and doubt? Are you coming up with these thoughts or they appear as any other thoughts – unbidden?
You may notice that they arise as a result of a resistance to new ways, but look are these new ways a threat? What has been defended here really? This is what you should be looking at

Didn't expect you to watch the whole 90 minutes, that's why I linked to part of it. But, generally, I don't like to quote others since it can be out of context. I came across her videos from Vince meetings that I joined a few times.

Well, I made the effort and I understand what she is pointing to. She’s not saying that necessarily you have to get rid of all your identification, but just contemplate on it – see your patterns, observe what makes “you” you. You can’t change it on purpose (you are not a doer) but just observing it (seeing its emptiness) makes it dissolve and lose all its power/weight/pull. It’s basically the advice we give at the end of the inquiry – observe patterns. If there is suffering in any form – you observe what is really happening in DE (not in thought content). That is the only way old thought patterns that cause suffering will dissolve

Yes, thought content is “part” of THIS (no parts) but it is not truth /reality and it’s not all of the experience (which it claims to be). Thoughts (the experience of them) are a sensory experience like seeing, smelling…However, their content is another story (pun intended). Thoughts are always out of step with reality, and they obstruct the clear seeing of how things actually are. It’s like looking through coloured glasses and saying that reality is pink or blue, but when you take them off you see that is not. It’s like eating chocolate and thinking of chocolate – not comparable at all. The taste of chocolate is immediately and silently (wordlessly) known, since it is not conceptual. As soon as the label ‘taste of chocolate’ is added, the immediacy of experience is veiled by conceptualization. Any form of description is an abstraction, which is added after the immediate experience.
Clarity comes when the description of what was experienced is not understood to be all experience. Thinking in and of itself is not the totality of experience; there is also perception through the senses. If all focus goes to thinking, then the rest of experience is toned down or missed. And then you live in your head, lost in thinking, analysing. Being lost in the head can be fun, but most often it is not. Realizing the empty nature of all concepts frees the mind. Yes, it is fun to wear coloured glasses as long as you know that it’s not actually what it looks like – when the emptiness of thought content is seen.
When the mind is clear, it does not confuse the description of experience with real experience, words for things, or the map for the territory. The veil/filter that seems to be in the way of seeing, is made up of descriptions, of labels given to the whole experience. The silent experiencing of the senses is left in the background, unnoticed, ignored. Life cannot be experienced fully and richly if one is living a story about the present moment rather than living the present moment that is so full and rich in experience. It is not a necessity - you can live your whole life in your head, true - however it is an invitation for a different type of experience (fuller, richer...)
The biggest part of everyday thinking is made up of stories about what is not happening here and now. Of what should happen instead. These stories obstruct the full experience of what IS already here. Feeling all emotions is the same as having the freedom to live life fully. The rich fullness includes all.

but diversions and distractions from what – life – and for whom – “no self”?

I don't know, that's where it wasn't clear to me, there is nothing except just what is then there is no distraction, anything is included.

What does "NO SELF" look like?

I don't know

I had to check this as the danger of a new “seeker” appearing is quite possible. If you can’t describe this “no self” what makes it different from just an idea, an abstraction?
We'll come back to that awareness doing things - gravitating towards thoughts etc - once we are on the clear of desion making

Is learned stuff separate from THIS? Is there a line between learned stuff and other thoughts or even anything else? aren't learned stuff and thoughts, which as you mentioned are very much part of THIS? It feels like we're arbitrarily deciding what is in DE and what is not based on the situation and questions which I can understand because no one really knows what is truth

I’m sure even when you wrote that, you knew the answer for yourself. I think I answered this already, but just in case... Thought content is part of it but not all. Learned stuff is a shortcut description, and as long as it is known that it is a tool and not reality, it is fine. For example I can tell you that I’ve tried a new fruit – it is sour and flavourful, chewy and fibrous. You can imagine the taste form my description but you will never experience it. And here is the main difference between thought content and DE – thoughts are just an approximation of DE. If thoughts were reality, then you should be getting wet by just thinking of a waterfall :)

There is no turning off anything. The experience of choosing is also part of THIS, isn't it? Again very curious to know how is your day-to-day experience when not talking about this stuff here, because choosing is happening in my experience.

Well, the mirage of an oasis may look real but it’s not going to give you water. Choosing as we saw in the inquiry is an illusion – it just looks like something else. What looks as choosing is a combination of sensory experience and thoughts about it – the story of a choice/decision is layered on top of what is already happening. The actual thought content (aka the decision) is a pattern of thoughts that appear in similar “situations” (e.g. previous experience etc). The decision is a description/prediction but not necessarily what IS really happening. That‘s why we have also bad decisions :). I can also “decide” to go on a holiday in a month and it can never happen because of various reasons.
I’m not here to teach you but to guide you. You have to see all of this (THIS) yourself.
I think we talked about “Before enlightenment; chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment; chop wood, carry water.” Life carries on as before, it’s just the illusion has been seen. That brings freedom by removing the burden of responsibility – even relatively it is just cause and effect playing out. On a different level (my advice) – observing the thought patterns of “choices” allows all the unnecessary to fall out. When a story is seen as a story, not actuality, it can carry on without making things and events overly serious and dramatic. The story can be taken lightly; it can be entertaining and fun, as well as serious when a situation asks for seriousness. I hope this brings some clarity!

Passing by the coffee shop, smelled the coffee, thoughts popping up about oh coffee! let's have coffee! no, it's too late to have coffee! but remember coffee? it tastes good! no, if we have coffee then can't sleep well tonight! hmm, should I get a coffee or not? getting far, if you want a coffee stop! but no let's continue and just have a coffee, it's better to skip coffee! okay moving on

Thank you! A perfect example of a conditioned story that is trying to fit into what IS already happening :)

isn't the need to make THIS better also included in THIS? You never have the experience of wanting to change anything? like for example if you made your dinner and it doesn't have enough salt, do you just say it is perfect the way it is because it can't be any other way? or you go ahead and add salt to it?

Another perfect example of an illusion of a decision making. Salt is added not because it makes things better but because it is needed – your “body” craves it. The craving translates into “salt will make the taste better”. Similarly, sitting on the couch contemplating should you go eat ice cream or not – various pros and cons may appear (i.e. how to make life better), and you will see that sometimes you will just get up and you’ll find yourself at the fridge despite all the cons, and sometimes you won’t. It just happens :) The story is the pretty/ugly wrapping of it.

THIS could not be better or worse – it just IS. Better or worse is just a conditioned evaluation, a description. Also, is there time for this progression/change – it was bad and now is better? Where do you see the line of the previous event ending in DE? You see when you start challenging these old beliefs with what is really here, they start falling apart…

It seems like a long reply so please contemplate these questions and the rest before you write your next reply

Love
Rali

[bysa]

Hi Rali,

I can see doubt and confusion have returned :) Are they your confusion and doubt? Are you coming up with these thoughts or they appear as any other thoughts – unbidden?

It's funny—before, I was quick to label these thoughts, questions, and feelings as confusion and irritation, but I don’t see them that way anymore. Now, they feel more like curiosity, a form of exploration. I realize there’s no choosing thoughts or controlling what comes and goes, just as there’s no choosing which thoughts engage me and which simply pass through.

You may notice that they arise as a result of a resistance to new ways, but look are these new ways a threat? What has been defended here really? This is what you should be looking at

I honestly don’t know where or why these thoughts arise. I can’t deny that identification is still happening, and I do feel a sense of defending something at times, though I’m not entirely sure what it is. I’ll look further to see if there’s a story or feeling attached to them.

Life cannot be experienced fully and richly if one is living a story about the present moment rather than living the present moment that is so full and rich in experience.

Is it really possible to live without a story? I don’t fully grasp what it means to live the present moment without any narrative. The closest experience I have is during deep sleep or meditation when the sense of self dissolves—no thoughts, no "me," nothing. But I don’t think that’s what you’re referring to here. At any moment, there seems to be a story at play. Some stories are better than others, but they’re still stories. Anything we say or think feels learned; I don’t believe anyone truly knows what is real.

If you can’t describe this “no self” what makes it different from just an idea, an abstraction?

I understand what you mean about "no self" being more than just an idea—more like simply seeing, touching, and thinking, similar to the exercises we used to do, like describing activities such as drinking coffee.


Having coffee or adding salt to food are trivial examples, since there are very short lived and either do it or not do it and also as you said can be seen as bodily craving. However, let's consider a more significant example: quitting my job.
For a while now, I’ve been considering whether to quit or not. Thoughts arise suggesting I should quit, followed by another set of thoughts arguing against it. They fight and argue, leaving me feeling irritated and confused, and I end up avoiding the decision. So, I see three choices: quit, not quit, or remain confused and put it off. In my version of the story, it doesn’t feel like things are just happening on their own. Thoughts seem to narrate or own the decision after the fact, but no decision is actually made. What’s your perspective on this?

What is outside of THIS and trying to make things better? Also, is there an absolute “better” to be achieved? Is there an absolute “worse”? Or they are all relative to the conditioning (how thoughts are organized to describe reality)

THIS could not be better or worse – it just IS. Better or worse is just a conditioned evaluation, a description.

I still struggle with the idea that "THIS could not be better or worse—it just IS." I feel a strong urge, an uncomfortable sensation proportional to the importance of the situation, to make things better. I can’t just accept that, for example, if my boss is abusive, there’s no point in trying to improve the situation because "THIS could not be better or worse." You might argue that actions still happen and decisions are made to change a situation, but for me, that involves intentional thinking—considering pros and cons, different options—and this process feels like "me." There’s an entity that compares likes and dislikes, remembers past events, and anticipates what might happen in the future. There’s a continuity to this experience that doesn’t seem like thoughts and events are just happening on their own without any thread connecting them.

Also, is there time for this progression/change – it was bad and now is better? Where do you see the line of the previous event ending in DE?

The line is the difference in the sensations in my body, sensing tightness in "bad" situations vs openness in "good" situations


I guess you’re right—confusion and doubt have returned. The difference now is that I don’t see any reason to resist them because I don’t choose them.


All the love,
Shafigh

[poppyseed]

Hi Shafigh

I honestly don’t know where or why these thoughts arise. I can’t deny that identification is still happening, and I do feel a sense of defending something at times, though I’m not entirely sure what it is. I’ll look further to see if there’s a story or feeling attached to them.

Well when identification happen you have the tools – LOOK! Is there a person/Shafigh/I/me in any form? What IS actually here-now? Just have a fresh look. Don’t try to remember what you saw in the inquiry, just have an always fresh look

Identification is basically all beliefs that you hold dear and haven’t been challenged. Are they true? The reason they have been unchallenged is mostly because of fear. What has been protected here? What is at stake and for whom? When these patterns appear use the opportunity to inquire with curiosity and gentleness. This “got it – lost it” happens for quite some time but it’s important to recognise that these are just thought patterns that need exploring

Is it really possible to live without a story? I don’t fully grasp what it means to live the present moment without any narrative. The closest experience I have is during deep sleep or meditation when the sense of self dissolves—no thoughts, no "me," nothing. But I don’t think that’s what you’re referring to here. At any moment, there seems to be a story at play. Some stories are better than others, but they’re still stories. Anything we say or think feels learned; I don’t believe anyone truly knows what is real.

Is it really possible to be known what is real? Why bother when you can just experience it? ;)
I keep saying this but it doesn’t seem to sink in. The story does not disappear. Why should it do that? Is there an unchallenged expectation here? The story continues - be it an enlightened story or just every day ordinary stuff – the main difference is that it’s emptiness is seen. It’s seen like an entertaining interpretation (or serious when it is needed), like a tool. There is lightness to it because it is seen that nothing that thoughts talk about is actually true – it is just language, the icons on your desktop where there are only 1’s and 0’s. That lightness/toning down allows other stuff to be experienced which is usually ignored when the “story” is at play. Which leads me to the questions… Is there an entity that believes the story? Or are there just thought patterns that appear often because they are not seen through? Is there really a pull/gravitating toward thoughts or they just appear (often or rarely)? Is there an awareness separate from thoughts with clearly defined borderlines that is assessing these thoughts - measuring them, diving in them (getting lost), seeing through them? LOOK! It should be describable if it’s there. Nothing “seems like” or “feels like”, remember! Is there anything else but the heard, seen, smelled, tasted, and/or thought? How is being aware of view different from seeing a view? And is there separate seeing from the view (seen) – here is the seen and here is the seeing?

I understand what you mean about "no self" being more than just an idea—more like simply seeing, touching, and thinking, similar to the exercises we used to do, like describing activities such as drinking coffee.

EXACTLY!

Having coffee or adding salt to food are trivial examples, since there are very short lived and either do it or not do it and also as you said can be seen as bodily craving. However, let's consider a more significant example: quitting my job.
For a while now, I’ve been considering whether to quit or not. Thoughts arise suggesting I should quit, followed by another set of thoughts arguing against it. They fight and argue, leaving me feeling irritated and confused, and I end up avoiding the decision. So, I see three choices: quit, not quit, or remain confused and put it off. In my version of the story, it doesn’t feel like things are just happening on their own. Thoughts seem to narrate or own the decision after the fact, but no decision is actually made. What’s your perspective on this?

How is this example different from getting coffee, it’s just “unrolling” slower? Various reasons – pros and cons – appear. Are you coming up with them? Are they doing anything else but just to appear? How is any of this different from choosing between two drinks (remember the exercise we did)? It’s all a repeat, a recycling of old thought patterns that come in these “situations”.
You will either quit or you won’t and that will happen in the exact moment it should happen. Nothing you think about will make it come sooner or later (that’s the illusion) – it would have happened by now otherwise. The desire to plan, to control how life is unrolling is just that – a desire, a want, a thought. It is exhausting to try and be in charge of everything and “it” never happens the way you wanted – there is always something better or regret. And to think that nothing in the background is dependent on these “decisions” (the irony!)

The indecisiveness is also a thought pattern – having thoughts in seemingly different directions is just another pattern. LOOK! Are there really “thoughts going back and forth and making a decision happens” or they just appear together with what is happening (including seeming “nothing”)?

I still struggle with the idea that "THIS could not be better or worse—it just IS."... I can’t just accept that, for example, if my boss is abusive, there’s no point in trying to improve the situation because "THIS could not be better or worse."

Hmmm… That seems to stem from the idea that the map is the territory, the story is the reality. THIS is not ABOUT "your boss", THIS is what is ACTUALLY here.
Also there is a belief that there are others, doers, who are responsible for their actions.
First of all, is your boss really abusive or that is “your” interpretation of the situation? For you it could be “abusive” for others “driven” or “stern”. Do you know that there are languages which lack certain “basic” concepts like ‘fear’? Everything that you believe to be set in stone (morals) should be challenged (because nothing is :))! I think this hasn’t sunk in yet. Your interpretation of the situation is just that – interpretation. It is based on morals , values (aka conditioning) which are based on concepts and ideas about the “world”. Remember the “world” is nothing but a creation of language, and words are the building blocks that create the story about it
Second, how do you know for sure that there is a “boss”? All you experience is seeing, hearing, smelling … the rest are assumptions/beliefs. How do you know that that specific seeing (aka "your boss") thinks? All you have is thinking (content) that comes together with seeing, hearing,…
Even on a story level, there is just cause and effect, no reponsinility. There is an abusive actions, therefore I quit. The problem is when you have various causes and effects - e.g. the salary is good, I stay. These seeming contradictions create "indecisiveness" . However, there is no boss (just a label), there is no job - all a story. There is just THIS. There is no one navigating THIS, making it better. THIS is not the story, it is what is experienced, and what is experienced is not experienced by anyone it just is.
This is not to say that you shouldn’t quit – that will happen or not when it should despite the stories. What is helpful, is observing the story as it appears, seeing all the empty suffering and identification. Then the story changes on its own.

You might argue that actions still happen and decisions are made to change a situation, but for me, that involves intentional thinking—considering pros and cons, different options—and this process feels like "me." There’s an entity that compares likes and dislikes, remembers past events, and anticipates what might happen in the future. There’s a continuity to this experience that doesn’t seem like thoughts and events are just happening on their own without any thread connecting them.

How exactly do you do that intentional thinking? Do you do some kind of squeezing action? Do you use some brain muscles? Where do you go to retrieve the thoughts/memories that you wanted to use? Please describe! Do you have them arranged on shelves with dates and names? I’m not trying to mock you, I’m just pointing to DE. Also while you are there please describe that entity! If it’s there it should be describable, not assumed.
That is the illusion – thoughts (including memories) appear but there are no entities here that have intent, it’s all self-organized. Even the seeming organization is an illusion – it’s based on concepts which we’ve seen are not reality (the icons on the desktop). There are the senses but no “apple”, the apple is an assumption. There are no "actions" there are feeling and seeing. There are no "decisions" there is just thinking. LOOK!

Is there a continuity without the labels? Is there really a thread without the story? What exactly continues here? Yes there is seeing, hearing,… but without the labels are these different or there is just seeing (morphing)? Are there even separate seeing, hearing, …with clearly defined borders? Is there even experience (without the label)? Have a look at what is happening here and now, and see whether you can really say it is experienced. Or it just IS? Observe it without the label "experience" and see what it is.

Here are two exercises for you to explore…

A. The following link is a 7 minute clip of a soccer game. If you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5pL-myDzw

1. Watch one minute with the sound turned OFF, watching ‘people’ messing about with a round thing on a field, up and down, up and down. Let it sink in, the whole experience.

2. Once the first minute is completed, now watch another whole minute with the commentary turned ON.

Notice the differences.

Notice how the commentator (thought) offers lots of know-how, even advice. It seems to feel as though they can influence, somehow, what is going on, as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome. The commentary may seem to heighten any supporter feelings which are there, and call for an identification with one team or other, and with the importance of the game itself.

3. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary, the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Again notice all the differences in what is appearing as experience.

4. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know thought is talking about, and just notice it as sound.

What did you find when doing this exercise? Is the commentary on the soccer game a necessity for the play to happen?

And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

B. Explore this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyUtbn ... 4&index=35

Assuming that you are not a biologist, observe how random shapes are moving. Watch how thought is trying to figure out what is what, trying to find relationships and create stories. Look what is really here…

I feel a strong urge, an uncomfortable sensation proportional to the importance of the situation, to make things better.

The line is the difference in the sensations in my body, sensing tightness in "bad" situations vs openness in "good" situations

These ‘good” and “bad” sensations are the labels/patterns that carry identification. We can explore specific “emotions” a bit more if you want, but just observe, is there really “tightness” and “openness” (what is closed and what is open), or these are just labels for sensations which are grouped somehow as pleasant vs unpleasant (uncomfortable), to be preferred or avoided? Are there really unpleasant sensations? Masochists will argue with you here :). Something is labelled as unpleasant because of resistance to experience. Nothing should be avoided (not that it can be) – all should be “given the space” to be experienced – it will happen anyway when it does. Physical pain happens and is unavoidable, but mental pain, or suffering, is optional. Thoughts that tell the story about suffering are the suffering.

I guess you’re right—confusion and doubt have returned. The difference now is that I don’t see any reason to resist them because I don’t choose them.

Then is it your responsibility to resolve them? How exactly can you resist them? Can you stop a thought from appearing? Can you chose your thoughts
Love
Rali

[bysa]

Thank you, Rali.

Your words hit the right spot.

I wanted to have enough time to sit and go through your questions and comments. I still haven't finished, but I wanted to share where I am.

There are no "decisions," there is just thinking.

This simple sentence did wonders.

Well when identification happens you have the tools – LOOK! Is there a person/Shafigh/I/me in any form? What IS actually here-now? Just have a fresh look. Don’t try to remember what you saw in the inquiry, just have an always fresh look.

What I found is that only tension in the body and thoughts remain; there is no person in any form.

Identification is basically all beliefs that you hold dear and haven’t been challenged. Are they true?

I realize that no, they are not true, but I don't have access to what is true either.

The reason they have been unchallenged is mostly because of fear. What has been protected here? What is at stake and for whom?

I feel it’s a habit, the familiar way of operating for so many years, and the fear of how it would work without those beliefs. This is where another identification occurs—that someone was participating in making things happen, which in a relative sense makes sense. In the story of Shafigh, the character does actions, seems like deciding, thinking, learning, etc.

Is it really possible to be known what is real? Why bother when you can just experience it?

No, it's not possible. Is there anything besides experience? Whether I bother or not, it's still only experience.

The story does not disappear. Why should it do that? Is there an unchallenged expectation here?

There’s not an unchallenged but a forgotten expectation: that the story changes in a way that nothing feels uncomfortable, or hard, and there is no "I" anymore, almost like putting the character Shafigh on autopilot.

There is lightness to it because it is seen that nothing that thoughts talk about is actually true – it is just language.

Could you say more about what you mean by "it is just language"?

Is there an entity that believes the story? Or are there just thought patterns that appear often because they are not seen through?

In my experience, there’s no entity, just thoughts appearing as patterns of recognition.

Is there really a pull/gravitating toward thoughts or they just appear (often or rarely)?

I’ve noticed that the pull/push just appears without any entity to pull or push.

Is there an awareness separate from thoughts with clearly defined borderlines that is assessing these thoughts - measuring them, diving in them (getting lost), seeing through them?

I see there’s no line, no separation—just another thought, a story about seeing through more thoughts.

How is being aware of view different from seeing a view? And is there separate seeing from the view (seen) – here is the seen and here is the seeing?

This is key—there’s no seeing separate from what is seen, no awareness separate from thoughts, no entity separate from the six senses, no center, no glue.

Physical pain happens and is unavoidable, but mental pain, or suffering, is optional.

Is it really optional? Doesn’t "optional" mean that something can be done about it? Whether it happens or not seems unavoidable. Isn’t "optional" part of the story?

Is there really “tightness” and “openness” (what is closed and what is open), or these are just labels for sensations which are grouped somehow as pleasant vs unpleasant (uncomfortable), to be preferred or avoided? Are there really unpleasant sensations?

I notice my heart beats faster, there’s a closeness in the throat, and pressure on my chest and head.

How is this example different from getting coffee, it’s just “unrolling” slower? Various reasons – pros and cons – appear. Are you coming up with them? Are they doing anything else but just to appear? How is any of this different from choosing between two drinks (remember the exercise we did)?

It is the same when looked at directly.

Are there really “thoughts going back and forth and making a decision happens” or they just appear together with what is happening (including seeming “nothing”)?

It’s interesting that going back and forth seemed to be something different than thought, seemed like "me," but they’re just more thoughts. It’s really hard to find anything besides sensations and thoughts.

How do you know for sure that there is a “boss”?

I don’t, but in order to function in this world, it seems necessary to label what is seen as "boss," at least on a story level.

There is just THIS. There is no one navigating THIS, making it better. THIS is not the story, it is what is experienced, and what is experienced is not experienced by anyone – it just is.

This paragraph has something in it that quiets everything and stops any movement and effort. It stops all the explorations, "problems," "solutions," fetters, progress, etc. I can’t put my finger on what exactly is here, only silence.

It seems that there are things to be done, problems to fix, fetters to go through, issues to look at, and nothing to do at the same time. There’s this narrating voice that wants to understand it, formulate it, make it into things to do—a recipe. And the more it tries, the more entangled it becomes. And then there’s another thought to free it, help it. All of this is happening by itself, and there’s nothing to do—not even observing and watching, that’s too far from the experience.

All the love,
Shafigh

[poppyseed]

Hi Shafigh

I realize that no, they are not true, but I don't have access to what is true either.

Well, really? True enough, thoughts are never truth, but if truth is what you want, look, it’s in front of your eyes! Truth is simple—life is. There is no separate life force that moves the separate body. There is no thinker, no watcher, but experience happening. Now. Truth is seen by looking at experience, at what is actually happening right here, right now, in experience, underneath all thoughts. Return to the uninterpreted moment; your truth is there, before the stories. That’s where quiet and peace can be found. All you need to do is look with honesty and courage into the truth, into the obvious.
There is no “you” that you think you are, no character, no Shafigh in any shape or form. There is flow of life— effortless, spontaneous—happening by itself, right here, right now. Sensations are happening, thoughts are passing by; they are not your thoughts; there is no thinker. The thinker isn’t someone special—the thinker is nothing but the thought.

This is where another identification occurs—that someone was participating in making things happen, which in a relative sense makes sense. In the story of Shafigh, the character does actions, seems like deciding, thinking, learning, etc.

I don’t, but in order to function in this world, it seems necessary to label what is seen as "boss," at least on a story level.

When you say a “character”, is there an actor playing “Shafigh”? How does a character operate/function? Is there anything that controls the story? Is Spiderman choosing what he is going to do next in the story of Spiderman. Is he also the scriptwriter? Choice is also part of story, and the story is fictional. Take a look at Shafigh from the point of view of a friend, family member, somebody you never met, a colleague, your boss: What can you see? Is it still the same character?
Is there really anything playing Shafigh or the idea of a character is just an illusion? Is there a “body” or "Shafigh" that goes through sensations?
Are you in control of the story?? What is it that adjusts decisions and actions when something is not going well? Where exactly is the ‘control room’? Where is the place where everything is monitored? What monitors what is going on, follows up on the story, adjusts it etc? What does the script?
Can the Shafigh-thought do anything? Are these thoughts different from other thoughts? Do they have any special faculties, can the I-thoughts see or hear? Can they do anything else – i.e. plan, decide, act
IS the boss writing his script? Does he exist outside of the story?

There is lightness to it because it is seen that nothing that thoughts talk about is actually true – it is just language.

Could you say more about what you mean by "it is just language"?

What is “meaning”? Does meaning exist outside of the story? Or meaning is a by-product of a combination of words? Language is basically the relationship between concepts – how they are organised. That carries meaning on top of the meaning of the actual concepts. That is why different concepts mean different things to different people and in different situations. Clearer now?

Physical pain happens and is unavoidable, but mental pain, or suffering, is optional.

Is it really optional? Doesn’t "optional" mean that something can be done about it? Whether it happens or not seems unavoidable. Isn’t "optional" part of the story?

Well, we get to a point where whatever we say is no truth anymore :). However, what is meant here is that seeing that map is not the territory but just a description gives that lightness. Experience of “pain” is what IS happening – there is a sensation there that could be experienced. However, the actual experience of anxiety is a thought story. Does any sensation know anything about financial security or pollution…? It just IS. Can a thought cause a sensation to appear? Did you decide to think about quitting?

You skipped a few questions which I don’t like – the ones that you want to skip are the interesting ones :)

Is there really “tightness” and “openness” (what is closed and what is open), or these are just labels for sensations which are grouped somehow as pleasant vs unpleasant (uncomfortable), to be preferred or avoided? Are there really unpleasant sensations?

I notice my heart beats faster, there’s a closeness in the throat, and pressure on my chest and head

.

What are “heart”, “throat”, “chest” and “head” in DE? How is your “throat” closed? Can you really see that? How exactly – x-ray? You are giving me just more descriptions here, you didn’t look!

It seems that there are things to be done, problems to fix, fetters to go through, issues to look at, and nothing to do at the same time. There’s this narrating voice that wants to understand it, formulate it, make it into things to do—a recipe. And the more it tries, the more entangled it becomes. And then there’s another thought to free it, help it. All of this is happening by itself, and there’s nothing to do—not even observing and watching, that’s too far from the experience.

Exactly! It’s the battle of thoughts with regards to liberating THIS :)
What is useful here, is observing the resistance. If there is resistance (yes it is part of what is happening), it begs to be seen through (by no one) – it is how self-organisation works. It (the story) causes friction followed by smoothing, looking, observing, self-correction – by comparing itself to what IS really happening. If there wasn’t any resistance you wouldn’t have contacted me to ask if it’s necessary ;), right?
"Seem" is unclarity. "Look" is clarity. Please look.
Love
Rali

[bysa]

Hi Rali

When you say a “character”, is there an actor playing “Shafigh”?

No, there is no actor. The "character" is simply a concept, part of the story being told.

How does a character operate/function? Is there anything that controls the story?

From the character's perspective, it looks like things happen due to cause and effect, or based on certain rules governing how objects move and interact. But if you zoom out, it all seems to unfold according to a script that is already in place.

Is Spiderman choosing what he is going to do next in the story of Spiderman. Is he also the scriptwriter?

In the story, Spiderman appears to be making choices, but in reality, he is just following the plot. He’s not the writer of his own script, even though it feels like he is making decisions.

Take a look at Shafigh from the point of view of a friend, family member, somebody you never met, a colleague, your boss: What can you see? Is it still the same character?

From what people say, it seems like they each have a different perspective on "Shafigh." But fundamentally, they all see and interact with an entity labeled as "Shafigh."

Is there really anything playing Shafigh or the idea of a character is just an illusion?

There is no "thing" playing Shafigh that I can find. Yet, the story of Shafigh is happening, with others addressing him, talking to him, and referencing a past and future. Just like how you began this message by saying "Hi Shafigh."

Is there a “body” or "Shafigh" that goes through sensations?

What is labeled as the body or Shafigh is really just a summation of sensations.

Are you in control of the story?

No, because I don’t control the thoughts that arise, and all perceptions of control seem to come from thoughts themselves.

What is it that adjusts decisions and actions when something is not going well?

There doesn’t seem to be an entity adjusting things. It’s more that thoughts arise and actions follow—like when feeling cold, a thought to put on layers appears, and the body moves accordingly.

Where exactly is the ‘control room’?

In my direct experience, I can’t find a control room. What I see are just thoughts of control.

Where is the place where everything is monitored? What monitors what is going on, follows up on the story, adjusts it etc? What does the script?

I don’t know. I just notice thoughts arising and decisions being made without any central "monitoring station."

Can the Shafigh-thought do anything? Are these thoughts different from other thoughts? Do they have any special faculties?

What exactly is a Shafigh-thought? As far as I can tell, it’s just like any other thought. It doesn’t seem to have any special abilities.

Can the I-thoughts see or hear? Can they do anything else – i.e. plan, decide, act?

No thought can actually do something on its own. There is just a sequence: a thought arises, followed by an action. For instance, writing happens after thinking about what to write.

You mentioned previously "Thoughts are there, they can be noticed." This is my experience too. My question is how are they noticed? Who/what notices them? This is the difference between seeing and hearing and thoughts. In my DE, there is only seeing, no one sees, there is only hearing, no one hears, but is there also only thinking without no one noticing them? If we line up a frog, myself, and a dog, and make all of us run toward a tree, each of us would avoid the tree in our own way, regardless of how we perceive it. But thoughts are unique—they only appear in my mind. That makes it seem like there’s something in me that notices them. (Interestingly, you also refer to "others" when you asked me to consider Shafigh from different perspectives: "Take a look at Shafigh from the point of view of a friend, family member, somebody you never met, a colleague, your boss: What can you see?")

IS the boss writing his script? Does he exist outside of the story?

He doesn’t exist outside of the story, and it’s clear that he’s not writing his own script.

What is “meaning”? Does meaning exist outside of the story? Or meaning is a by-product of a combination of words?

Meaning is part of the story.

Does any sensation know anything about financial security or pollution…?

No.

Can a thought cause a sensation to appear?

Sensations: seeing, hearing, etc., no. But what about a heart beating faster or sweating when a scary thought arises?

Did you decide to think about quitting?

No.

You skipped a few questions which I don’t like – the ones that you want to skip are the interesting ones :)

I'll go over them and write what comes up.

What are “heart”, “throat”, “chest” and “head” in DE?

Labels.

How is your “throat” closed? Can you really see that? How exactly – x-ray?

I can't really see that, so what is that tightness? I know this is just another description, but how else can we talk without using labels and descriptions?

It’s the battle of thoughts with regards to liberating THIS :)

True.

If there wasn’t any resistance you wouldn’t have contacted me to ask if it’s necessary ;), right?

Right.

===== previous post

Is there anything else but the heard, seen, smelled, tasted, and/or thought?

No.

How is being aware of view different from seeing a view? And is there separate seeing from the view (seen) – here is the seen and here is the seeing?

It's not separate, just language.

Is your boss really abusive or is that “your” interpretation of the situation?

"My" interpretation.

How do you know for sure that there is a “boss”? All you experience is seeing, hearing, smelling … the rest are assumptions/beliefs. How do you know that that specific seeing (aka "your boss") thinks?

I know there is no "boss." There is just a response/reaction to what is seen, heard, and thought.

How exactly do you do that intentional thinking? Do you do some kind of squeezing action? Do you use some brain muscles? Where do you go to retrieve the thoughts/memories that you wanted to use? Please describe! Do you have them arranged on shelves with dates and names?

No, none of that. There is no intentional thinking, squeezing action, or retrieving thoughts. There’s just another thought that asks: if everything happens by itself, then what is my role?

Is there a continuity without the labels? Is there really a thread without the story?

Nothing exists without the story, at least in my experience, as you mentioned, "The story does not disappear."

What exactly continues here?

The story.

Yes, there is seeing, hearing,… but without the labels are these different or is there just seeing (morphing)? Are there even separate seeing, hearing, …with clearly defined borders? Is there even experience (without the label)?

No experience without the story. No separation between sensations without the story.

Soccer game clip experience

What did you find when doing this exercise? Is the commentary on the soccer game a necessity for the play to happen?

No, commentary is not a necessity for the play to happen.

And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

I’ve developed some resistance to applying these kinds of examples to THIS. Maybe because examples can easily be used to prove different points. For example, sure, commentary isn’t necessary for the soccer game, but what if the coach was using a headset to talk to the players? Then he could affect how the game is played.

Then is it your responsibility to resolve them? How exactly can you resist them? Can you stop a thought from appearing? Can you choose your thoughts?

There is no responsibility. Thoughts arise on their own (or from something I don’t know). Responses also arise, whether they take the form of resolving, inquiry, exploring, or something else.

===== previous post

All the love,
Shafigh

[poppyseed]

Hi Shafigh :)

Reading your reply make me think that you are confusing the presence of thinking (the energetic feel of a thought arising) with the content of a thought

What is a story? How many stories are there? What suggests that one thought is linked to the next? Do they have numbers – first, second, then thoughts without numbers (not related) and then back to numbers (related to the story)?
Example of thoughts arising:

Sensation arising labelled painful, stomach, hunger:

Thought 1: I’m hungry
Thought 2: I think there’s some bread in the fridge (possible mental image of bread in fridge)
Thought 3: No there isn’t, I ate it last night
Thought 4: I could go to the shops (possible mental image of shops)…
Thought 27: I have been thinking about food.

Now when we look at this, do we find thought 27 has any knowledge of any of the other thoughts, let alone them all? It seems that way, but when we look closely, what is found?
Remember we are not interested in what it looks like (the illusion) but what IS really here!
We’ll come back to your answer once this is clear…
Love
Rali

[bysa]

Hi Rali

Reading your reply makes me think that you are confusing the presence of thinking (the energetic feel of a thought arising) with the content of a thought

It could be. When I first read this sentence, I find it difficult to distinguish between the presence of thinking and the content of a thought.

What is a story?

A story is a narrative, a memory, or a continuation of events—like a thread running through beads.

How many stories are there?

There’s just one.

What suggests that one thought is linked to the next?

The presence of certain components: visual, auditory, and a narrator that connects thoughts and sensations together, creating a continuous story.

Do they have numbers – first, second, then thoughts without numbers (not related) and then back to numbers (related to the story)?

No, there aren’t any numbers, and there isn’t a disconnected thought. It’s all part of one story, like watching a movie. There may be different scenes and characters, but everything is related, not necessarily to the main character, but to the overall plot. And the common element is that I’m the one watching it all, just like in a movie where, despite different characters and events, past and future, you’re still the one observing the entire thing.

Now when we look at this, do we find thought 27 has any knowledge of any of the other thoughts, let alone them all? It seems that way, but when we look closely, what is found?

Yes, it does seem that way. Could you guide me on how to look closely? I’m unsure of any other way to examine this.

Remember we are not interested in what it looks like (the illusion) but what IS really here!

I’m not clear on the distinction between what it looks like and what IS, especially when it comes to thoughts. How do I separate the content from the presence of the thought?

All the love,
Shafigh

[bysa]

Hi Rali

I just wanted to add something that occurred to me after my reply:

Now when we look at this, do we find thought 27 has any knowledge of any of the other thoughts, let alone them all? It seems that way, but when we look closely, what is found?

The only other way I can look is that at each "moment", "the world": what is seen, heard, touched, smelled, tasted, and thought is created anew. Everything is made again and again and again, the thought of a watcher, what is watched. This is a very wild way because there is no line between moments, I can't say one moment ends and another one starts.

I will look at the experience this way until you reply to me.



All the love,
Shafigh

[poppyseed]

Hi Shafigh :)

A story is a narrative, a memory, or a continuation of events—like a thread running through beads.

Is there a continuation of events without the content of thought? How is it known that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened? Is there a past or future that you can visit? Can you experience 30 sec ago?

The presence of certain components: visual, auditory, and a narrator that connects thoughts and sensations together, creating a continuous story.

What listens to the “narrator” and connects thoughts and sensations together? Are you the one that listens or the one that talks? What does the narrator look like? Does he/she has a voice? Whose voice is that – yours or someone else’s? Can you record that voice and play it again? Have you ever been able to record thoughts as they spontaneously arise and then play them back in order to hear them, and to hear that they are in your voice?
So do thoughts actually have a sound? Or is the ‘voice in the head’ simply thoughts about sound? Can thoughts be felt, smelled, tasted, heard or seen, or are they just known?

No, there aren’t any numbers, and there isn’t a disconnected thought. It’s all part of one story, like watching a movie. There may be different scenes and characters, but everything is related, not necessarily to the main character, but to the overall plot. And the common element is that I’m the one watching it all, just like in a movie where, despite different characters and events, past and future, you’re still the one observing the entire thing.

How is it known that everything is related and the thoughts are not disconnected if they have no numbers or any other elements in their “energetic appearance” that show that they are connected (we are not looking at the content, not DE)? Is there an entity/a watcher of the movie that makes sense of the thoughts? Or this is just another thought? The “continuous story” cannot exist without a watcher/observer/witness which follows on the story (remembers previous events, knows the characters, their key features, etc. So let’s explore this watcher…
From where is the watcher looking at what’s happening? For example, is it from behind and above you, or maybe from behind your eyes? Where are the thoughts being “projected” and where is the watcher that observes them exactly? Is the watcher of the movie what you’ve taken as “you”?
Which body sensations are present that suggest that something is there? When the thought story/the “movie” seems to arise, there should now be two entities, a watcher and thought. Are there 2 things? Where does the thought end and the watcher begin? What is the boundary between them made of? Can the point in time be found at which the thought crosses the border from being unknown to being known? At which exact moment does the thought become known to observer - upon arising, after some time, or shortly before it disappears? Does it feel like thought and observer are one? The thoughts are known. What is the proof for an additional element ‘observer’ being there? You can look with these questions into the observer of sensations, sounds, colours, etc. BUT LOOK! Please provide your answer in terms of what is heard, smelled, seen, tasted or felt, nothing that seems like or feels like (which is not DE)

Now when we look at this, do we find thought 27 has any knowledge of any of the other thoughts, let alone them all? It seems that way, but when we look closely, what is found?

Yes, it does seem that way. Could you guide me on how to look closely? I’m unsure of any other way to examine this.

Can a thought think, know stuff, see, smell…? Or just IS?
The thought content is made of concepts, which we’ve seen are just labels not inherently existing things/objects but just a mere description of DE. Thoughts are self-organised. They stick to each other like matching puzzle pieces. Language is basically the relationship between concepts – how they are organised. That carries meaning on top of the meaning of the actual concepts. That is why different concepts mean different things depending on conditioning (patterns) and in different situations. The sequencing of thoughts creates the illusion of a story with a main character and supporting ones. Like the frames of a movie, where rapid series of still images create the illusion of movement, the sequencing creates an illusion of a “movie” but when frame rate slows down all the illusion of movement is lost.

I’ll give you another exercise , which might be helpful in your inquiry into the nature of thoughts:
Notice the current thought that is present. Like “I didn’t like how they treated me” or any sorts of thought. This thought will pass and another thought will come. So just observe this thought passing. Then wait for the next thought to come. When the next thought is present, just notice it, and see how it passes. Then wait for the next thought to come. Repeat this many times. Between the two thoughts there is a gap. It can be very short, just a few seconds before the next thought come in. Throughout your day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. It can be done by noticing that ‘thinking’ is happening right now, then stop and just simply wait for the next thought to come. In the ‘waiting’ there is a gap between two thoughts. If you can’t do the exercise as you go about your daily business, put aside 10-15 minutes or longer to sit quietly somewhere to just observe thoughts as they arise and subside. If need be, do a couple of sittings throughout your day.

The only other way I can look is that at each "moment", "the world": what is seen, heard, touched, smelled, tasted, and thought is created anew. Everything is made again and again and again, the thought of a watcher, what is watched. This is a very wild way because there is no line between moments, I can't say one moment ends and another one starts.

Yes, that is another way of exploring this…
Love
Rali

[bysa]

Hi Rali,

I’ve tried to answer the questions as clearly as I could. However, for most of them, the words and language I’ve used don’t fully reflect my direct experience. My experience can’t truly be captured by words, and when I do use them, it’s because that’s our only way of communicating—though I know it’s not quite “it”. So, if some of my answers sound abstract or like common phrases, please forgive me, I did my best.

Is there a continuation of events without the content of thought?

No.

How is it known that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Because of the content of that thought, the story, which includes the element of time. It’s like a movie with past events.

Is there a past or future that you can visit? Can you experience 30 seconds ago?

Not outside of thought. A thought appears with past events, followed by another thought that builds on it, carrying traces of the previous one. In the story, there’s a sequence of events—cause and effect.

What listens to the “narrator” and connects thoughts and sensations together?

Another thought.

Are you the one that listens or the one that talks?

The one that listens, the one that is aware—the one prior to language, the impersonal sense of being. This is where language falls short when trying to describe or explain something that can’t be contained by words.

What does the narrator look like? Does he/she have a voice? Whose voice is that—yours or someone else’s? Can you record that voice and play it again?

There’s no recognizable voice—it’s almost like there isn’t one. It’s just known. You can’t record it, describe it, or say it exists. It has the same qualities as the next thought.

Have you ever been able to record thoughts as they spontaneously arise and then play them back to hear them, and hear that they are in your voice?

No, but I can remember the order in which they appeared.

So do thoughts actually have a sound? Or is the ‘voice in the head’ simply thoughts about sound? Can thoughts be felt, smelled, tasted, heard, or seen, or are they just known?

No sound—thoughts are just known.

How is it known that everything is related and the thoughts are not disconnected if they have no numbers or other elements in their “energetic appearance” that show they are connected (without looking at the content)?

It’s in how they’re known. A thought is known, and within it is information about past events and its connection to the previous thought. That’s why it’s difficult to draw a line between them.

Is there an entity/a watcher of the movie that makes sense of the thoughts? Or is this just another thought?

It’s just another thought—or perhaps one continuous, eternal thought.

From where is the watcher looking at what’s happening? For example, is it from behind and above you, or maybe from behind your eyes?

No place—the watcher can’t be found.

Where are the thoughts being “projected” and where exactly is the watcher that observes them?

Thoughts don’t seem to appear from outside. They pop up in a place that might be described as “inside,” though it’s not clear. I don’t know where that place is; they’re simply known without distance between thought, thinking, and knowing.

Is the watcher of the movie what you’ve taken as “you”?

I don’t know what “me” is anymore. It’s not an entity, but is it just a thought? The only thing I can say is that the sense of the watcher and the way thoughts are known is different from seeing or hearing.

Which body sensations are present that suggest something is there?

Just a familiar energy, a density in the chest, throat, and head.

When the thought story/the “movie” seems to arise, there should now be two entities—a watcher and a thought. Are there two things?

Yes, there are two things.

Where does the thought end and the watcher begin?

It’s like the watcher overlays the thought, as if the thought is written or played (visually or audibly) in a loop. All thoughts and the watcher of the thoughts seem to be happening in the head, while emotions and the feeler of emotions occur below the neck (in the chest, gut, etc.).

What is the boundary between them made of?

There’s no boundary—the watcher contains the thoughts.

Can the point in time be found at which the thought crosses from being unknown to being known?

There’s no point at which the thought is unknown—it’s always known. The looping is just for further consideration, like evaluation.

At which exact moment does the thought become known to the observer—upon arising, after some time, or shortly before it disappears?

Upon arising.

Does it feel like thought and observer are one?

The observer contains the thought, but they are not one.

What is the proof of an additional element, the ‘observer,’ being there?

Different thoughts with varying contexts come and go, but the observer is always present.

I’ll give you another exercise which might be helpful in your inquiry into the nature of thoughts: Notice the current thought that is present. Like “I didn’t like how they treated me” or any other thought. This thought will pass, and another will come. Observe the thought passing, then wait for the next thought. When the next thought is present, just notice it and see how it passes. Repeat this many times. Between the two thoughts, there is a gap. It may be very short, but it’s there before the next thought comes in. Throughout your day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. If you can’t do this during your daily activities, put aside 10-15 minutes or more to sit quietly and observe thoughts as they arise and subside.

I’ve tried this over the past week. Couldn't find the gap, thoughts are coming and going but thinking is always happening, like a constant hum. Even when I sit quietly, thoughts may change in nature to something more spiritual or impersonal, but they never stop. There were moments of absolute nothingness, but I can’t tell if that was deep sleep or something else because “I” wasn’t there to report back. The only way I know is by looking at the time—20 minutes passed, but it felt like an instant.

All the love,
Shafigh