No idea

[TomnotTom]

Hi Vivien

Either way there are sensations in the body that appear to be connected to a something that doesn't exist here, now. A future event that exists only in thought

.

But isn’t this connection is logical?
If you don’t think about a connection, is there an actual experience of a connection?

I need to test this some more. The difficulty is that such moments are brief so i am often referring to the experience as a memory which is no use in answering this question.

It's like the memory is stored in the body and when that memory is triggered there is a shockwave of energy through the body. This is real and observable in direct experience.

Are you sure about this? Are you sure that memory being stored in the body is a direct experience?'

No I am not sure about this. I can see that this is a mental leap from direct experience based on thoughts and ideas.

How does memory being stored in the body is experienced?
Can memory being stored in the body be seen?
Can it be heard?
Can it be smelled or tasted?
Can you touch memory being stored in the body?
Or you can only ever IMAGINE and THINK ABOUT it?

What is direct experience? Please tell me in your own words?

Direct experience is the input from senses that I experience right now plus the experience of thoughts happening.

Right now this is the screen in the centre of vision with hands below typing.

The sound of pipes humming in the room

The sensation of warmth in the body and the hands touching the keys

The faint smell of incense in the room

Once these words have labeled these things the experience is already lost in translation. As soon as it is written it exists only as a thought and is not the true experience.

The thought also exists within direct experience although it's content is not real. Like a book is a physical object but the story it contains is all in the imagination.

And what is the direct experience of memory being stored in the body?

In order for this to be observed I first become associated with a thought story. As we have established this story is not real, however there is still an experience of following this thought. At some point the story will become uncomfortable or painful. At this point I become aware of the body and tension happening, often around the face or stomach.

What would happen to this SEEMING connection if all your thoughts would suddenly turn to a foreign language or the tweeting of bird

Assuming cause and effect is an attempt to explain what cannot be explain to create a false security of “I know how things are”.

This seems like a big and important leap and I think I need a bit more time to see what you are pointing to.

I will keep looking into this. I think this is really getting to the core of the issue.

Tom

[Vivien]

All right Tom, please stay with this more. Look with every question I gave you.
Please reply again to each question one-by-one. Look carefully.

Vivien

[TomnotTom]

Hi Vivien,

These latest questions are blowing my mind. I guess that's what I'm here for so that's good :)

I'm still struggling a bit though.

Assuming cause and effect is an attempt to explain what cannot be explain to create a false security of “I know how things are”.

It is a closely knit story, isn't it?
Language, body, habits, tendencies, conditions, cause and effect.
If you look at it closely again you will find that all is product of thought, all told and happening in thoughts.

No cause and effect?

This is where the sticking happens.

Does this mean there is no emotion either?

I am guessing you will say that emotion is a label and a story applied to sensations in the body? Right?

It's true that when I look directly there is no label or description for anything. It's just sensation happening.

I can see that all this stuff is thought created stories, including cause and effect. I suppose i just need to work with this some more until the grip on these ideas loosens up.

I am still working on the question of memories influencing the body in direct experience.

Would it be correct to say that there is only the so called reaction of the body that is real in this case? That there can be no cause from memory or thought because there is no such thing as memory or thought in reality?

So it isn't a reaction but an action with a mental explanation applied by a non-existent thought?

Tom

[Vivien]

Hi Tom,

These latest questions are blowing my mind. I guess that's what I'm here for so that's good :)

Yes, that’s the point :) to question and see through the well-established ‘truths’, which are just beliefs.

Does this mean there is no emotion either?
I am guessing you will say that emotion is a label and a story applied to sensations in the body? Right?
It's true that when I look directly there is no label or description for anything. It's just sensation happening.

Yes. An emotion is a label + thought story around a sensation.
But check this out for yourself.

Can you experience, for example, frustration?
And what about disappointment?

Or there is only a bodily sensation that a thought labels it as frustration or disappointment, with a story around it, explaining how and why it is a frustration and disappointment?

I am still working on the question of memories influencing the body in direct experience.
Would it be correct to say that there is only the so called reaction of the body that is real in this case? That there can be no cause from memory or thought because there is no such thing as memory or thought in reality?
So it isn't a reaction but an action with a mental explanation applied by a non-existent thought?

A thought exists.
What does not exist other than a concept/idea/imagination is the CONTENT of the thought, what the thought is ABOUT.

This is important: A thought is DE (direct experience), it can be noticed right now, it exists, but its content isn't DE.

Think of yesterday’s dinner. There can be a picture brought up, smell and taste remembered, all content of a thought, but you won't be able to eat it right now.
And why? Since the dinner is not experienced, it’s not real.

Imagination is real, but not the dinner. Can you see this?

We cannot deny that imagination (thoughts) are happening, right?

That there can be no cause from memory or thought because there is no such thing as memory or thought in reality?

Can you see that a memory is just a thought? Nothing else?

And when memory thoughts are happening, the thoughts are there, they are real and experienced.

But the memory itself, the story, what it’s about is NOT an experience, since there is no real food in front of you when you have a memory of the last night’s dinner. Is this clear?

But the reason that there is no cause and effect is not because the thought content is not real.
Rather the idea of cause and effect in itself is just an idea!

If you don’t THINK about cause and effect, do you EXPERIENCE cause and effect?

Just notice that the idea of cause and effect does not appear in any other way than a thought.
It’s just an idea.
Without thoughts, nothing is left of it.

What is real, what is actually exists is what is left when you don’t think about it.

Is there a causality in experience?
Is there such a thing as cause and effect?

Despite our impressions, it's evident from experience that we only ever have one thought or sensation 'at a time', always meaning right now. Is this clear?

Can you have more than one experience at a time?

If you don’t, then can you see that any comparison or link between a memory-thought and a sensation is utterly intellectual? Meaning only presented by the current thought that is present in this very moment?

So any association with previous thoughts (or associations between thoughts and sensations) can only ever be in 'this' current thought, rendering any true connection or association between the present thought and others that have already disappeared impossible. Do you see this?

So it isn't a reaction but an action with a mental explanation applied by a non-existent thought?

It’s not the thought that doesn’t exists, but the content of it, what the thought is ABOUT.

If you have a thought about the last night’s dinner, then the thought exists. It’s presence, and thus existence is undeniable.
What does not exist is the ‘last night’s dinner’. The food is missing :) It’s not there, only imagined to be there.


Dig deep here.

[TomnotTom]

Hi Vivien

Can you experience, for example, frustration?
And what about disappointment?

Or there is only a bodily sensation that a thought labels it as frustration or disappointment, with a story around it, explaining how and why it is a frustration and disappointment?

Yes, this is clear. Only sensations plus a story

We cannot deny that imagination (thoughts) are happening, right?

Can you see that a memory is just a thought? Nothing else?

Yes thoughts can be perceived in DE but the content of thought is illusory.

I see that memory is also just thought.

If you don’t THINK about cause and effect, do you EXPERIENCE cause and effect?

No cause and effect cannot be experienced. It can only be understood as a thought like all concepts.

If you don’t THINK about cause and effect, do you EXPERIENCE cause and effect?

Just notice that the idea of cause and effect does not appear in any other way than a thought.
It’s just an idea.
Without thoughts, nothing is left of it.

What is real, what is actually exists is what is left when you don’t think about it.

Is there a causality in experience?
Is there such a thing as cause and effect?

I see that cause and effect, like any story, requires a past and sometimes a future. It exists outside of direct experience in thought.

The idea of time is another thought which is not present in direct experience. Any kind of past which would be needed to establish a story can only exist as a thought. There is no past, or future in direct experience. That is clearly evident.

Despite our impressions, it's evident from experience that we only ever have one thought or sensation 'at a time', always meaning right now. Is this clear?

Can you have more than one experience at a time?

If you don’t, then can you see that any comparison or link between a memory-thought and a sensation is utterly intellectual? Meaning only presented by the current thought that is present in this very moment?

So any association with previous thoughts (or associations between thoughts and sensations) can only ever be in 'this' current thought, rendering any true connection or association between the present thought and others that have already disappeared impossible. Do you see this

?

In the case of these seeming reactions to thoughts, I can see that the connection to a past or future event is just a thought and therefore not real.

It does seem as though I can experience a thought and bodily sensation at the same time. Just like i can see and feel and hear simultaneously. I am beginning to see however, that one cannot affect the other because all is happening now. Only thought creates this linear structure of time on which these connections are based.

I experience a thought and at the same time a sensation in the body. Then afterwards, in thought, the connection is made between the sensation and some past or future event.

This is all becoming clearer.

There is a desire to understand (a thought) which finds this deeply unsatisfactory (more thought). It's like throwing away a perfectly good explanation.

There is no problem and no need for understanding in direct experience but there is also a compelling thought that says "ok, thought isn't real but without it you are like a simple creature with no understanding of the world. Like a vegetable"

I can already see some of the fallacy in this thought but I need to investigate this more. Whether I need thought or not.

Tom

[Vivien]

Hi Tom,

There is no problem and no need for understanding in direct experience but there is also a compelling thought that says "ok, thought isn't real but without it you are like a simple creature with no understanding of the world. Like a vegetable

In the story of ‘my life’ thoughts are useful tools for communication and solving certain problems.
But seeing the nature of reality is a totally the wrong tool.

I wrote a blog post about it, this might help:

https://fadingveiling.com/2020/11/09/fo ... xperience/

Do you have an impression that thoughts should stop appearing if they are not telling the truth about reality?

thought isn't real but without it you are like a simple creature with no understanding of the world. Like a vegetable

Bur what creature are you talking about?
Is there a self/I living life?

Is there an entity inside the body experiencing through the body’s senses?

I can already see some of the fallacy in this thought but I need to investigate this more. Whether I need thought or not.

But what is this I that might need a thought or not?
Is there someone using thoughts?

And what is it exactly that is trying to figure it out if it needs thoughts or not?
What does thoughts happen TO?

Isn’t the thought of ‘whether I need thought or not’ is just more story ABOUT a fictional character called Tom?
Is there an actual, real Tom living life?

Is life happening TO Tom, or life happening or appearing AS a story ABOUT Tom?

Vivien

[TomnotTom]

Hi Vivien,

Thank you for the blog post link. It was very helpful.

Do you have an impression that thoughts should stop appearing if they are not telling the truth about reality?

Thank you for pointing this out. There seems to be a tendency to turn this enquiry into a self improvement exercise which completely missed the point of looking for the truth.

But what is this I that might need a thought or not?
Is there someone using thoughts?

And what is it exactly that is trying to figure it out if it needs thoughts or not?
What does thoughts happen TO?

Yes, i can see that I was identifying with the idea that there is an I that has a choice about whether it uses thought or not.

The question isn't about what i need, it's about what is true.

What is true, here and now is that there are bodily sensations and thoughts appearing. Any explanation of what they are or how they should or shouldn't be is coming from thought and doesn't exist here and now.

Isn’t the thought of ‘whether I need thought or not’ is just more story ABOUT a fictional character called Tom?
Is there an actual, real Tom living life?

All the stories which make up the idea of Tom exist only in thought.

Tom and "his life" cease to exist many times a day whenever attention is not on these stories.

There is nothing to lose except a belief. One which I have already identified as false. In fact, no belief is true outside of thought. Belief is not a thing, just another word for a compelling story.

Is life happening TO Tom, or life happening or appearing AS a story ABOUT Tom?

Can it be neither?

The idea that life happens to Tom is a thought explaining how life is. The idea that life is appearing as a story about Tom is also a thought explaining how life is.

Life just is and can only be experienced first hand in direct experience.

I would like to return to the question about thought affecting actions in direct experience.

I have been watching when these moments occur, that i appear to be physically moved by a memory or future projection.

I see there is a sequence that occurs which starts with identification with a thought, then an uncomfortable sensation arises in the body which draws attention away from the thought.

Next there is a judgement or a label put on the sensation, saying that I am reacting to that thought.

There is often more layers of thought after this which judge the reaction as something that needs to be fixed, or judge "me" for reacting to the thought - ("i should be more enlightened")

Most of this is happening within thought. The idea that there is a sequence of cause and effect is also happening in thought.

Any kind of sequence is a concept. There is no sense of time without thought so i can see that cause and effect is another fabrication in thought.

Tom

[Vivien]

Hi Tom,

Thank you for pointing this out. There seems to be a tendency to turn this enquiry into a self improvement exercise which completely missed the point of looking for the truth.

Yes :) Self-improvement… improving a fictional character, what a sci-fi story :)

Yes, i can see that I was identifying with the idea that there is an I that has a choice about whether it uses thought or not.

Look at this carefully…

Is there control over thoughts?
Can thoughts be controlled even in just in the slightest way?

Look for a possible candidate for a controller…. What could be that?

Can you observe a controlling-mechanism? How controlling works in experience?

There is nothing to lose except a belief. One which I have already identified as false. In fact, no belief is true outside of thought. Belief is not a thing, just another word for a compelling story.

Exactly! Belief is nothing else than a thought.
It’s a repetitive thought coming up again and again… nothing else.

Can it be neither?
The idea that life happens to Tom is a thought explaining how life is. The idea that life is appearing as a story about Tom is also a thought explaining how life is.

Yes. But when there is a thought about Tom present, then that thought is there, undeniably.

The thought itself is experienced, but not Tom. Can you see this?

Aren’t thoughts (as phenomena) part of experience, part of what is?

Is life something else than experience?

If not, isn’t thought is also an aspect of life? Or more precisely, life/experience shows up in that moment AS that thought? Not as Tom, but as a thought?

I have been watching when these moments occur, that i appear to be physically moved by a memory or future projection.

I see there is a sequence that occurs which starts with identification with a thought, then an uncomfortable sensation arises in the body which draws attention away from the thought.

Next there is a judgement or a label put on the sensation, saying that I am reacting to that thought.

There is often more layers of thought after this which judge the reaction as something that needs to be fixed, or judge "me" for reacting to the thought - ("i should be more enlightened")

Most of this is happening within thought. The idea that there is a sequence of cause and effect is also happening in thought.

Any kind of sequence is a concept. There is no sense of time without thought so i can see that cause and effect is another fabrication in thought.

Excellent observation! Yes, causality is just another mental fabrication, just a concept based on the idea of time.

Vivien

[TomnotTom]

Hi Vivien

Is there control over thoughts?
Can thoughts be controlled even in just in the slightest way?

Look for a possible candidate for a controller…. What could be that?

Can you observe a controlling-mechanism? How controlling works in experience?

Thoughts are just happening. I see that any idea of control is happening within thought - a thought about having control.

If there is any form of control, it is the direction of attention into or away from thought. Thought seems to intensify when it is the focus of attention.

This attention is the only possible candidate for the role of a controller. There seems to be a choice of where attention is placed. Like the decision to sit and explore direct experience and write my discoveries here, now.

The question is whether this choice is appearing as a thought or if it can be experienced directly. Do I see control happening?

The answer is no, I do not see any control without a thought creating it. The more I look directly, the more things appear to be happening by themself with no controller.

Control would require a separate entity to be doing the control but I can see nothing separate in direct experience. There is only one experience, not two.

Separation only happens in thought.

Yes. But when there is a thought about Tom present, then that thought is there, undeniably.

The thought itself is experienced, but not Tom. Can you see this?

Aren’t thoughts (as phenomena) part of experience, part of what is?

Is life something else than experience?

If not, isn’t thought is also an aspect of life? Or more precisely, life/experience shows up in that moment AS that thought? Not as Tom, but as a thought?

Yes, I see that what we call life, or being alive, is essentially experience.

I see that thought is an aspect of life.

I think sometimes I get confused between the content of thought and thought itself as a phenomenon within experience. Thought is undeniably here but it becomes mistaken as the entirety of experience when it is just one aspect of it, like a dream that is mistaken for reality.

This statement implies that there is an entity here that can be mistaken or misled. Direct experience cannot be misled, it is self-evident. So is this just another thought being misled by another thought?

If so then there is no confusion and no being misled in reality.

Am I right that there is nothing to do about this misleading quality of thought?

Everything is as it should be, just like the body lies safely and serenely in bed even though it dreams of great turmoil?

Tom

[Vivien]

Hi Tom,

Control would require a separate entity to be doing the control but I can see nothing separate in direct experience. There is only one experience, not two.
Separation only happens in thought.

Exactly, nice observation.

This attention is the only possible candidate for the role of a controller. There seems to be a choice of where attention is placed.

So if there is nothing separate and there is no entity, then what is it that could control attention?

Let’s look into this.
You can experiment with sitting quietly, and holding attention on breathing.
Sooner or later attention will move on to another object/thing.

Try to ignore thinking about how all of it happens. We are not trying to figure out the ‘how’. That would be just more thinking and not experiencing.

We are just noticing WHAT IS, what is actually happening, without trying to interpret or give meaning to it.

Notice, that focus of attention is constantly moving. Watch closely.

Is there something moving attention or is it going to the next thing automatically?

If it seems to be a mover, then try to locate it. Where is it? Can you find a person, a me moving attention?

What is that moves attention? Is there anything moving it? Or does it move by itself?

Experiment with this several times a day, even if just for a few minutes each, but try to have a longer session too. Let me know what you find.

I think sometimes I get confused between the content of thought and thought itself as a phenomenon within experience. Thought is undeniably here but it becomes mistaken as the entirety of experience when it is just one aspect of it, like a dream that is mistaken for reality.

Yes. That’s why it’s important to question every thought. Always look what is happening in experience, and what only in thought / story.

This statement implies that there is an entity here that can be mistaken or misled. Direct experience cannot be misled, it is self-evident. So is this just another thought being misled by another thought?

Can a thought be misled? In order for a thought to mislead another thought, those thoughts have to be aware entities, and to know each other, but is that so?

Are thoughts aware entities?
Is one thought know about the other?
Or one thought misleading another thought is only presented as a content of a thought, as a story about thoughts?

Am I right that there is nothing to do about this misleading quality of thought?

Just notice what happens here. This question is not really a question, but a statement. It states that thoughts can mislead… but is that so?

What can a thought do?
Can a thought do anything at all?

Everything is as it should be, just like the body lies safely and serenely in bed even though it dreams of great turmoil?

What is dreaming at night? Is there a dreamer? Is there someone whom the dream is happening TO?
And during the day, is there someone that life is happening TO?

If there is turmoil than that is happening TO someone? Or that turmoil is just another story about Tom presented by thoughts?

[TomnotTom]

Hi Vivien,

I have spent some time looking at attention as you suggested

Notice, that focus of attention is constantly moving. Watch closely.

Is there something moving attention or is it going to the next thing automatically?

If it seems to be a mover, then try to locate it. Where is it? Can you find a person, a me moving attention?

What is that moves attention? Is there anything moving it? Or does it move by itself?

What I notice is that attention automatically moves, as you say. It doesn’t naturally rest in one place like an object that can be put down somewhere. Even when it is focused on something like the breath there is a subtle sense of movement, or exploration as new sensation appears.

As I look I see that the idea that attention moves perhaps isn’t accurate. It is more like sensation or thought arises into attention and then falls away. This is more apparent with closed eyes where, if for example attention shifts from the breath to the hands and then the feet, there is no distance travelled. This is an idea that vision creates, but without vision the sense of hands and feet are not in a different place, just different sensations.

One problem still remains - and I know it is a thought but I can’t see beyond it right now. This is the idea that attention is directed at the breath to begin with.

I read your instructions and then I put attention on the breath. There is an idea of intention controlling attention at first. This idea continues when I decide to consciously move attention from the breath to the feet or hands for example. There appears to be control happening. I can also see that this is a thought about why this attention is moving, trying to put a label and a story onto what is present. I know this is an illusion, but I can’t see around it just now.

I will continue this investigation some more.

Can a thought be misled? In order for a thought to mislead another thought, those thoughts have to be aware entities, and to know each other, but is that so?

Are thoughts aware entities?
Is one thought know about the other?
Or one thought misleading another thought is only presented as a content of a thought, as a story about thoughts?

Yes I see, being misled is a judgement which implies 2 entities: one which is misleading and one which is misled. This is a story about thoughts.

There's also this idea that there is truth and not truth. But how can there be anything but truth/that which is?

Thought is, it exists undeniably, therefore it is true.
I seem to get stuck in a loop here but it seems that the content of thought all just comes down to one thought which is the idea that the content of thought is real.

What can a thought do?
Can a thought do anything at all?

No, the whole idea of doing - things happening in a sequence, cause and effect, a subject and object relationship - these all exist only in thought.

Am I right that there is nothing to do about this misleading quality of thought?

Just notice what happens here. This question is not really a question, but a statement. It states that thoughts can mislead… but is that so?

Another story about a misleader and a misled. If this is all just thought, then is there really anything called liberation? There is only a thought that says there is a liberation to be reached. A thought that says there is a self to be disidentified with.

I can see that my whole conception of this process is that there is a someone who will go from non-liberation to liberation. But there is nowhere to go and no one to do it.

What is dreaming at night? Is there a dreamer? Is there someone whom the dream is happening TO?
And during the day, is there someone that life is happening TO?

A dream is just part of experience. There is dreaming and there is awake but no dreamer outside of a thought story.

If there is turmoil than that is happening TO someone? Or that turmoil is just another story about Tom presented by thoughts?

Yes, turmoil is a story.

[Vivien]

Hi Tom,

One problem still remains - and I know it is a thought but I can’t see beyond it right now. This is the idea that attention is directed at the breath to begin with.

Let’s take a look at the idea that there is a someone who is focusing or directing attention to the breath.

Close your eyes and sit quietly for 10-15 minutes.
Watch what focus does.

Focus on focusing, attention itself.
Is there anything moving attention to the breath, or it moves by itself?
Is there a focus-er making it happen? Or it happens automatically without a doer?

Hold focus on breath - see how it moves to thoughts, sensations, sounds.
Is there someone following this instruction? Or following the instruction just happens on its own?
Is there someone holding focus on the breath?

Is there something controlling it?
What moves attention?
Is thought in control of attention?

Is there someone directing attention to the breath?

Yes, thoughts might insist that there must be someone, but that’s not enough. Thoughts say all sorts of things without every knowing what they are babbling about :)

So we need experiential evidence.

Can you observe something (ANYTHING) that is grabbing attention’s hand and moving it to the breath?
What would do that? By what mechanism? How does that work in experience?

Can you find any experiential evidence for this claim? Or only ever thoughts suggest so?

And now let’s dig even deeper.
And now try to find THE attention itself. Not just the idea of it, but the ACTUAL attention.
Where is it exactly? What is it like?

Is there really an attention that is jumping from one object to another, from a thought to a sensation, then to a sound, then to the breath, etc?

Are there REALLY two things there, an attention + the attended object (thought/sensation/sound)?
Or rather there is ONLY thought, then there is ONLY sensation, then there is ONLY sound?

No, the whole idea of doing - things happening in a sequence, cause and effect, a subject and object relationship - these all exist only in thought.

Exactly. So what about direction attention to the breath, then? Isn’t this just another story… just to try to grasp something that is ungraspable? Trying to image control, where it is not (no control)?

Another story about a misleader and a misled. If this is all just thought, then is there really anything called liberation? There is only a thought that says there is a liberation to be reached. A thought that says there is a self to be disidentified with.

This is a good question :) The me wants to reach liberation.

But is there anything or anyone that can be liberated?
Or liberation just a term trying to describe the discovery that the one who wants to be liberated is just a fictional character, just an idea, a mental construct, but not an actual entity?

I can see that my whole conception of this process is that there is a someone who will go from non-liberation to liberation. But there is nowhere to go and no one to do it.

Exactly :)
So is there someone to get liberated or awakened?
Does the discovery of there being no inherent self happens TO someone? Or…?

Vivien

[TomnotTom]

Hi Vivien,

Is there really an attention that is jumping from one object to another, from a thought to a sensation, then to a sound, then to the breath, etc?

Are there REALLY two things there, an attention + the attended object (thought/sensation/sound)?

Or rather there is ONLY thought, then there is ONLY sensation, then there is ONLY sound?

I have been looking further at this and after our session it is much clearer that there is no attention being directed or directing itself. All the confusion is in the mind trying to understand by creating separation.

So is there someone to get liberated or awakened?
Does the discovery of there being no inherent self happens TO someone? Or…?

My experience of "the discovery of no inherent self" doesn't seem so much like a discovery but a sort of simplification. Realising that i don't have to figure out or understand what "I" am because the answer is right here, self evident. It is only the layers of explanation by thought that obscure the obvious.

I don't really have any more questions right now. I'm still quite surprised that I seem to have "got it". I will continue to follow this path of enquiry and try to examine beliefs in whatever form they come.

Thank you so much for your guidance Vivien! You are a great teacher.

Tom

[Vivien]

Hi Tom,

I have been looking further at this and after our session it is much clearer that there is no attention being directed or directing itself.

I’m glad you’ve found it useful :)

All the confusion is in the mind trying to understand by creating separation.

Is there an actual mind which is trying to understand things and then creates separation?
What is the experience of a mind here now?

Is there mind outside of words that speak of one?
Is there mind independent of thoughts that are imagined to come from a ‘mind’?

Realising that i don't have to figure out or understand what "I" am because the answer is right here, self evident. It is only the layers of explanation by thought that obscure the obvious.

Yes, nice observation :)

Thank you so much for your guidance Vivien! You are a great teacher.

I wouldn’t say that I am a teacher, but thank you, and you are welcome :) I don’t want to teach anything, except how to look for yourself.

Here are some questions that could help you to investigate if there is any area that doesn’t feel super clear.
Please look very carefully one-by-one with the following questions. Spend a several minutes with each. Literally scan through the whole body from head to toe, with particular attention on the head. Look behind the eyes, into the forehead, the top of the head, the throat, look everywhere. Also scan through all aspects of experience, thoughts, sensations, feelings, everything.

Is there a thinker?
Is there a doer?
Is there a decider?
Is there a seer?
Is there a feeler?
Is there a hearer?
Is there a taster?
Is there a smeller?

Is there an experiencER?

Is there anything having the experience of whatever is happening?
Is there anything what the experience is happening TO?

Is there an enduring, autonomous, independent self, separate from the rest of experience?
Has there ever been an independent separate self?

Is searching/seeking still going on?

Is there anything that is not totally clear and you would like to look at?

Vivien

[TomnotTom]

Hi Vivien

All the confusion is in the mind trying to understand by creating separation.

Is there an actual mind which is trying to understand things and then creates separation?
What is the experience of a mind here now?

Is there mind outside of words that speak of one?
Is there mind independent of thoughts that are imagined to come from a ‘mind’

I see the word "mind" very much like the word "self" - a label describing an abstract concept of the accumulation of all thinking.

On reflection it is a funny idea. It suggests that there is a container somewhere, like a big bag of thoughts that somehow intertwine and create intelligence. There is no such thing in direct experience.

There is no experience of mind outside of a thought about it. There can be no accumulation of thought because there is only ever one thought at a time.


Thankyou for the questions. Rather than try to write a response to them all now I will make a daily practice of exploring them and write to you if anything comes up.

I wouldn’t say that I am a teacher, but thank you, and you are welcome :) I don’t want to teach anything, except how to look for yourself.

Exactly! You have taught me how to look for myself and that is priceless. Thank you!

Tom