Go time!

[RhinoSpirit]

Now, the exercise:
A thought appears.
In that moment is there anyone or anything that recognizes the thought or is being aware of it?

I cannot find anything that recognizes the thought but there is awareness of the thought, so it seems in some way something must be aware of it.

Can you see anything that is separate from the thought and does the thinking?

No thoughts just appear. I cannot see the thoughts appear but it is more like reflection that the thought came.

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?

I still don’t know who or what I am but I don’t believe so.

Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?

No.

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?

No

Can you choose not to have painful, negative, or fearful thoughts?

No

Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

No

Is there anything that is responsible for the thoughts like a traffic cop saying which one to go and which one to stay?

No

Can the flow of thoughts be changed?

No.

Where do thoughts appear from?

I don’t know.

Where are they coming from and going to?

I don’t know.

Do they appear randomly or in a structured way?

They are random.

Watch like a hawk.


Next...
Write down a sequence of 5 thoughts in the order that they appear.

1. What time should I go kayaking this morning.
2. Why is the top of my head tingling.
3. Which road is the car on that I can hear outside.
4. Why is it so grey today, will it be like that all day.
5. Is that noise I can hear my neighbor leaving?

Now check:
Could you predict the order of their appearance?

No

Did you know which will be the second or the fourth?

No

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?

Experience says No.

Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

It may seem like it but No.

How long does that last?

It doesn’t.

Test it for the fun of exploration.
It seems that thought has some logically ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organized sequence. Or is it just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that "one thought follows another thought"?

The language used by thoughts is that that gives the appearance of a stream of thoughts but it’s a smoke and mirrors show.

Are thoughts 100% true?

No,they are just thoughts.

What are you, when you don't think about what you are?

I don’t kniw.

[NoMansLand]

Hi Nick,
Brilliant insights. Let’s keep this momentum flowing - and look some more.

I encourage you to post one observation from labeling exercise with your each post. Just for the sake of making sure to look.

“I cannot find anything that recognizes the thought but there is awareness of the thought, so it seems in some way something must be aware of it.”

Okay, so you used a word that points to an assumption that is largely unquestioned - “so it seems in some way something must be aware of it”. Each time you use “seems” points to an assumption. We want to test this assumption by directly experiencing what is.

What is that “awareness”?
Is that a special thought that somehow makes something true? Is there a hierarchy of thoughts in reality?
Can you experience “be aware of” somehow apart from what is actually happening?

“Was I not always looking at what is, and it was just the labeling habit, believing it to be separate that caused an issue?”

Great question.
Can you somehow NOT look at what is?
Is there anything in the world that can actually stop what is?

Then - is the “I” looking at what is?
Is there an observer?
Is there an actual watcher of what is?
Is it needed for watching and looking to happen anyway? What does the looking?

“I cannot see the thoughts appear but it is more like reflection that the thought came.”

Is reflection something in itself in reality or just another thought passing by?

“ But then how can we be sure about the colors, as that still in some way sounds like a label? Why do not just say it’s seeing?”

Very perceptive. Yes. We are just making a concession when pointing so you know where to look but there is in fact no actual thing that it’s pointing to. Seeing is yet another label too and nowhere near the actual experience, right?

How can we be sure? Great question.
Is there actually anything there can be “sureness” of?
What would be passing the judgment?
What would be labeling that?
Is there an actual “labeler” or is it just a thought?


Again - please answer each question separately.

Best,
Adam

[RhinoSpirit]

Hi Adam,

Brilliant insights. Let’s keep this momentum flowing - and look some more.

Thanks for the positive words! I must be honest I felt really frustrated last night and this morning, but even though there has been lots of frustration, it’s full steam ahead as they are only thoughts. Something here is still trying to figure it out, but that is just another thought!

I encourage you to post one observation from labeling exercise with your each post. Just for the sake of making sure to look.

Will do

Kayaking this morning
Seeing a steam train passing by, simply= image/color
Smelling the fishing boats, simply = smell
Feeling stinging sensation from cold feet, simply = sensation
Tasting the salt water , simply = taste
Hearing birdsong, simply = sound
Thought about the weather turning, simply = thought

“I cannot find anything that recognizes the thought but there is awareness of the thought, so it seems in some way something must be aware of it.”
Okay, so you used a word that points to an assumption that is largely unquestioned - “so it seems in some way something must be aware of it”. Each time you use “seems” points to an assumption. We want to test this assumption by directly experiencing what is.
What is that “awareness”?

A label. Awareness is just another concession.

Is that a special thought that somehow makes something true? Is there a hierarchy of thoughts in reality?

Good response! ;) There is no hierarchy to thoughts, as long as they are not believed in.

Can you experience “be aware of” somehow apart from what is actually happening?

Of course not!

“Was I not always looking at what is, and it was just the labeling habit, believing it to be separate that caused an issue?”
Great question.
Can you somehow NOT look at what is?

Nope.

Is there anything in the world that can actually stop what is?

Nothing can stop what is.

Then - is the “I” looking at what is?

The I cannot be separate from what is, so no.

Is there an observer?

There is observing but no observer.

Is there an actual watcher of what is?

No watcher.

Is it needed for watching and looking to happen anyway? What does the looking?

Watching doesn’t need a watcher to happen. Looking happens, it isn’t done.

“I cannot see the thoughts appear but it is more like reflection that the thought came.”
Is reflection something in itself in reality or just another thought passing by?

Just like a cloud floating by. What’s happening here is there is awareness of thoughts. There is also a belief (recurring thought) that if there is awareness of thoughts, it must be possible to see the thoughts appear. There is frustration that this doesn’t happen but a thought looking for a thought? - seriously??? I feel a bit silly for believing that one! ;)

“ But then how can we be sure about the colors, as that still in some way sounds like a label? Why do not just say it’s seeing?”
Very perceptive. Yes. We are just making a concession when pointing so you know where to look but there is in fact no actual thing that it’s pointing to. Seeing is yet another label too and nowhere near the actual experience, right?

Experience clearly can’t be described using words. In the Katha Upanishad it says “words turn back frightened”.

How can we be sure? Great question.
Is there actually anything there can be “sureness” of?

That there is experience.

What would be passing the judgment?

There is no judgement to pass, it’s just happening.

What would be labeling that?

Just another thought ;)

Is there an actual “labeler” or is it just a thought?

Thoughts on top of thoughts - turtles all the way down.


Whatever is here doesn’t take instructions very well and learns in an unusual way though I’m not even sure what that is. Answering these questions was easier as we are now into you responding to was said, instead of me worrying if I’m actually doing what I was asked to do. Onwards and upwards!


Best regards,
Nick

[NoMansLand]

Nick,
Nothing to be frustrated about. Just another opportunity to look. You're doing brilliant.
Hence, I won't be too gentle and relentlessly chase the stories that arise within this dialogue, if you don't mind. :)

I felt really frustrated last night and this morning, but even though there has been lots of frustration, it’s full steam ahead as they are only thoughts. Something here is still trying to figure it out, but that is just another thought!

It is just another thought. But let's explore the "emotion" while we're at it.
Can a thought be frustrated, then?
What does this frustration feel like? What is happening in direct experience?
What is trying to figure out what? Is it just a thought that says "I need to figure it out", or is there an actual entity behind the figuring out?
Is there an actual, real frustration? Has there ever been?
Can a thought figure out another thought?
Are thoughts connected in any way, shape, or form?

There is also a belief (recurring thought) that if there is awareness of thoughts, it must be possible to see the thoughts appear. There is frustration that this doesn’t happen but a thought looking for a thought? - seriously??? I feel a bit silly for believing that one! ;)

That's a valuable insight indeed. Right... A thought anticipating a thought, or trying to figure out a thought?
It is a silly business. It's all a joke really. :)

That implies a center that would somehow manage all of them.
Is there an actual center in direct experience?
When you actually look in direct experience - where is that center?
Can you find the center that tries to think this through?
Is awareness of thoughts actually needed for experience to happen?
Can you find that awareness of thoughts, or is it just thoughts arising and vanishing?
Does the fact of thoughts arising and vanishing need any awareness at all, or is it just an assumption?

Experience clearly can’t be described using words. In the Katha Upanishad it says “words turn back frightened”.

That sounds great. Didn't know this one. Definitely speaks volumes of "this".

Thoughts on top of thoughts - turtles all the way down.

So what exactly is trying to figure out this Infinite Turtle company?
Is there an actual seeker anywhere? Has there ever been?

Onwards and upwards!

You got it. Keep the momentum. Let the thing burn itself out. It's just a matter of repetition and looking in every nook and cranny.

So, apart from these questions & answers, let's explore the "body":

Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.
Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:
Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?
Is there an inside or an outside?
If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?
What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

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

Keep going, you're very close.

Best,
Adam

PS. Keep including at least one example of direct experience labeling exercise. :)

[RhinoSpirit]

Thanks Adam,

Questions are really bringing the fire!!

Nothing to be frustrated about. Just another opportunity to look. You're doing brilliant.
Hence, I won't be too gentle and relentlessly chase the stories that arise within this dialogue, if you don't mind. :)

100% and no need to be gentle. Have at it!

I felt really frustrated last night and this morning, but even though there has been lots of frustration, it’s full steam ahead as they are only thoughts. Something here is still trying to figure it out, but that is just another thought!

It is just another thought. But let's explore the "emotion" while we're at it.
Can a thought be frustrated, then?

A thought may claim to be frustrated but it’s still just a thought, so in reality it cannot actually be.

What does this frustration feel like?

In the story it feels heavy and like it shouldn’t be there. In the body it is just sensations, tightness and tinglings.

What is happening in direct experience?

Simply thoughts and sensations.

What is trying to figure out what?

The next thought; masquerading as the non existent self.

Is it just a thought that says "I need to figure it out", or is there an actual entity behind the figuring out?

No entity, just a thought.

Is there an actual, real frustration? Has there ever been?

Nope - what to do about that but laugh!

Can a thought figure out another thought?

No it cannot.

Are thoughts connected in any way, shape, or form?

No. They come in a form of language which suggests they’re connected, but that doesn’t make it so.

There is also a belief (recurring thought) that if there is awareness of thoughts, it must be possible to see the thoughts appear. There is frustration that this doesn’t happen but a thought looking for a thought? - seriously??? I feel a bit silly for believing that one! ;)
That's a valuable insight indeed. Right... A thought anticipating a thought, or trying to figure out a thought?
It is a silly business. It's all a joke really. :)

That implies a center that would somehow manage all of them.
Is there an actual center in direct experience?

No, no center can be found.

When you actually look in direct experience - where is that center?

It doesn’t exist.

Can you find the center that tries to think this through?

The thought factory cannot be located.

Is awareness of thoughts actually needed for experience to happen?

Thought provoking question, or should I rather say a question that provides an excellent opportunity for direct looking.
Awareness is just a label, so is not needed for experience to happen.

Can you find that awareness of thoughts, or is it just thoughts arising and vanishing?

No, no awareness. There are thoughts that say “I’m aware - so there must be awareness” but they are just thoughts that come and whatever comes must go.

Does the fact of thoughts arising and vanishing need any awareness at all, or is it just an assumption?

It’s an assumption and unchecked belief.

Experience clearly can’t be described using words. In the Katha Upanishad it says “words turn back frightened”.
That sounds great. Didn't know this one. Definitely speaks volumes of "this".
Thoughts on top of thoughts - turtles all the way down.

So what exactly is trying to figure out this Infinite Turtle company?

Seeking energy.

Is there an actual seeker anywhere? Has there ever been?

Just thoughts saying “Of course there is, look at all I’ve done”. There has never been a seeker, only the illusion of one.

Onwards and upwards!
You got it. Keep the momentum. Let the thing burn itself out. It's just a matter of repetition and looking in every nook and cranny.

Cooking on gas!

So, apart from these questions & answers, let's explore the "body":

Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.
Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
No

Does the body have a weight or volume?
No weight or volume.

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
No shape or form.

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
No boundary.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?
No boundary.

Is there an inside or an outside?
No inside or outside.

If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly?
No inside.

If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?
No outside.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
Where sensations are experienced.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
Sensations.

PS. Keep including at least one example of direct experience labeling exercise. :)

Taking a break
Seeing a squirrel playing, simply= image/color
Smelling rain, simply = smell
Feeling back twinge, simply = sensation
Tasting coffe , simply = taste
Hearing rain on windscreen, simply = sound
Thought about taking too long a break, simply = thought


Best regards,
Nick

[NoMansLand]

Nick,
Brilliant investigation.

Just thoughts saying “Of course there is, look at all I’ve done”.

Of course! :) What a beautiful story eh? But when story is seen through, what's left of the "seeker"?

Seeking energy.

Haha! Yes. Is that even a thing though? What's that in direct experience, if anything?

Let's do an even deeper investigation of the body.

Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time.
Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen.
Repeat the exercise several times.
Stand in front of a bigger mirror.

(1) First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.

(2) Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the
sensations.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?
Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’?
Or only thoughts suggest it?

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.
Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?
Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colours and shapes?

(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.
Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).
Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

(8) Start to walk slowly.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

(9) Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

Best,
Adam

[RhinoSpirit]

Hi Adam,

Labelling Exercise
Riding motorcycle to work
Seeing water spray from cars, simply= image/color
Smelling petrol fumes, simply = smell
Feeling wind on face, simply = sensation
Tasting water drops, simply = taste
Hearing rain on the visor, simply = sound
Thought about traffic signals changing, simply = thought

As I do this exercise more, I’m getting the impression that initially all I was doing was replacing the labels (objects) with another label such as image, smell, sensation, taste, sound or thought.

Just thoughts saying “Of course there is, look at all I’ve done”.
Of course! :) What a beautiful story eh? But when story is seen through, what's left of the "seeker"?

I don’t find a seeker in investigation but there is what can only be a belief, that in order not to find a seeker, something must have been looking for it and that must be the seeker. So I look for that seeker and get stuck in a loop.

Seeking energy.
Haha! Yes. Is that even a thing though? What's that in direct experience, if anything?

Contracted energy.

(2) Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?
Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

No connection as the image doesn’t seem to be the same thing that is looking, or the sensations. If I look at my body, thoughts suggest there is a connection but not with the image in the mirror.

(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

No connection and again, the image handing doesn’t seem to be connected in any way with the thing that is looking, or to the sensations.

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’?
Or only thoughts suggest it?

There seems to be a connection between the hand and the sensation when looked at directly.
It is seen that it is only a thought when investigated

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.
Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?

I recognize the image from memory but the image is not me.

Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colours and shapes?

If we use the dictionary definition (the physical structure, including the bones, flesh and organs, of a person or an animal) then there is no way that is a body. It stands to reason that if the that clearly isn’t a body then the thing I’m taking to be a body cannot be either but that is currently a somewhat conceptual understanding.

6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.
Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

Only thoughts and mental images

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).
Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

No body. Only Sensations.

(8) Start to walk slowly.
Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?

There seems to be a body walking until I stay with the sensations and then there are only sensations.

Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?

Only in thought.

Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?

Just thoughts.

Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?

All I can find is a thought that a body can be found, and another thought or two saying “this is a body”.

Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

Same as with the body, just thoughts.

(9) Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

Sensations aren’t localized and this is easier to see when I shut my eyes and try to locate the supposed position of them in space. When I sit with this the second part of the question it’s easier to see the whole thing is the image? Like I said with the labeling exercise, if I look at one “object” it’s harder to see than inquiring about the whole scene (image).

[NoMansLand]

Hi Nick!

As I do this exercise more, I’m getting the impression that initially all I was doing was replacing the labels (objects) with another label such as image, smell, sensation, taste, sound or thought.

The point is to communicate with this label of seeing, etc. but the actual experience is what is. It's just to keep you grounded in what is actually happening and seeing the stories as stories, seeing as seeing, hearing as hearing and so on, and so forth.

I don’t find a seeker in investigation but there is what can only be a belief, that in order not to find a seeker, something must have been looking for it and that must be the seeker. So I look for that seeker and get stuck in a loop.

You mentioned beliefs a couple of times and I'd like to ask you about that.
What is a belief?
Is belief a special form of thought, or just a thought that "There is a belief here"?
Can a "thought" be stuck in a loop?
What does being stuck look like then?
Does looking imply there is a looker, and seeing imply there is a seeker, or is it just part of the story?

Contracted energy.

Let's be really specific about that - let's use the labels from the labeling exercise.
What is "contracted energy" experienced like?

There seems to be a body walking until I stay with the sensations and then there are only sensations.

What is the thing that is staying with sensations?
What is staying with sensations, if anything?

Best,
Adam

[RhinoSpirit]

Hi Adam,

You mentioned beliefs a couple of times and I'd like to ask you about that.
What is a belief?

The way I’m using it in our conversations is the effect of a recurring thought, that has been thought so many times that it’s beyond being questioned, until guided to look at direct experience.

Is belief a special form of thought, or just a thought that "There is a belief here"?

Belief is just another thought: a thought believed in, by another thought. Rather a thought that arrives using language that implies it must be so.

Can a "thought" be stuck in a loop?

Absolutely 100% definitely not! Loop is used as a label to try and describe what’s happening from a detached point of view but that is probably an epic fail on my part, as presumably the use of it is the main thing that is reinforcing it.

What does being stuck look like then?

Simply thinking and sensations. That was lucky, I nearly gave you the story time with Nick style answer, instead of the one from direct experience.

Does looking imply there is a looker, and seeing imply there is a seeker, or is it just part of the story?

It’s simply looking and seeing.

Let's be really specific about that - let's use the labels from the labeling exercise.
What is "contracted energy" experienced like?

Simply sensations and thinking.

There seems to be a body walking until I stay with the sensations and then there are only sensations.
What is the thing that is staying with sensations?

Nothing is staying with sensations. That was just a story to express how when thinking eases, the sensations that were always there come to the forefront of experience.

What is staying with sensations, if anything?

Focused attention was my first stab but I’d rather go with simply thinking.


Labelling Exercise
Shopping
Seeing other shoppers, simply= image/color
Smelling fertilizer, simply = smell
Feeling warm, simply = sensation
Tasting dinner I’d recently had, simply = taste
Hearing shop closing announcement, simply = sound
Thought about dodging rain on way back, simply = thought


Best regards,
Nick

[NoMansLand]

Hi Nick,
You're doing great and you're sailing smoothly. Let's keep this going and be very precise.

The way I’m using it in our conversations is the effect of a recurring thought, that has been thought so many times that it’s beyond being questioned, until guided to look at direct experience.

So it's sort of like memory itself. Belief and memory are kind of the same thing in essence. Almost everybody believes that a memory thought refers to something that has happened. That a memory thought or a belief is a different thought than a non-memory/belief thought.

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

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

What is belief exactly?
What is the belief ‘made of’?
WHEN does the memory/belief appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘belief’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘belief’ thought refers to something that has happened, or reoccurs?
Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?
WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?
Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference and how is that difference is known exactly?

Belief is just another thought: a thought believed in, by another thought. Rather a thought that arrives using language that implies it must be so.

Can a thought believe in another thought?
Can a thought do anything?

Absolutely 100% definitely not! Loop is used as a label to try and describe what’s happening from a detached point of view but that is probably an epic fail on my part, as presumably the use of it is the main thing that is reinforcing it.

You mentioned a "detached point of view". Can you tell me more about it?
What is a "detached point of view""?
How do you experience it directly in reality?
Is there anything but seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling and thoughts arising in Direct Experience?

I nearly gave you the story time with Nick style answer, instead of the one from direct experience.

It's great that you catch it. You must see it for what it is when it arises - hence the labelling exercise is so useful.

Nothing is staying with sensations. That was just a story to express how when thinking eases, the sensations that were always there come to the forefront of experience.

Is the story attached to anything at all? Is there anything behind that story?

Focused attention was my first stab but I’d rather go with simply thinking.

Right? You can see that, can you? "Focused attention" is not really present anywhere in direct experience, ever. It's just what arises. Is "focused attention" separate from what is attended to? Is focused attention a special mode of seeing what is - seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling and thoughts arising?

Keep going!
Best,
Adam

[RhinoSpirit]

Adam,

My limited intellect is malfunctioning. This brings back memories of looking at an exam paper where I don’t know where to start, as I’m not sure I can answer any of it.
I’ve read it and re read it, been out for a long walk to clear my head, had a coffee, looked again and I don’t understand what I’m not getting.

I could answer the middle bits but I’d rather not risk it, as this reply is laughable considering the only thing I definitely understood was “please don’t go to thought explanations”.

So it's sort of like memory itself. Belief and memory are kind of the same thing in essence. Almost everybody believes that a memory thought refers to something that has happened. That a memory thought or a belief is a different thought than a non-memory/belief thought.

I don’t get this at all. Is it possible this is so contradictory to the “belief system” here that it caused the malfunction?

Right? You can see that, can you?

I don’t think so. The thought is that I’m a total fraud because although I keep saying I’ve seen things, it’s like it’s seen from intellectual seeing and not from direct looking. This is known to be total nonsense on some level but it seems easier for you to see what’s happening here, than me just saying no I don’t think I see that. And now I’m back to maybe I do see it but it’s covered straight back over with doubt.

Thanks for your help guiding me. Maybe I should have re read this in morning but it seems easier to deal with it now and then try to get a good nights sleep.

[NoMansLand]

Nick,
It's not an exam, don't worry about being right or wrong. It's not about this at all.
It's about you looking where pointed to, and writing what pops up. Don't filter it.
I am not your teacher, so there is no risk at all.
You cannot get it wrong - how can you get using your senses wrong? You're doing fantastic so far, just keep crushing it.

Whatever pops up will help to clarify how to move forward and where should I point.
Doubt, fear, expectations, grief, sadness, nihilism - all may pop up. Just see them for what they are WHEN they arise - a thought with a story content. That's it.

So, look again at the previous post.
See for what it is and answer from direct experience.

Intellect is really not needed - seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and feeling don't require it at all, don't it?

Thoughts will arise and they will continue to tell their version of that - but see only the fact of thoughts arising and vanishing as relevant. Whatever story they tell is just content that's not needed for investigation.

Give it one more go.

Best,
Adam

[RhinoSpirit]

Hi Adam,

Thanks for the message. It was known last night that the thoughts were just thoughts “arising and vanishing” but the “story they tell” was strong. I was having a break this morning in the countryside just looking at nature, seeing and hearing and the mist from last night cleared so to speak. That’s the way it goes here. The question I always end up with is “what yo do when you don’t know what to do?”. Nowadays I know the storm will pass but I was frustrated because I wanted / felt I should reply to your message, so couldn’t just wait.

Labelling Exercise
Taking a break
Seeing tractor roll a field , simply= image/color
Smelling flowers, simply = smell
Feeling foot cramping, simply = sensation
Tasting my lip, simply = taste
Hearing birds chirping, simply = sound
Thought about being in flow again, simply = thought

What is belief exactly?

Simply thought.

What is the belief ‘made of’?

Simply Thought

WHEN does the memory/belief appear?

It doesn’t but there is a belief that it is always there.

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

No difference.

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘belief’ thought refers to something that has happened, or reoccurs?

It isn’t but it arrives pre loaded with the language that it did / does.

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

Thinking.

WHEN does the future thought appear?

When it arrives

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

No difference in nature, just a different story.

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Language it comes in.

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?

No difference in nature, just a different story.

If there is difference and how is that difference is known exactly?

No difference.

Can a thought believe in another thought?

Nope.

Can a thought do anything?

Nope.

You mentioned a "detached point of view". Can you tell me more about it?

I think the words were just thrown out there telling a story, in an attempt to make it look like they weren’t telling a story.

What is a "detached point of view""?

A thought. A thought that is claiming it’s superior to the other silly thought because it’s now “detached”.

How do you experience it directly in reality?

Just like any other thought, only the story is different.

Is there anything but seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling and thoughts arising in Direct Experience?

No.

Is the story attached to anything at all? Is there anything behind that story?

The story is “attached” to conditioning or at least appears to be. Nothing behind the story, a story is just a story.

Is "focused attention" separate from what is attended to?

It is just seeing.

Is focused attention a special mode of seeing what is - seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling and thoughts arising?

It is not a special mode, just a label to describe when it seeing is seen.

[NoMansLand]

Great job Nick. Well done investigation - and great insights. Let's go!!!

It doesn’t but there is a belief that it is always there.

WHEN is the thought of "I have a belief", "I have some subconscious stuff going on", or "This is some persistent recurring stuff that is somehow solid somewhere in my mind, apparently, maybe." happening?

Is it happening in the past, or is it somehow happening beyond experience, or is it just happening right now?
Have you ever known anything but what is happening right now?
Is the thought "This event happened before" actually happened BEFORE, or is this thought occurring right NOW?

It isn’t but it arrives pre loaded with the language that it did / does.

And what is this pre-load but another content/story?
Is one content/story more important than other content/story?
Does this actually change what is?

Language it comes in.

Sure - language is necessary, like countless other labels. We can't function without it. (At least not efficiently :)
But it won't help us in this investigation. Language = content of a thought = a story = a convention. That's what it is in direct experience.

Without intellect what is "language" but just sounds, or colors, or feelings?
Without intellect what is the "content of the thought" but just thoughts?
What is the direct experience of "language"?
Can "language" influence the direct experience?

I think the words were just thrown out there telling a story, in an attempt to make it look like they weren’t telling a story.

It's a popular story in these "circles", nothing strange about it. Seemingly detached observer/witness/awareness/god must be what remains since reality needs some sort of middleman.
But does it really need a middleman? Was there ever a middleman?
Is there an ACTUAL middleman - detached point of view?
Is it somehow separate from direct experience?

A thought. A thought that is claiming it’s superior to the other silly thought because it’s now “detached”.

Very perceptive. And can these thoughts ever meet? Can they touch each other? Is there an actual hierarchy in points of view, superiority, or one thought thinking another thought? Or is it just another thought that says "there is a sold story here somewhere in a background and it must be real"?

What is "I" but another thought?
What is "I" but another language convention?
If you were to replace "I" with "X" or with "Z" would that change actual experience?

It is not a special mode, just a label to describe when it seeing is seen.

Is there a separate experiencer of the "seeing" or is it just seeing?

Here is an exercise that examines the way in which the mind labels experience - it takes about 20 minutes and you will need a pen a paper.

This exercise is broken into 10-minute lots.
For each 10-minute period pay attention to any bodily sensation ie is there any tightening or any relaxing?

For the first ten minutes write down what you are experiencing right now using the word “I”.

For example: I am sitting on a chair, I am hearing a clock ticking, I am looking at a computer screen, I am feeling hungry. Get right to the point, no past or future fantasy, just a plain description of your experience right here and now.
Then for the next ten minutes continue writing down what you are experiencing but this time without using the word “I”. Just describe the experience as it is happening using verbs.

For example: sitting on a chair, typing, breathing, blinking, hearing the clock. (Again, watch what is happening in the body.)

At the end of the twenty minutes compare the two ways in which the experience was labelled and answer the following four questions:

1. Is one truer than the other, and If so, which one?
2. What is here without labels?
3. Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?
4. Did you notice any differences in the body?

Best,
Adam

[RhinoSpirit]

Hi Adam,

Agreed - Let's go!!!

I was working this afternoon/evening and wrote my responses to your questions, which I’ve just edited here. I will do the exercises in the morning when I’m fresh and respond separately.

WHEN is the thought of "I have a belief", "I have some subconscious stuff going on", or "This is some persistent recurring stuff that is somehow solid somewhere in my mind, apparently, maybe." happening?

The thought happened in the now moment.

Is it happening in the past, or is it somehow happening beyond experience, or is it just happening right now?

It was right now when it happens, but that now is what we now call then.

Have you ever known anything but what is happening right now?

It’s weird because as soon I go to memory that is happening right now, so no I haven’t.

Is the thought "This event happened before" actually happened BEFORE, or is this thought occurring right NOW?

Right now.

And what is this pre-load but another content/story?

Yep, just another story.

Is one content/story more important than other content/story?

Only to the separate self. Thoughts are all the same bar the content.

Does this actually change what is?

Nothing can change what is, whatever that is.

Without intellect what is "language" but just sounds, or colors, or feelings?

It’s nothing without the intellect.

Without intellect what is the "content of the thought" but just thoughts?

Just thoughts, doing what they do.

What is the direct experience of "language"?

Simply thoughts.

Can "language" influence the direct experience?

I have used “language” mostly in respect to the wording of thoughts. One minute it says “I shouldn’t have done that” and the next “you shouldn’t have done that”. Both obviously cannot be true and as they are made of exactly the same stuff both must be false. So my direct experience of language is just thoughts, though something happens that pulls me into the story.

But does it really need a middleman? Was there ever a middleman?

I’ve long suspected not, but the middleman is cunning. It uses language to commentate about the “middleman” and its tricky to spot in the moment.

Is there an ACTUAL middleman - detached point of view?

Middleman is illusory, smoke and mirrors.

Is it somehow separate from direct experience?

No.

A thought. A thought that is claiming it’s superior to the other silly thought because it’s now “detached”.
Very perceptive. And can these thoughts ever meet?

No, a thought cannot know or think about another thought.

Can they touch each other?

It’s not possible.

Is there an actual hierarchy in points of view, superiority, or one thought thinking another thought?

They are all the same.

Or is it just another thought that says "there is a sold story here somewhere in a background and it must be real"?

Only the cunning use of language can give that illusion.

What is "I" but another thought?

That simple statement about sums it all up. It’s comical!

What is "I" but another language convention?

Nothing really.

If you were to replace "I" with "X" or with "Z" would that change actual experience?

Not one bit.

Is there a separate experiencer of the "seeing" or is it just seeing?

It feels like another layer (so separate) but it is all the same onion, there is just seeing with no separate experiencer.


Labelling Exercise
Walking this morning
Seeing birds playing on the wind, simply= image/color
Smelling seaweed, simply = smell
Feeling rain on face, simply = sensation
Tasting sea air, simply = taste
Hearing waves breaking in beach, simply = sound
Thought about route, simply = thought