Bring it on

[PatrickM]

Hi David.

What is an individual sensation?

I'm using that phrase "individual sensation" to loosely describe a single sensation.

What sensations are non-individual?

So I'm not sure it would make sense to refer to non-individual sensations. I think I was trying to discern between an individual sensation and the overall felt sense of being or 'sense of I' that seems to be a collection or group or combination of individual sensations.

Are the individual sensations appearing in your experience and non-individual sensations appearing outside?

All sensations are appearing in my experience.

What is the distance between you and an individual sensations?

There is no distance.

What is the distance between you and a non-individual sensations?

Yeah I think my term "individual sensation" may have misled you but the distance between me and an individual sensation is the same as the distance between me and a collection or group of sensations i.e. zero distance.

Where is your experience of sensation appearing?

Yes, good question! My experience is that sensation is appearing right here. And on paper it does make sense to me that all sensations appear or are experienced in the exact same place.

But when not looking closely like this it does seem like the default mode is to assume the sensation of cold in the toes is happening down in the toes.

Why are you adding a BUT here?:

but they all seem to combine or result in a felt sense of being or existing

Remember that the felt sense of being is natural. As we talk a few messages back.
What is wrong with the sense of being and existing?
Why the BUT?

I'm not saying anything is wrong with all these sensations combining into a felt sense of being or existing, or that there is anything wrong with the 'sense of I' as you refer to it. I'm saying that this collection of sensations that feels centered in the chest area has a stronger sense of the separate self when compared to an individual sensation.

Cheers.

[Windaway]

Hello Patrick,

Ok, I misunderstood the word individual. Sorry.

But when not looking closely like this it does seem like the default mode is to assume the sensation of cold in the toes is happening down in the toes.

If you want to discover what is here, you have to look closely.
As you have just discovered, when you don't look closely every hallucination can seem true.

The only way to overwrite the "default mode" is to keep looking closely again and again. Until it is clear to you that ANYTHING can seem true, so every time there is this "seemingly" you recognize it for what it is: a false assumption.

You see the assumption but don't believe it, that's all.
Just like when the colors on a screen aligns in a certain way there can seem to be a fish appearing. But there is no actual fish. All there is, is the screen.

I'm not saying anything is wrong with all these sensations combining into a felt sense of being or existing, or that there is anything wrong with the 'sense of I' as you refer to it. I'm saying that this collection of sensations that feels centered in the chest area has a stronger sense of the separate self when compared to an individual sensation.

I find it interesting that you're dividing a single sensation and a group of sensations.
At the same time, you can see that there is no distance between you and sensations.
If there is no distance between you and sensation how can there be distance between two sensations?
Let's explore:

Take a group of sensations, look, and tell me how many sensations are inside this group?
Take the same group of sensations, how far apart are the single sensations from each other, inside this group?
If there are many different sensations inside a group. Are there groupe inside the group itself?


How do you draw the line between a sensation and another sensation?

Can you find a border between two sensations?
If you find one what is this border made of?

Can you find anything in sensation other than sensation?

Don't stay at the level of seemingly, look closely.

[PatrickM]

Hi David.

If you want to discover what is here, you have to look closely.
As you have just discovered, when you don't look closely every hallucination can seem true.
The only way to overwrite the "default mode" is to keep looking closely again and again. Until it is clear to you that ANYTHING can seem true, so every time there is this "seemingly" you recognize it for what it is: a false assumption.

Yes this makes sense.

I find it interesting that you're dividing a single sensation and a group of sensations.

I haven't fully explored this yet but in the previous exercise where I was checking out the body sensations it seemed like the ones in the chest area were grouped and felt more like "me" or more like the separate self.

So the last couple days I have been thinking of the separate self or the false sense of self as a group or series of sensations that is just so habitual and known and fast that the sensations don't even really register anymore, it just instantly produces "I" or the separate self. That is probably how that line of thinking started.

At the same time, you can see that there is no distance between you and sensations.
If there is no distance between you and sensation how can there be distance between two sensations?
Let's explore:
Take a group of sensations, look, and tell me how many sensations are inside this group?

I will use the group of sensations at the chest area because that is probably what started all this.

So this group seems to be made of:

Feeling of heart beating on skin
Feeling of heart beating a bit deeper in the body
Feeling of chest rising and falling with breath
Feeling of abdomen rising and falling with breath
Feeling of warmth/vibration in center of chest
Feeling of clothes on skin as chest rises and falls
Image of chest area as seen in thought
Image of shirt I'm wearing as seen in thought

Take the same group of sensations, how far apart are the single sensations from each other, inside this group?

Ahh okay it took me a second but now I think I know what you're asking.

All the sensations register or are known in the same place i.e. here or in awareness. But it does also feel like I am scanning around a bit or going down to chest area to register all the individual sensations.

If there are many different sensations inside a group. Are there groupe inside the group itself?

No.

How do you draw the line between a sensation and another sensation?

The feeling of the heart beating is different than the feeling of the chest rising and falling. But it's an interesting question because it also seems like it is labels and words that delineate between the two.

Can you find a border between two sensations?
If you find one what is this border made of?

No it seems like the next sensation just comes into awareness or just shows up. But words and labels do seem to create some type of separation.

Can you find anything in sensation other than sensation?

No.

Cheers.

[Windaway]

The feeling of the heart beating is different than the feeling of the chest rising and falling. But it's an interesting question because it also seems like it is labels and words that delineate between the two.

Exactly!

Try to explore sensing dropping all labels, words, and thoughts. Imagine you are a newborn baby that knows nothing about anything.
Sensing is there, connect to this sensing, and drop everything else.
The only task I want you to do is this: Enjoy the ride

It SEEMS there is many sensations. But are they?
It SEEMS there is separation between two sensation. But is there?
It SEEMS sensing is made of many sensations. But is it?

No it seems like the next sensation just comes into awareness or just shows up. But words and labels do seem to create some type of separation.

Here is a definition of seem:
To appear to be true; to give the impression of being something.

Thoughts are the master of seemingly so..

That is why focusing on Direct Experience is so important. Because thought will ALWAYS keep producing those "seemingly" effects on anything. Thought nature is to superimpose a layer of "seemingly so" upon your direct experience.

It is essential to understand that thought doesn't create separation or division. It seems to be that way that is all.

Can you see that experience is infinitely differentiable but never divided?
That is to say, labeling experience doesn't divide it.

[PatrickM]

Hi David.

Try to explore sensing dropping all labels, words, and thoughts. Imagine you are a newborn baby that knows nothing about anything.
Sensing is there, connect to this sensing, and drop everything else.
The only task I want you to do is this: Enjoy the ride

Easier said than done! The default thinking mode is so pervasive that it would enter and stick around for awhile on a regular basis. But I found going into sensation like that kind of awesome. I will sometimes go into sensation or go into the body during meditation but more from a noting/labeling perspective, and not like newborn baby :)

It SEEMS there is many sensations. But are they?

I think I get what you're saying, that when we drop all labels, words and thoughts then it all becomes one big sensation. But experientially it still felt like there were multiple sensations, occurring in different areas or coming from different places. If I were to define 'different areas' it would probably always have a label or word attached, but that is how it felt.

It SEEMS there is separation between two sensation. But is there?

There is still some discerning between sensations that happens automatically and that creates some separation or difference between them.

It SEEMS sensing is made of many sensations. But is it?

Still feels like multiple sensations.

It is essential to understand that thought doesn't create separation or division. It seems to be that way that is all.
Can you see that experience is infinitely differentiable but never divided?
That is to say, labeling experience doesn't divide it.

Yeah I can see this. I've never thought about it that way before and it is kind of a relief🙂

But I am getting stuck a little on the previous questions. Are you suggesting that experience seems to built from multiple sensations but is actually a single sensation differentiated infinitely?

Cheers.

[Windaway]

Hello Patrick,

But I am getting stuck a little on the previous questions. Are you suggesting that experience seems to be built from multiple sensations but is a single sensation differentiated infinitely?

I appriecate your question. I will try to point to you a way to find your answer.

I think you are approaching it from fix perspective on how experience presents itself.

When you feel a "sensation" what is in your experience is not a noun. You won't find a clearly defined, unmoving, unchanging "thing" called "sensation". The very nature of sensation is to vibrate, shift, pulsate, faint, etc...
Look at any sensation and check if it is that way.

Take the sensation called "my hand", when attention goes to "my hand" you find a sensation. But is this sensation fixed, unmoving, have sharp and clear borders?

The mind imposes the label HAND upon an EXPERIENCE OF SENSING. Saying "I am feeling my hand" is a parody of what you are ACTUALLY experiencing. Which is vibrating, moving shifting, tingling, pulsating etc..

Now feel the sensation called "my thumb", when attention goes to "my thumb" you find a sensation. But is this sensation fixed, unmoving, have sharp and clear borders?

Now tell me, where does the sensation of my thumb begin and the sensation of my hand end?
Where is the sensation of my arm begin and the sensation of my hand end?

How about bones? skin? nail? are tose sensations separate from the sensation of my thumb?


There is only SENSING, the mind imagines division, category, and separation on an indivisible EXPERIENCE OF SENSING.
Can you see it?

It SEEMS sensing is made of many sensations. But is it?

Still feels like multiple sensations.

You switch the world seems to feels like..

Yes, I agree with you:
It feels like multiple sensations.
It seems like multiple sensations.

I challenge you to find one sensation separated from the others.

I even challenge you to find one sensation with PRECISION and EXACTITUDE.

[PatrickM]

Hi David.

I think you are approaching it from fix perspective on how experience presents itself.
When you feel a "sensation" what is in your experience is not a noun. You won't find a clearly defined, unmoving, unchanging "thing" called "sensation". The very nature of sensation is to vibrate, shift, pulsate, faint, etc...
Look at any sensation and check if it is that way.

Okay yes the idea of a sensation not being a noun resonates with me.

Take the sensation called "my hand", when attention goes to "my hand" you find a sensation. But is this sensation fixed, unmoving, have sharp and clear borders?

No, without the label 'my hand' I would just describe it as an amorphous vibration or tingling.

Now feel the sensation called "my thumb", when attention goes to "my thumb" you find a sensation. But is this sensation fixed, unmoving, have sharp and clear borders?

No, its just that tingling and vibration. And with eyes closed I also noticed two other labels jump in similar to the 'my thumb' label: an image of my thumb as seen in thought, and some type of knowing or geo-locating where 'that sensation' is taking place.

Now tell me, where does the sensation of my thumb begin and the sensation of my hand end?

Yeah I can't answer that.

Where is the sensation of my arm begin and the sensation of my hand end?
How about bones? skin? nail? are tose sensations separate from the sensation of my thumb?

I'm checking with eyes closed and without labels the only discerning I'm getting between sensations is that automatic geo-locating that happens. But that must be a thought too because it's saying 'toes down there and thumb up here'.

There is only SENSING, the mind imagines division, category, and separation on an indivisible EXPERIENCE OF SENSING.
Can you see it?

Yes I see that. The label 'my thumb', the image of my thumb, and that instant geo-locating are all mind additions or thoughts.

Yes, I agree with you:
It feels like multiple sensations.
It seems like multiple sensations.
I challenge you to find one sensation separated from the others.
I even challenge you to find one sensation with PRECISION and EXACTITUDE.

Yeah that makes sense, it's all the mind stuff that makes it feel like or appear to be multiple sensations.

I just went back into mind mode for a bit, checking things out from that default perspective. There can be a felt difference between intensity and character of sensations along with an instant comparison that is loaded with labels, images, geo-locating. So interesting!

Cheers.

[Windaway]

No, without the label 'my hand' I would just describe it as an amorphous vibration or tingling.

Can we call this amorphous vibration or tingling: sensing?

No, its just that tingling and vibration. And with eyes closed I also noticed two other labels jump in similar to the 'my thumb' label: an image of my thumb as seen in thought, and some type of knowing or geo-locating where 'that sensation' is taking place.

This is so interesting!
Keep exploring be curious, also don’t hesitate to share your realization or questions. The exploration of direct experience is endless. Enjoy!

I want to focus on the spontaneous aspect of sensing if that is okay with you.

Can you find a mechanism, a source or a “thing” producing sensing?

Can you find a self in sensing?

Can you find someone to whom this experience of sensing happen?

Search the sensation of “sense of me” do you find a me or only sensing?

Go to the experience of your body. Do you find a body there? Do you find a solid physical object?

Is sensing coming from a body or is the body coming from sensing+thought?

Are you the sensing or are you experiencing the sensing?

Do you find anything else in sensing THAN sensing?

How far are you from sensing?

If there is no distance, can you see that you are the sensing at the same time experiencing it?
Can you see that the world “you” referes to anything appearing in your experience?

Can you see that saying I am not the sensing or I am the sensing are both true?

Can you see that there is no clear conclusion to get?

[PatrickM]

Hi David.

Can we call this amorphous vibration or tingling: sensing?
I want to focus on the spontaneous aspect of sensing if that is okay with you.

Sounds good!

Can you find a mechanism, a source or a “thing” producing sensing?

In direct experience no I can't find anything like that.

But there is a thought popping up and saying its my body that is producing sensing.

Can you find a self in sensing?

No.

Can you find someone to whom this experience of sensing happen?

Not in direct experience, but getting caught up in the 'my body' label again. Kneejerk reaction is...it's my body that is sensing and that kind of feels like 'me'.

And then upon looking closer at that assumption 'its my body' its basically the same thing as 'my thumb' that we were discussing in the previous posts. So in addition to the label 'my body' there's an image of my body as seen in thought and a knowing or locating of where the body is i.e. mostly mind stuff.

Search the sensation of “sense of me” do you find a me or only sensing?

Without labels there is only sensing.

This also makes me think of the group of sensations that we were discussing earlier, where I was saying that the chest group of sensations has a stronger sense of 'me'. Looking back on that now....

It seems like the epicenter of that simple feeling of being or existence, or 'sense of I' to use your words, is the center of the chest. Without using labels, or images, or geo-locating, then it is just sensing and I do not find a me.

But WITH labels, images, and geo-locating the sensations in the chest area produce "my body" and maybe even "being produced by my body" and that might be why I was earlier saying that this group of sensations feels "more like me" as opposed to a single sensation from the tip of the toe. So interesting!

Go to the experience of your body. Do you find a body there? Do you find a solid physical object?

No it is just sensing.

BUT the assumption that that sensing is happening in 'my body' and that I know exactly where it is happening is so habitual that I can feel it wanting to jump in and take over.

To go into that 'sense of I' or that simple feeling of existence without being able to use words, images, or geo-locating to describe it.....then sensing is just happening.

Is sensing coming from a body or is the body coming from sensing+thought?

To conclude that this simple feeling of existence or 'this sense of I' is happening in my body is sensing + thought.

Which seems really juicy and new to me! I can see how all those labels and images and locating come rushing in to force that conclusion.

But then also a bit of confusion on the alternative. Is the alternative that sensing is coming from a body but not MY body, and it's the MY that creates the false sense of self?

Are you the sensing or are you experiencing the sensing?

Okay getting a little stuck on the term "you" but I think I know what you're asking.

It does seem like all along my default assumption has been that I experience the sensation, or this body is experiencing the sensations. But then when I look at that assumption of 'my body' and how its built from all mind stuff (labels, thoughts, geo-locating) then that assumption falls apart and there is just sensing.

Do you find anything else in sensing THAN sensing?

No.

How far are you from sensing?

Again I'm getting a little stuck on the term "you" as definitions of you, me, I are all starting to wobble a bit🙂

But it seems like it keeps going back to this central assumption that I knew exactly where all of this is happening, and without that assumption there is just sensing.

If there is no distance, can you see that you are the sensing at the same time experiencing it?
Can you see that the world “you” referes to anything appearing in your experience?

Okay now I think I'm getting a little clearer on the term "you". It does seem like that immediate experience is a better definition of "me" than all the mindstuff that usually creates the "me".

Can you see that saying I am not the sensing or I am the sensing are both true?

Yes somehow that statement makes sense.

Can you see that there is no clear conclusion to get?

I think so, but I am also kind of on overload now too as this session was quite juicy🙂

Cheers.

[Windaway]

Hello Patrick,

Great, as we keep diving into the abyss, keep exploring sensing.

But then also a bit of confusion on the alternative. Is the alternative that sensing is coming from a body but not MY body, and it's the MY that creates the false sense of self?

What do you mean by "body"?

Are you in touch with a body? (yours or any other body?)

Sensing may come from a body.
What proof do you have of the existence of a physical body?

We can get into the "sense of self" after we investigate thinking. This question may drop altogether during the exploration.
What I can say now is that words like "you" or "me" "I", and "myself" get more and more tricky as you go deeper.

There is, experiencing. Adding words to this statement is already too much.



Let's investigate thinking the same way we explore sensing.

Thinking

Let's start here:

I can see how all those labels and images and locating come rushing in to force that conclusion.

How many thoughts can arise in the now?

Can you see that thought arises in two main ways: Concept (word) and mental image?

Is that clear to you that the thought projects on sensing and perceiving, labels and images?

To be sure, look at your hand and take a mental picture of this hand. Close your eyes.
Is that mental images a true representation of the experience: sensing the hand ?

Can you see that what imposes a conclusion AND seeks a conclusion is a thought?

Without labels there is only sensing.

Can you find a thought?

When you search for a thought can you find a mental "thing" waiting for you?

Can you find a static and unchanging kind of "mental object" we call thought in your experience?
Can you find a noun call: thought?

See clearly that the experience of thinking is present just as sensing and perceiving are.
Thinking is not the enemy, thinking is simply another expression of experience in the moment.


If I ask you to listen the cars passing by attention "goes" in a direction.
If I ask you to feel the chair on which you are sitting attention "goes" in another direction.
If I ask you to be aware of your current thought, attention "goes" in another direction.

The fact that you can discern between them and can oriented to one or another is proof that you are not a prisoner of thought.

To explore thought is essential to see that those three dimensions of experiencing overlap each other but never one hides the others.

[PatrickM]

Hi David.

What do you mean by "body"?
Are you in touch with a body? (yours or any other body?)
Sensing may come from a body.
What proof do you have of the existence of a physical body?

Yeah after seeing how all the mind stuff had assumptions about the body I was starting to question it a bit.

All proof of the existence of a physical body would probably be the same as 'my thumb' i.e. just a bunch of thoughts, labels, images, locating.

But without an alternative it makes it easier to believe in a body. Meaning, there is some resistance to that idea of the physical body not existing.

Feels like I'm willing to entertain possibility that my current version of 'my body' or 'the physical body' is built on shaky or false ground, but to say the body itself doesn't exist does bring up some resistance.

How many thoughts can arise in the now?

Yes, it does seem like it is only one thought that can arise in the now but they can happen so quickly in succession that it rarely feels like it is only one thought arising.

Can you see that thought arises in two main ways: Concept (word) and mental image?

Yes I have explored this quite a bit in meditation.

Is that clear to you that the thought projects on sensing and perceiving, labels and images?

Yes.

To be sure, look at your hand and take a mental picture of this hand. Close your eyes.
Is that mental images a true representation of the experience: sensing the hand ?

No not at all.

Can you see that what imposes a conclusion AND seeks a conclusion is a thought?

I can see how thought imposes a conclusion, I'm a little less clear on thought seeking a conclusion or maybe I've never really considered it that way before.

Can you find a thought?

I can perceive a thought and assume that it is in that felt spot a few inches behind the eyes, but I can't truly find it.

When you search for a thought can you find a mental "thing" waiting for you?

No.

Can you find a static and unchanging kind of "mental object" we call thought in your experience?

No it is like other sensations, it arises and passes.

Can you find a noun call: thought?

No. It's similar to when we were looking into whether a sensation is a noun or fixed thing....something about exposing this assumption really resonates with me.

See clearly that the experience of thinking is present just as sensing and perceiving are.

Yes this makes sense.

If I ask you to listen the cars passing by attention "goes" in a direction.
If I ask you to feel the chair on which you are sitting attention "goes" in another direction.
If I ask you to be aware of your current thought, attention "goes" in another direction.
The fact that you can discern between them and can oriented to one or another is proof that you are not a prisoner of thought.

Okay I haven't considered it that way before but that makes sense. Of course I immediately start to question attention and how it can shift like that, but I'm sure we will get to that.

To explore thought is essential to see that those three dimensions of experiencing overlap each other but never one hides the others.

Just to clarify, you're referring to the listening/feeling/thinking example just above to reiterate that thought is not primary or dominant i.e. it is just another sense like hearing and feeling, correct? If so that makes sense.

Cheers.

[Windaway]

Hello Patrick,

But without an alternative it makes it easier to believe in a body. Meaning, there is some resistance to that idea of the physical body not existing.

Feels like I'm willing to entertain possibility that my current version of 'my body' or 'the physical body' is built on shaky or false ground, but to say the body itself doesn't exist does bring up some resistance.

The mind want clear and sharp answers to hold on. But WHAT IS doesn't provide those.
The body exists but is not what it seems.
Here is some clarification about the word EXIST:

You can read a lot in LU and other places that:” There is no physical body”. It is true but at the same time is a little simplistic and can be confusing when stated like that.

If we clarify the word “exist” it can dispel a lot of confusion. Nowadays the words exist and real are used interchangeably. Which is in everyday language is not a big deal but about what we are talking here is a very BIG deal.

Check the etymology of the word exist:
The word "exist" has its roots in Latin. It comes from the Latin word "existere," which is a combination of "ex," meaning "out," and "sistere," meaning "to stand." Thus, "existere" originally meant "to come forth," "to appear," or "to emerge."
So, off course things exist but that means they “appear out there” to you. Like an illusion exists BUT is not real. Or a mirage.

The separate self comes forth in your experience BUT cannot be found in reality because it IS not real.
The separate self exists (in the sense that it emerges in your experience) BUT is not real.

It is the same for the body:
The body comes forth in your experience (as a mixture of sensations and thoughts) BUT cannot be found in reality(actual experience) because it IS not what it seems to be. It is not a "thing" to be found somewhere.
The body exists (in the sense that it emerges in your experience) BUT is not real.

The mirage does not have to disappear for you to KNOW that it is not real.
Just as if you see a dragon in a movie you don’t have to make the dragon disappear to KNOW it is not real. And that also doesn’t prevent you from enjoying the movie.

If someone comes to you and starts talking about dragons, you don’t have to argue with them about the reality of dragons. You simply know that dragons are not real. You can even enjoy having a conversation about dragons. It becomes a problem when you start to believe that dragons are real.

So, sensations, Color, Tree, Politics, and Santa Claus all exist in different dimensions of conceptualization (thoughts) but none of them are ACTUAL.

I want to clarify also that the word: REAL, can be confusing and tricky.
Because what appears in your experience always seems real to some degree.
A better world would be: ACTUAL.
But it doesn't fit well in sentences and the structure of language.

You are in that space "in-between". You have discovered that the body is only sensations+thoughts BUT you don't know what "to do" with your experience of a body.

The beauty of WHAT IS, is that there is no contraction between the two. There are two different ways to perceive/interpret the same indivisible actuality. The part of you that wants an alternative to the physical body, is the thought searching for a conclusion, searching to make sense to build new concepts and beliefs.


I hope that helps.

Yes, it does seem like it is only one thought that can arise in the now but they can happen so quickly in succession that it rarely feels like it is only one thought arising.

The words "quickly" and "succesion" can be stress felt in the body (aka sensing). When you feel this stream of thought check your sensations. see what happens and let me know.

I can see how thought imposes a conclusion, I'm a little less clear on thought seeking a conclusion or maybe I've never really considered it that way before.

Don't worry about what you don't see or feel. If it is here and now, explore. If it is not don't bother. Because what needs to be seen is seen. Also I maybe wrong sometimes.

But thank you to let me know where you are at. Is VERY helpful to know where you are. So keep sharing!

...something about exposing this assumption really resonates with me.

Perfect. Non-duality is about exposing the duality. Not find reality or truth!
Keep exploring, keep this curiosity alive, and check all aspects of your experience.

Of course I immediately start to question attention and how it can shift like that, but I'm sure we will get to that.

Yeah, we will explore shift and mouvement later on if it is needed.

To explore thought is essential to see that those three dimensions of experiencing overlap each other but never one hides the others.

Just to clarify, you're referring to the listening/feeling/thinking example just above to reiterate that thought is not primary or dominant i.e. it is just another sense like hearing and feeling, correct? If so that makes sense.

Yes

Lets keep exploring thoughts:

Can you find Patrick in thoughts?

Can you find an individual, a thing, or a mechanism that is producing thoughts?

Can you find an individual, a thing, or a mechanism that is choosing thoughts?

Can you find an individual, a thing, or a mechanism that is controlling thoughts?

Can you find a single thought or all you find is thinking?

Is thinking in sensing?

Is thinking in perceiving?

Is thinking inside or contained by something?

[PatrickM]

Thank you David for that clarification on the body. That addresses the resistance I was feeling and clears up a bunch of stuff for me.

The body exists but is not what it seems.

That sums it up quite well.

Also like this idea that direct experience is unable to provide the answers that the mind seeks....and that's a good thing! This resonates with me and I can see how that lack of answers has fuelled some of my repetitive seeking patterns over the past few years.

The body comes forth in your experience (as a mixture of sensations and thoughts) BUT cannot be found in reality(actual experience) because it IS not what it seems to be. It is not a "thing" to be found somewhere.

Again I am struck by this notion that the body is not a noun or thing as I have always assumed. I had same reaction to sensation not being a noun, just something about that acknowledgment seems to really cut through a bunch of layers.

And I appreciate your clarification of the word REAL because that is part of the resistance I was feeling. To reframe it as body coming forth in experience but not as fixed known thing feels right to me.

The words "quickly" and "succesion" can be stress felt in the body (aka sensing). When you feel this stream of thought check your sensations. see what happens and let me know.

Yes I have looked into this before and have a hard time describing it. I see this all the time during my meditation sessions, its like a tale of two worlds. One being presence and awareness of all that is happening, the other being completely intertwined with and swept away by the thoughtstream.

Right now it seems easier to describe what happens when I come out of the thoughtstream, or that moment when I become aware I have been swept away and completely convinced by the thoughtstream. It feels like an unclenching or un-gripping or loosening and settling back into what is here. But it is harder for me to detect the sensations of that clenching or gripping when it is happening in the midst of a thought parade.

Can you find Patrick in thoughts?

I can find all sorts of references to Patrick and 'me' but no actual Patrick.

Can you find an individual, a thing, or a mechanism that is producing thoughts?

No thoughts are just happening.

Can you find an individual, a thing, or a mechanism that is choosing thoughts?

No.

Can you find an individual, a thing, or a mechanism that is controlling thoughts?

No. But again it does make me think of that ability to shift attention and that feels like a flavor of choosing or controlling what to think.

Can you find a single thought or all you find is thinking?

Okay this is an interesting one, very similar to finding a single sensation. I can see my tendency to believe that these are single thoughts. But in direct experience the borders or the starting and ending points of a single thought aren't fixed or recognizable.

Is thinking in sensing?

Hmmm this is a tough one, not sure I understand the question.

Is thinking in perceiving?

Getting a little turned around here. Mind goes to....is hearing in perceiving? Hearing is perceiving and not in it, but it feels weird to say that thinking is perceiving.

Is thinking inside or contained by something?

My default mode has always been to assume thinking is inside me or mind or brain. But that assumption is built using labels, words, images, geo-locating. So in direct experience thinking is just happening.

Cheers.

[Windaway]

Hello Patrick,

Also like this idea that direct experience is unable to provide the answers that the mind seeks....and that's a good thing! This resonates with me and I can see how that lack of answers has fuelled some of my repetitive seeking patterns over the past few years.

Great

Again I am struck by this notion that the body is not a noun or thing as I have always assumed. I had same reaction to sensation not being a noun, just something about that acknowledgment seems to really cut through a bunch of layers.

And I appreciate your clarification of the word REAL because that is part of the resistance I was feeling. To reframe it as body coming forth in experience but not as fixed known thing feels right to me.

This is a MAJOR revelation. I don't want to make a big deal of them because is easy to get caught in conclusions and stories. But it is HUGE what is happening to you.

At first, it can be strange like being in two worlds at the same time. But it will settle.

Yes I have looked into this before and have a hard time describing it. I see this all the time during my meditation sessions, its like a tale of two worlds. One being presence and awareness of all that is happening, the other being completely intertwined with and swept away by the thoughtstream.

Yeah, I know. But the fact that you are aware of both of them is fantastic. You still make a difference between thought (which is thinking) and awareness. When we start this talk you also use the worlds : "sept away".

But that only little confusion is easy to clear up.
You agree that there are no thoughts and the only "thing" you find is thinking.
Well, thinking has, let's say some range of experience, sometimes like a soft, quiet streaming and others like the Niagara Falls.

BUT thinking never changes!
Plus, does thinking have a size?
Is the thought elephant bigger than the thought ant?

Can you see that thinking doesn't have size?


Now about this "swept away".
Tell me what is the thing or object, that is swept away?

If it is you that are sept away where are you going?

What is "sweeping you away" are positive thoughts or negative thoughts?

Because if you were swept away by rainbows, angels, and butterflies you wouldn't report it as a problem isn't it?

I am under the belief that behind "sept away in thought" is an emotion that you find uncomfortable.
Am I right? Check, please.

Right now it seems easier to describe what happens when I come out of the thoughtstream, or that moment when I become aware I have been swept away and completely convinced by the thoughtstream. It feels like an unclenching or un-gripping or loosening and settling back into what is here. But it is harder for me to detect the sensations of that clenching or gripping when it is happening in the midst of a thought parade.

You are imposing a separation between thinking and awareness. But this separation is nowhere to be found.
Thinking is an expression of awareness. As such it is not hiding anything.

Saying that thoughts are a problem is the same as saying:"Move away those goddamn leaves I cannot see the forest.

No. But again it does make me think of that ability to shift attention and that feels like a flavor of choosing or controlling what to think.

Do the exercise at the bottom.

Okay this is an interesting one, very similar to finding a single sensation. I can see my tendency to believe that these are single thoughts. But in direct experience the borders or the starting and ending points of a single thought aren't fixed or recognizable.

Exactly there is only thinking.
How can you be swept away by something that has no limits or borders?
The "I am being swept away in thoughts" IS ONLY thinking.
Is it true?

Is thinking in sensing?

Hmmm this is a tough one, not sure I understand the question.

Often we think that thinking happens inside the body (mainly the head or brain).
The only experience we have of the body or head is sensations. (there is absolutely not experience of a brain outside of thoughts (aka thinking))
But wait, I cannot find one sensation, I find only sensing.

So when the belief arises:" thinking is in the head"
What it is really saying is: "Thinking happens in sensing."
But is it?

Is thinking in perceiving?

Getting a little turned around here. Mind goes to....is hearing in perceiving? Hearing is perceiving and not in it, but it feels weird to say that thinking is perceiving.

My bad, I wasn't clear enough. By perceiving I meant an outside word. The activities of seeing, hearing, tasting and smelling.
Let's leave this one.

My default mode has always been to assume thinking is inside me or mind or brain. But that assumption is built using labels, words, images, geo-locating. So in direct experience thinking is just happening.

YEAH, isn't that AMAZING?!?!?

Sensing and Thinking are inexplicably happening!!!!



About control:

Stream Exercise

Imagine for a moment a scene, one of a little mountain stream which is tumbling down a hillside gully, not far from its source. It has been raining and so the level is quite high. Consider in your mind's eye, if you can, how it flows to the right over a little rock (where, had the level been lower, it would probably have gone around the rock), then the flow goes to the left over a tree bow, and then slows a little in a broader place, before splashing over a small cascade into a pool, and so on down the mountain side. Does it choose any of its directions? Is it even really a separate entity different from the water deposited in it, the rocks, the depressions in the ground etc? Is it even the same entity moment by moment, or more the product of weather conditions and water, like an ever-changing pattern?

1. Can you find anywhere where 'insert name' autonomously intervenes into life, choosing something that is not the product of all the elements; that is not a part of the overall flow?

2. Now please consider a regular decision made eg; what to wear in the morning, or what to eat for lunch, and describe to me what happens. There are environmental factors, there are colour preferences (but where did those come from - any autonomous intervention there perhaps?), practical issues (such as what is available), available time for preparation, purpose (eg; need to fill up for the day, or to look hip and cool for that person!) etc. Where in there is an autonomous entity intervening in the flow of life? Can you find someone somewhere?

3. Can anything be found for which Patrick is responsible – if so responsible to what and for what?

[PatrickM]

Hi David.

This is a MAJOR revelation. I don't want to make a big deal of them because is easy to get caught in conclusions and stories. But it is HUGE what is happening to you.

Okay great I will do same and keep pressing onwards.

Plus, does thinking have a size?
Is the thought elephant bigger than the thought ant?
Can you see that thinking doesn't have size?

Yes I can see that now, how thinking is thinking, but I have never considered it like that before. Variations in intensity of thoughts makes it FEEL different but I can see how it is all thinking.

Now about this "swept away".
Tell me what is the thing or object, that is swept away?

The meditation example I used in the previous post with the two different modes is a good way to describe it:

One world is presence and awareness of all that is coming into experience.

The other is being 'swept away' into a thought parade where 'I' am the hero of a scene or home movie, usually taking place in the future or the past, with some type of conflict that is being played out and I am completely intertwined with the 'I' and its struggles as if it is real and actually happening.

So I guess when I use that term 'swept away' its another way of saying how quickly and invisibly I am pulled into those future and past scenarios and get completely intertwined with the 'I'.

If it is you that are sept away where are you going?

Yes its already weird to talk about it and use 'I' to describe being swept away, but it would also be weird to not talk about it that way because it does seem like awareness checks out and the false I just takes over for awhile, whether its for 10 seconds or a minute or whatever.

What is "sweeping you away" are positive thoughts or negative thoughts?
Because if you were swept away by rainbows, angels, and butterflies you wouldn't report it as a problem isn't it?

It is both, but of course the negative thought parades feel more troublesome.

Catastrophizing over conflict with sister-in-law and playing out scenarios and what could happen if it all goes wrong.

Fantasizing about work projects being lauded and ensuing social validation where everything turns out roses.

There is a veracity and something believable about being "in" these thought parades, similar to a dream feeling real as it is happening, that probably contributes to me using the term 'swept away'.

I am under the belief that behind "sept away in thought" is an emotion that you find uncomfortable.
Am I right? Check, please.

Yes I think so, but more in a broad general sense as opposed to situational reactions or emotions, i.e. the deep split that is the center of the psyche or identity.

I've done plenty of work on this core wound type stuff in the past and feel like I understand it on paper so will mention it here...

It always leads back to fear of not being good enough or shame or some type of helplessness where the 'I' itself is the problem. I had a self development phase where I tried to pinpoint its origins and understand it all, but that was probably just to make a better version of 'me'. Now I just see it as a natural side effect of that identity or false sense of self being built on conceptual or shaky ground.

You are imposing a separation between thinking and awareness. But this separation is nowhere to be found.
Thinking is an expression of awareness. As such it is not hiding anything.

Yes, there is something here that maybe I haven't considered before.

Looking deeper it is not just thinking that I see as a 'problem', its these elaborate deeply felt scenarios where the I is in danger or the I is being loved that feel false to me.

A couple pages ago I was asking about our overall goal....are we exposing and uprooting the false self's hold on experience? You replied no, but there is still something there...somehow I am judging or separating or seeing those particular episodes as false and therefore they shouldn't be there. Kind of thinking out loud here but there is definitely something there.

Exactly there is only thinking.
How can you be swept away by something that has no limits or borders?
The "I am being swept away in thoughts" IS ONLY thinking.
Is it true?

Yes something about that rings true.

Analogy that pops up for me while thinking about it....when being annoyed by a loud noise I never judge or question the hearing of it or perceiving of it, as if I should not have heard it.

1. Can you find anywhere where 'insert name' autonomously intervenes into life, choosing something that is not the product of all the elements; that is not a part of the overall flow?

Ha I instantly felt some resistance to this question. I've never looked at it this way before. My default has been the opposite i.e. I am in charge of which direction I flow down the mountain :)

It also feels weird to write that because there is an understanding that "I" is constructed and conceptual.

2. Now please consider a regular decision made eg; what to wear in the morning, or what to eat for lunch, and describe to me what happens. There are environmental factors, there are colour preferences (but where did those come from - any autonomous intervention there perhaps?), practical issues (such as what is available), available time for preparation, purpose (eg; need to fill up for the day, or to look hip and cool for that person!) etc. Where in there is an autonomous entity intervening in the flow of life? Can you find someone somewhere?

Like right now I'm deciding what to make for dinner. Being shaped by:

What I have in the kitchen: ingredients
What sounds good: what I've made lately, what I've eaten today
How much time I want to spend in kitchen: I want it to be fast and easy
How hungry I am: how much to make

It feels like I am going to cook what I want to eat based on all those factors, but I can also see how that is like saying the stream is deciding whether to turn right or left. So wild to think about it that way. All of the above factors feel so personal but they also have an 'I' at the heart of all of them.

But I do have a choice! I can either spend time making refried beans or not. In the past I've had these exact tacos and they tasted better with beans.

Are you saying that referencing the past and making a decision based on that memory is the equivalent of the water's trajectory being shaped by the mountain?

3. Can anything be found for which Patrick is responsible – if so responsible to what and for what?

I'm thinking of this exercise we did earlier where attention was shifting from sensation to sensation. In the moment it feels like 'I' can shift attention from toes to hand to shoulder and feel the sensation of each of those.

But when breaking that down it starts to get a little weird and fuzzy. It's a false 'I' moving from label to label with assumption that the sensation felt 'in that area' is a fixed thing or noun being felt by the false 'I' centered in 'my' head 🙂

So wild to approach it like this, but have to admit I am getting a bit of the two worlds phenomenon where both options kinda makes sense. Of course I can move my attention from my toes to shoulder I just did it! VS. there are so many labels, approximations, and assumptions in that statement that it is absolutely meaningless.

Cheers.