Path or No Path

Welcome to the main forum. When you are ready to start a conversation, register and once your application is processed a guide will come to talk to you.
This is one-on-one style forum, one thread per green member.
User avatar
pwsamadhi
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:12 am

Re: Path or No Path

Postby pwsamadhi » Tue May 15, 2018 7:56 am

Without thought, how could it possibly be known what the “initial impression of the image” is?
When "I" see someone sad or happy, there's no thought that occurs. Nothing needs to be verbalized in the mind for "me" to know that person is sad or happy. It's just known. I'm being honest here. Why does thought need to rise to know something? If "I" see someone crying, I do not need to verbalize thought "oh, she must be sad". Right away without thinking, one knows what the other is experiencing through empathy (or even instinct, intuition).
What is the actual experience of facial emotions?
Seeing. Movement of images or shapes.
Does color know anything about facial emotions?
Does taste know anything about facial emotions?
Does smell know anything g about facial emotions?
Does sensation know anything about facial emotions?
Does sound know anything about facial emotions?
Does thought know anything about facial emotions?
Not in its individual faculty, but collectively the experience is known. It's like the elephant with the blind men, each knowing one part but not knowing the whole until it's put together. Like the elephant to the blind man, is the experience to the individual sense faculties.
Does a new-born baby know anything about what a face is?
A new-born baby doesn't know anything let alone a face. But as a child develops, the child begins to recognize mom versus dad. If AI can perform facial recognition or voice recognition, a child can without being taught. From direct experience, neither of us, truly know what a new born knows.
Can you see that the word "however" is the beginning of a story and all stories are thought content. The only place where 'knowing' happens is in thought. Are you referring to some other sensing like smelling or tasting? The phrase, "there's a sense of knowing," is itself nothing more than thought content. "Beyond thought" is theory - thought content.

What exactly is it that has a “sense of knowing”?
Sometimes we describe this sense of knowing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ is sensing something. But the question is, can a feeling ‘sense’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘sense’?
This was what I was trying to imply. It didn't fit any of the descriptions of the sense faculties. As mentioned in the example above, when we see someone sad, it doesn't require thought to know. Neither verbalized mental word nor thought arises upon initial impression. Seeing those soccer girls smile, I didn't have to think to myself and say "oh they're happy". So I don't know how to categorize what this is.
Direct Experience happens in the moment. There are no conclusions drawn. Direct experience is just direct experience. "Things just known" is a story - thought content.
Struggling with this because there's no story told or thought that arises. Many times throughout the day, "I" gaze at pedestrians without judging or labeling, yet "I" understand raw emotion when "I" see it. No thought arises to know.
The label ‘excitement’ is the DE of thought and not the DE of excitement
The sensation labelled ‘excitement’ is the DE of sensation and not the DE of excitement
Agreed.
The thoughts about what excitement is and what is excited (content of thought) is AE of thought and not the AE of a person or of excitement.
Agreed. The collective sensations labeled "excitement" arising. No person being excited.
So what is actually appearing as DE is label + sensation + colour + thoughts about excitement. But in DE is excitement actually known? Or does thought point to the sensation and label it ‘excitement’?
Thought points to the collective sensations and labels it "excitement". Although the label is not necessary. It is only needed when creating a self-story or to communicate it to another. The collective sensations of excitement are still known via direct experience without the actual "label" but through it's unique combination of physical sensations.
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is ‘excited/excitement’?
As mentioned above, the collective sensations create the expression of what we label "exited or excitement". But the label nor thought is needed. The experience itself is complete without thought.
Now have a look at “increased heart rate”, “tenseness in muscles”, “shortness of breath” and tell me what they are in DE.
Physical sensations.
Information that cannot be experienced directly is content of thought. Do you see this?
No, not quite there yet. "I've" experienced numerous cases of experience without thought nor thought content. In times of heightened emotional states, thoughts aren't even present. Just raw emotional or sensate experience. These intense situations, thoughts simply aren't there. This occurs in "flow" states as well.
Have you actually seen there is no “I” or are you just saying it because this answer doesn’t correspond with any or your other answers that all point to an “I” called Peter?
It doesn't require an "I" to know. It's just part of experience. When an image is seen, emotions and physical sensations arise with that image simultaneously. There's no "I" thought here.
When an actual feeling is felt, for example, fear, can you describe that feeling in precise detail to me? I don’t want to know what fear is, I want you to describe the sensation labelled as ‘fear’.
Quite similar to excitement but with slight variations with physical sensations,
-Tenseness, nervousness, sweaty palms, butterflies in stomach, immobilized, mind going blank, dry mouth, heat rising up the neck, heat rising around the body

Artst
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Path or No Path

Postby Artst » Wed May 16, 2018 7:57 am

Hi, Peter,

I don't think I'm the right guide for you. I have asked the other guides if one of the will take over your thread. It may take a couple of days before another guide responds.

The new guide will simply post on your thread and continue with you.

Sending love,

Robyn
Bring Art to Life

User avatar
pwsamadhi
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:12 am

Re: Path or No Path

Postby pwsamadhi » Wed May 16, 2018 9:21 pm

I don't think I'm the right guide for you. I have asked the other guides if one of the will take over your thread. It may take a couple of days before another guide responds.
Got it. Well thanks for all the time you spent this past two months and have taken me this far. You've definitely opened some other perspectives for me and have exposed subtle traces of thought that "I" previously was not aware of. As we both know, all of this is spontaneously arising and not our doing.

Much gratitude, thank you!

User avatar
pwsamadhi
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:12 am

Re: Path or No Path

Postby pwsamadhi » Fri May 18, 2018 2:29 am

The part I don't get is...

Per Guide:
And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?
Peter's Response:
No it's not necessary. It's just content that arises on it's own. The commentator that comes and goes.
If the inner narration of thought not a necessity for the play of life to happen, which we both agreed upon. Then why is thought, which is nothing but mere narration, required "to know" anything. There is an un-verbalized knowing, a cognizing, when the sense faculties are experienced. How is this any different from inner narration?

Could a guide tell me the difference? Why does knowing, must imply that it's thought content or that there's an "I". Can one not know an experience through the sense faculties without thought. Thought occurs only as a communication of the experience.

As soon as you bite into something tasty, you know it's good without the need for thought to arise.

Artst
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Path or No Path

Postby Artst » Fri May 18, 2018 8:04 am

Peter,

You're entirely welcome! It's a two-way street. I get enormous value from guiding. Thank you for all I've learned from guiding you.

Sending love,

Robyn
Bring Art to Life

User avatar
Canfora
Posts: 3554
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 2:58 pm

Re: Path or No Path

Postby Canfora » Fri May 18, 2018 9:01 am

Hi Peter,

I'm Canfora and I'm your new guide. I didn't read all your conversation with Robyn, only pieces here and there.

I've read the questions in your last post but I would prefer to start by asking you the below questions - we can deal with your questions later:

- can you already see that a separate self is an illusion?

- if you do see -- how do you know you see the illusion?

- if you don't see -- how do you know you don't see the illusion?

Looking forward to our talk,
C

User avatar
pwsamadhi
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:12 am

Re: Path or No Path

Postby pwsamadhi » Fri May 18, 2018 11:01 pm

Hello Canfora! Hope all is well.
Can you already see that a separate self is an illusion?
I see that experience regardless internal or external is still just experience. This mind/body and its sense faculties are integrated into the environment. It coexists and there is a dependent origination. There is no lasting permanent self. Everything is a constant flow or change of this moment. A play of elements, sense consciousness that make this moment.

There is seeing... but no "I" that sees.
There is hearing... but no "I" that hears.
etc..

Because of this, one cannot be separate from what is or what exists. This mind/body sense faculties is connected to its environment and part of the whole. It's essentially one and the same.
If you do see -- how do you know you see the illusion?
I recognize the "I" thought that thinks it's a separate individual. A personality. The narrating mind that most people identify with. The story or contents of the mind. There is a seeing and acknowledgement of the "I", "me", "my" stories and although initially powerful, it's stores are starting to wane, to be seen through. It is noticed more frequently and then it stops. At times it's not even there. Or when it does arise, it is given little importance and disregarded.
If you don't see -- how do you know you don't see the illusion?
There are times when I don't see when an emotional event is very powerful. Then it takes on the "I" who is experiencing the experience. However, it is quickly understood and dropped once the conditions that arise which caused the emotional event dissipates. Then it is seen that, there is no "I" who experienced this event, it was due to causes and conditions that arise for the mind/body to express itself this way.

User avatar
Canfora
Posts: 3554
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 2:58 pm

Re: Path or No Path

Postby Canfora » Sat May 19, 2018 2:21 pm

Hi Peter! Thank you for your reply. I think I got a feeling of where you are regarding this path.
This mind/body
Would you say you think you are mind/body?

Have a look at what you call mind.
Can you see something in "this mind" that is you?
Are the thoughts about you you?

Have a look at what you call body.
Can you see something in the body that is you?
If you look at a hand -- would you say you are the hand or something inside the hand?

I wish you a nice weekend.
Take care,
C

User avatar
pwsamadhi
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:12 am

Re: Path or No Path

Postby pwsamadhi » Sun May 20, 2018 4:12 am

Would you say you think you are mind/body?
Intellectually and conceptually, I understand I'm not the mind and not the body. But I have not yet had any enlightenment experience where there's a shift in perception where one sees that they are everything. "YOU are not in this world, but the world is in you". Where the knower and known is one. One of my favorite quotes.

Have a look at what you call mind.
Can you see something in "this mind" that is you?
Are the thoughts about you you?
No. There is no mind aside from thought. Mind is just a bundle of thoughts. Thoughts come and go. There is the experience of thought and there exists the content of thought. As of late, I've been disregarding thoughts. But as I mentioned earlier, it becomes more real when emotionally charged.
Have a look at what you call body.
Can you see something in the body that is you?
No, there is no self that can be found in the body.
If you look at a hand -- would you say you are the hand or something inside the hand?
No. There is the object hand and the seeing of the hand. The habitual thought "my hand" arises, but I know that is just a thought and that there is no "my".

User avatar
Canfora
Posts: 3554
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 2:58 pm

Re: Path or No Path

Postby Canfora » Sun May 20, 2018 2:16 pm

Hi Peter! Thank you for your reply.
Intellectually and conceptually, I understand I'm not the mind and not the body.
We have all kind of thoughts all the time.
A thought can be about "Intellectually and conceptually, I understand I'm not the mind and not the body."
Or a thought can be about "But I have not yet had any enlightenment experience where there's a shift in perception where one sees that they are everything."
Thoughts have the tendency to be "black" or "white", dual.
Examples:
1. black and white
2. large and small
3. up and down
4. left and right
5. fast and slow
6. easy and hard
7. young and old
8. loud and quiet

Thinking about the self illusion isn't an exception.
A thought can be "a separate self is an illusion".
Or a thought can be "that can't be true, I am me, a self."
Since thoughts are what they are (whatever that may be!) and do what they do, how do you know if they are accurate or not?
But I have not yet had any enlightenment experience where there's a shift in perception where one sees that they are everything. "YOU are not in this world, but the world is in you".
Right now are you having an experience where you aren't everything? How do you know that?
Can you find any bondaries between you and all the rest? Can you find this you, you're talking about, that isn't everything?

Take care,
C


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 4 guests