Who or what am I ?

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
forgetmenot
Posts: 4982
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Who or what am I ?

Postby forgetmenot » Thu May 16, 2019 12:44 am

Hello Marc,
You got to see that phenomena (sound, thought, smell, taste, sensation, colour) are known, but the knowledge ABOUT phenomena are simply AE of thought. Actual experience is everything, except the "content" of thought, because thought, in and of itself does not contain any actual experience.
Ok it's clear that the content of thought is imaginary, which means that it is also thought and only thought.
Just to clarify…thought is not imaginary…thought is also actual experience. What thought is pointing to is either actual experience (AE) or thoughts about thought, but it's still AE of thought.

Thought either points to AE or to thought about thoughts. So in that sense, not everything is story. It looks like it could be until you look a little closer.
Sound labelled "tweet" isn't story, but story can say that a blue bird down the street made that sound. Taste labelled "sweet" isn't a story, but story can be, "I love chocolate ice cream." Colour (image) isn't story, but thought could say, "Wow! What a spectacular sunset!"
Now, if image labelled "sunset," isn't experience as you presently find it to be, then it IS story.
See the difference?

There is no one/no thing that is controlling or choosing what is being ‘awared’.
When observed more closely, it results so clearly from experience that I wonder wy I didn't see this before.
It takes careful looking and takes several times doing the careful looking to see what is being pointed to.
Is fear or any other emotion is arising for you? If so, let me know and we will look at it together.
Yes, sometimes sadness arises. It always starts with thoughts; I get caught up in the content of thoughts and then suddenly sadness overwhelms me. When I realize that sadness overwhelms me, I realize that I have become the prisoner of my thought process. I focus on the fact that it is all only thoughts. Sadness is just made of labels and thoughts. This is why, in fact, sadness doesn't exist, it isn't an AE, just like the apple.
Yes…you are clear about AE and content of thought! Nice.

It is important to totally allow the feelings labelled as sadness to arise without trying to dismiss them or avoid them. To just be with them. It is important to embrace what is appearing no matter what it is labelled as. What helps to do this, is by seeing what is AE, as then this can help in not getting caught up/overwhelmed in the content of thought, mental images and the feelings whether they are subtle or intense.

It is important to note that we are not denying that the idea of ‘sadness’ is appearing…we are looking to see what actually IS and embracing what IS. And by looking at what IS, we can see that sadness is not happening TO a someone, it is simply happening. Having an aversion towards something and not wanting it to happen is what causes suffering.
Only the thoughts are experienced. The content of the thoughts are just other thoughts about the previous thoughts. Thoughts are temporary phenomena that I observe but from which my awareness is distinct. Awareness just is aware and thoughts are just thinking.
There is no ‘awareness’ AND thoughts. This is separation.
Have a very careful look…where does thought (the known) end and the knowing of it begin?
observe each and every thought as it arises and subsides
During the day, I regularly watched the thoughts that appeared. It’s difficult to see when a thought arises because when it arises attention lies within the content of the thought.
Yes..that it okay because the content of thought is thought…right? Is thinking anything other than a succession of thoughts, linked by another thought?

The actual experience of thought isn't any different just because the content of the thought is different. A thought and its content are just ALL thought. It is being aware of ALL thoughts and just ignoring what they are saying for this exercise.

It is also just an appearing thought that says “It’s difficult to see when a thought arises because when it arises attention lies within the content of the thought”!
If there’s awareness of the thought when it arises, the thought stops immediately. If there’s awareness of the thought when it is fully deployed the thought also disappears, but a little slower, it echoes a bit. Because of this disappearance, reversely, it may seem that it is when the thought is subsiding that awareness of the thought arises. It is clear that the two exclude each other, a bit like a thief that you only see when he has left or that, more precisely, you just don't see - because he just left.
Hmmm….if you weren’t aware of a thought, then how could a thought be known? Can a thought hide somewhere without you being aware of it? Where would it hide exactly and for what purpose? A thought knows nothing…it isn’t sitting in a parking lot somewhere waiting for its cue to appear! Everything that you wrote in this paragraph is a thought!

A thought is known, yes…as is colour, smell, taste etc. Where does thought (known) end, and the knowing of it begin? Can you find a dividing line between the knowing of thought and the thought itself? Or is there simply knowingknown – ie no dividing line?
Please do the following exercise: Throughout your waking day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. It can be done by noticing that ‘thinking’ is happening right now, then stop and just simply wait for the next thought to come.
In the ‘waiting’ there is a gap between two thoughts. Let me know how you go.
The gap between thoughts seems to be more natural than the thoughts themselves. The gap seems to be peace and well being or harmony.
Without thought saying "The gap between thoughts seems to be more natural than the thoughts themselves. The gap seems to be peace and well being or harmony"...how would this be known?
Thinking seems to be an activity whereas the gap between the thoughts seems just "being", without an additional activity. I see that during the gap between thoughts I'm more "one", more natural,whereas thinking implies there being a split in awareness, something like awareness reverberating itself.
"Thinking seems to be an activity"....to whom/what is it an activity?

How is it known that a gap has appeared?

Could you find a thinker of thought between the gaps?
Between the gaps there's thinking. Thoughts happen out of the blue, they appear, out of nothing or maybe it would be more correct to say « out of everything ».
Just as attention is not (and cannot be) created by someone or something outside of itself, I see that a thought is not created by something or someone outside of itself, it appears, just like sensations.
Yes…thoughts just appear, there is no one/no thing creating thoughts.
So, no, there’s no thinker, neither between the gaps, neither during the gaps.
During the gap there can't be a thinker because there's no thought and a thinker without thought is not a thinker.
Yes…great observation!
During the thought there can be no thinker because the thought is already existent ("during").
If there would be a thinker that makes a thought, he first should have to conceive or think of the thought he’d have to make. Therefore, the thought would have been thought before it came into existence, which is logically impossible.
So not only do I not see a thinker, I also think the existence of a thinker is logically impossible.
Ok, it's all thoughts :)
Lovely! Yes, it's ALL thoughts!

Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Marc108
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2019 9:32 am

Re: Who or what am I ?

Postby Marc108 » Thu May 16, 2019 4:04 pm

Hello Kay,
What thought is pointing to is either actual experience (AE) or thoughts about thought, but it's still AE of thought.
I see. Thoughts are AE, thinking is experienced, but the content of a thought can be AE (something heard, seen, felt or tasted, this is sweet) or other thoughts (Wow this is / a blue bird/a good ice cream/a nice sunset).
See the difference ?
Yes, tasting "sweet" is an experience but thoughts about a taste are stories.
It is important to totally allow the feelings labelled as sadness to arise without trying to dismiss them or avoid them.
. Ok, I see.
we can see that sadness is not happening TO a someone, it is simply happening. Having an aversion towards something and not wanting it to happen is what causes suffering.
Very clear.
There is no ‘awareness’ AND thoughts. This is separation.
Have a very careful look…where does thought (the known) end and the knowing of it begin?
I saw that the thought doesn’t end : when there is awareness of the thought, the thought goes on, only the ignorance of their being a thought ends.
Thinking, as a blind experience, becomes an aware experience, a knowing that there’s a thought while the thought is still happening. The quality of thought-experience changes but the thought doesn’t necessarily end.
The awareness of the thought starts from within the thought itself. Instead of being directed to a content about something exterior to itself, like a previous thought or an AE it's like if the thought turns towards itself and, as a result, it becomes aware of itself. It seems to me that thought and awareness are the same, that only the direction of attention is different (out/in). It seems that a "blind" thought is the same awareness lost in it’s own labelling.
the content of thought is thought…right?
Yes, the content of a thought isn’t an experience, it’s thoughts (about AE or about previous thoughts).
Is thinking anything other than a succession of thoughts, linked by another thought?
No, thinking is a succession of thoughts linked together by another thougt and nothing else.
The actual experience of thought isn't any different just because the content of the thought is different.
I understand, thinking about maths or about unicorns is all thinking :). This is just a thought too.
Without thought saying "The gap between thoughts seems to be more natural than the thoughts themselves. The gap seems to be peace and well being or harmony"...how would this be known?
Without thought nothing can be known.
"Thinking seems to be an activity"....to whom/what is it an activity?
Thinking is an activity but there's no one either performing it or organizing it, it happens by itself. With activity I ment movement. It would have been better to write "Thinking is movement". Awareness is manifesting as lables, and in that sense there is movement.
How is it known that a gap has appeared?
It is known by thought or, same thing, by awareness. The gap between thoughts is a silence, an absence of thoughts that can be known-awared. There's no-one knowing but there's just knowing.

Thank you !

Marc

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4982
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Who or what am I ?

Postby forgetmenot » Fri May 17, 2019 1:00 am

Hi Marc,

We might be talking at cross purposes here…meaning it might just be a language malfunction…so to speak. So I have asked further questions just to make sure that you are clear and that it is only a language difference.
What thought is pointing to is either actual experience (AE) or thoughts about thought, but it's still AE of thought.
I see. Thoughts are AE, thinking is experienced, but the content of a thought can be AE (something heard, seen, felt or tasted, this is sweet) or other thoughts (Wow this is / a blue bird/a good ice cream/a nice sunset).
Hmmm…no. The content of thought is simply more thought. Can you find the colour blue in the actual thought ‘blue’ itself? Or is the thought/label ‘blue’ pointing to AE of colour that is labelled ‘blue’?


For example….the thought ‘blue sky’

The word ‘blue’ is AE of thought, however it is pointing to AE of colour. So thought is pointing to AE.
The word ‘sky’ is AE of thought and is pointing to more thought as there is no AE of sky.
Is this clear?

See the difference ?
Yes, tasting "sweet" is an experience but thoughts about a taste are stories.
Tasting 'sweet' is being experienced by what exactly?

The word ‘sweet’ is AE of thought, however what it is pointing to AE of taste
The thoughts about ‘sweet’ and what the sweetness is etc are AE of thoughts ABOUT taste and are pointing to thoughts about thought.
Is this clear?


Taste is experience. The label ‘sweet’ is a thought about experience of/as taste.
There is no ‘awareness’ AND thoughts. This is separation.
Have a very careful look…where does thought (the known) end and the knowing of it begin?
The awareness of the thought starts from within the thought itself. Instead of being directed to a content about something exterior to itself, like a previous thought or an AE it's like if the thought turns towards itself and, as a result, it becomes aware of itself. It seems to me that thought and awareness are the same, that only the direction of attention is different (out/in). It seems that a "blind" thought is the same awareness lost in it’s own labelling.
I have no idea what you mean by a ‘blind’ thought. Thought is not an entity and cannot do anything let alone turn towards itself! How is something that is not an entity do any of this? A thought is nothing more than a cloud that is passing in the sky. Can a cloud turn towards itself? Can a cloud be known without you being aware of it? If the sky is crystal clear and cloud free…are there clouds hiding somewhere waiting for their cue to appear?

Thought is simply an appearance like sound, taste, smell, sensation and colour. It is only another thought that gives meaning to thought and says that thought is something other than experience/THIS/Knowing seemingly appearing as a thought. You are complicating a simple seeing, that it is impossible for there to be thoughts hidden anywhere. All thoughts are awared at the same time they appear. Since there is no separation then thought (which is known [AE]), and the knowing of the thought, are one and the same ie knowingknown (aka THIS/experience).
the content of thought is thought…right?
Yes, the content of a thought isn’t an experience, it’s thoughts (about AE or about previous thoughts).
The content of thought is just further thought and is therefore AE of thought.
Is thinking anything other than a succession of thoughts, linked by another thought?
No, thinking is a succession of thoughts linked together by another thougt and nothing else.
And ‘thinking’ is a simply a thought as well. For thinking to happen would mean that there is something/someone who is thinking. It is only thought that describes a succession of thoughts as 'thinking'.
The actual experience of thought isn't any different just because the content of the thought is different.
I understand, thinking about maths or about unicorns is all thinking :). This is just a thought too.
Yes.
Without thought saying "The gap between thoughts seems to be more natural than the thoughts themselves. The gap seems to be peace and well being or harmony"...how would this be known?
Without thought nothing can be known.

Knowing ABOUT something is called knowledge (ie thought). Knowing what actually IS, is direct/actual. Nothing is known as in knowledge – only thought says something is known because thought seemingly knows it. What is direct/actual is known because it is THIS/experience. But in regards to knowledge, THIS is unknown.
"Thinking seems to be an activity"....to whom/what is it an activity?
Thinking is an activity but there's no one either performing it or organizing it, it happens by itself. With activity I ment movement. It would have been better to write "Thinking is movement". Awareness is manifesting as lables, and in that sense there is movement.
Okay…thanks for clarifying
How is it known that a gap has appeared?
It is known by thought or, same thing, by awareness. The gap between thoughts is a silence, an absence of thoughts that can be known-awared. There's no-one knowing but there's just knowing.
There is an assumption here that there is a difference between thought and silence. Experience/Knowing/THIS is the appearance of both thought and silence.
Silence is also no different to sound. Only thought says some 'thing' isn't there.
Darkness is just a colour, like any other, no different from light. Thought labels darkness as the absence of some 'thing' but it is no less knowing/known than light is.
Empty space is no different to solid matter, it is still a some 'thing', not a lack of some 'thing' .

Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Marc108
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2019 9:32 am

Re: Who or what am I ?

Postby Marc108 » Fri May 17, 2019 6:18 pm

Hello Kay,

Thank you very much for your last post.
We might be talking at cross purposes here…meaning it might just be a language malfunction…so to speak.
It's true that sometimes I'm not precise ; for example I said "activity" while "movement" was a more accurate description.
But it probably is also a question of using the right terminology.
I see that some words carry a specific meaning, for example, "thinking" implies that there's a thinker. "Direct knowing" and "knowledge" are very different too, etc.
It just takes some explanation. I will do my best to get it as fast as possible!
Thank you for your patience !
The content of thought is simply more thought. Can you find the colour blue in the actual thought ‘blue’ itself? Or is the thought/label ‘blue’ pointing to AE of colour that is labelled ‘blue’?
Ok, I understand well that the content of thought is only more thought; that's clear to me. There is of course no blue in the thought "blue", the thought is just a thought and that thought is pointing to seeing the colour blue, which is an AE.
The word ‘blue’ is AE of thought, however it is pointing to AE of colour. So thought is pointing to AE.
Ok, I got that 100%.
The word ‘sky’ is AE of thought and is pointing to more thought as there is no AE of sky.
Is this clear?
Yes, totally clear. I won't experience "sky" while I can experience seeing a colour.
Tasting 'sweet' is being experienced by what exactly?
I see that I cannot find a "taster", there's not an entity that tastes: taste is an experience that happens directly.
The word ‘sweet’ is AE of thought, however what it is pointing to AE of taste
Ok, very clear. Sweet is a comment, a thought. It is pointing to taste and taste itself is an AE.
The thoughts about ‘sweet’ and what the sweetness is etc are AE of thoughts ABOUT taste and are pointing to thoughts about thought. Is this clear?
Yes, thoughts are AE, the label "sweet" is a thought, thoughts about "sweet" are pointing to thoughts about thought.
I have no idea what you mean by a ‘blind’ thought.
I mean that one can be aware of thoughts or not. If I'm not aware of having a thought when the thought is occuring, I'm lost in the content of the thought. Lost in the dream. Experiencing it blindly.
But if I am aware of the thought when it is happening, if I know that I'm thinking while I'm thinking, then I'm conscious of the thinking. I'm experiencing the thought while I see it, here and now. From the blind I become a seer.
Thought is not an entity
Yes, I see, I completely agree of course.
Thought ... cannot do anything let alone turn towards itself! How is something that is not an entity do any of this?
Indeed, I am wrong when I say that the thought turns towards itself. Thank you for correcting me. I actually mean that awareness turns towards the thougt and so there is awareness of there being a thought at the moment that the thought occurs. Of course, the "Oh, I'm thinking" is also a thought, it's a thought about a thought.
A thought is nothing more than a cloud that is passing in the sky.
Yes, thoughts pass like clouds in the sky.
Can a cloud turn towards itself?
I agree that a cloud /thought cannot turn towards itself. A thought can't do anything by itself.
Instead, I should have said that "there can be a new thought about a previous thought". The new thought saying "oh, there's a thought", the awareness is going from what was known in the previous thought to the fact that there is a thought going on. So there's a new thought that says "thinking" and the process goes on.
Can a cloud be known without you being aware of it?
No, I cannot see a cloud without being aware of it, just like I couldn't hear the sound of a car without being aware of the sound. There cannot be a thought if I'm not aware of what I think. But I can think without being aware of the fact that I'm thinking. That's what I meant with "blind thinking".
If the sky is crystal clear and cloud free…are there clouds hiding somewhere waiting for their cue to appear?
.
Of course not, clouds/thoughts are not waiting to appear, they are experiences not entities; thoughts can't do anything by themselves. When they are there they are there and when there is no cloud/thought there is no cloud/thought.
All thoughts are awared at the same time they appear.
Yes, I have to be aware of what I think in order to think it. If I'm not aware of the colour I see, I can't think "this is blue".
I was talking of something different : while thinking I can be conscious or not of being thinking. I have to be aware of what I'm thinking (this is blue) but I can be unaware that I'm just thinking.
Since there is no separation then thought (which is known [AE]), and the knowing of the thought, are one and the same ie knowingknown (aka THIS/experience)
There can be no separation of the thought and the knowing of the thought : what is known is not different from that what knows/the awareness that knows. There's no separation between the known and the knowing. Same as I have to be aware of a sound in order to hear the sound, I have to be aware of the known in order to know it (to "be knowing" it).
The content of thought is just further thought and is therefore AE of thought.
What I think is thought. What I experience is experience. I don't think experience, I experience thought, like I experience colour, sound, smell, taste, touch or a thought.
‘thinking’ is a simply a thought as well. For thinking to happen would mean that there is something/someone who is thinking. It is only thought that describes a succession of thoughts as 'thinking'.
Ok, "there's thinking" is a thought, as well as "there's no thinking".
In any case, there's no thinker, there never has been one, there can't be a thinker, it's just totally impossible.
Knowing ABOUT something is called knowledge (ie thought). Knowing what actually IS, is direct/actual. Nothing is known as in knowledge – only thought says something is known because thought seemingly knows it. What is direct/actual is known because it is THIS/experience. But in regards to knowledge, THIS is unknown.
Ok, so there's a distinction: 1. knowing directly from experience = I feel pain, that's direct, knowing THIS/what is= experience ; and 2. a thought that says me something about something else = knowledge : "such and such mushrooms are poisonous and make me feel pain"= thoughts.
There is an assumption here that there is a difference between thought and silence. Experience/Knowing/THIS is the appearance of both thought and silence. Silence is also no different to sound. Only thought says some 'thing' isn't there. Darkness is just a colour, like any other, no different from light. Thought labels darkness as the absence of some 'thing' but it is no less knowing/known than light is. Empty space is no different to solid matter, it is still a some 'thing', not a lack of some 'thing' .
.
I understand that :
- on the one hand, direct experience/knowing makes no difference between gap and thought. It experiences/knows it anyway. To it silence or thought are the same, it just knows them, there's no labelling there. Since there's no thought in direct experience there's nothing that says any "thing" like "there's a gap" or "there's a thought", or "there's sound" or "there's silence", or "there's darkness" or "there's color".
- and on the other hand, when there's a thought that says "there's a gap" it's just another thought. Whether thought says that there is some "thing"/thought or says that there is not some "thing"/thought, it's all thought.

Thanks again.

Marc

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4982
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Who or what am I ?

Postby forgetmenot » Sat May 18, 2019 12:01 am

Hey Marc,
We might be talking at cross purposes here…meaning it might just be a language malfunction…so to speak.
I see that some words carry a specific meaning, for example, "thinking" implies that there's a thinker. "Direct knowing" and "knowledge" are very different too, etc.
It just takes some explanation. I will do my best to get it as fast as possible!
Thank you for your patience !
Yes, it is the terminology. If you keep using the word ‘thinking’, for example, then I will question that because thinking points to there being someone who is the thinker…which points to a separate self.

And yes…knowledge, which is thought based is definitely different to actual experience ie direct knowing.
The content of thought is simply more thought. Can you find the colour blue in the actual thought ‘blue’ itself? Or is the thought/label ‘blue’ pointing to AE of colour that is labelled ‘blue’?
Ok, I understand well that the content of thought is only more thought; that's clear to me. There is of course no blue in the thought "blue", the thought is just a thought and that thought is pointing to seeing the colour blue, which is an AE
.

Yes, exactly, but let’s look at the idea that there is someone who is ‘seeing’ colour.

The usual belief that 'I am this body' is usually tied in with the belief that the body, as a separate item is responsible for 'DOING' the senses - 'I see', 'I hear', 'I feel' etc

Sit quietly somewhere where you won't be disturbed.
Take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and then close your eyes.

When closing the eyes, notice there is the experience of 'blackness'. There may a bright light, a red glow, sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics. We are just noticing ‘blackness’.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is simply AE of colour labelled ‘black’?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than seeing ‘black’?
3) Can what is seeing ‘black’ found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?
What do you find?

Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘black’? Or ‘black’ just is?

Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found? Or is there just seeingcolour?

Can a 'see-er' be found at all in 'what is being seen' – AE colour?

If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?


Okay….then open the eyes and look around.

Is there a difference between the ‘black’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open, or are they both simply the appearance of colour?

Is there anything that is witnessing colour?

Is the ‘see-er’ actually separate from the seen, or is it all a singular experience ie see-erseen/seeingcolour?

The word ‘sky’ is AE of thought and is pointing to more thought as there is no AE of sky.
Is this clear?
Yes, totally clear. I won't experience "sky" while I can experience seeing a colour.
Lovely, yes!
Tasting 'sweet' is being experienced by what exactly?
I see that I cannot find a "taster", there's not an entity that tastes: taste is an experience that happens directly.
Beautiful!
The thoughts about ‘sweet’ and what the sweetness is etc are AE of thoughts ABOUT taste and are pointing to thoughts about thought. Is this clear?
Yes, thoughts are AE, the label "sweet" is a thought, thoughts about "sweet" are pointing to thoughts about thought.
Bingo!
I have no idea what you mean by a ‘blind’ thought.
I mean that one can be aware of thoughts or not. If I'm not aware of having a thought when the thought is occuring, I'm lost in the content of the thought. Lost in the dream. Experiencing it blindly.
But if I am aware of the thought when it is happening, if I know that I'm thinking while I'm thinking, then I'm conscious of the thinking. I'm experiencing the thought while I see it, here and now. From the blind I become a seer.
Thank you for clarifying
Thought ... cannot do anything let alone turn towards itself! How is something that is not an entity do any of this?
Indeed, I am wrong when I say that the thought turns towards itself. Thank you for correcting me. I actually mean that awareness turns towards the thougt and so there is awareness of there being a thought at the moment that the thought occurs. Of course, the "Oh, I'm thinking" is also a thought, it's a thought about a thought.
So for experience (awareness) to turn towards the self would mean the experience and the thought are two separate things. There is no separation.

A thought is known, yes…as is colour, smell, taste etc. Where does thought (known) end, and the knowing of it begin? Can you find a dividing line between the knowing of thought and the thought itself? Or is there simply knowingknown – ie no dividing line?
All thoughts are awared at the same time they appear.
Yes, I have to be aware of what I think in order to think it. If I'm not aware of the colour I see, I can't think "this is blue".
I was talking of something different : while thinking I can be conscious or not of being thinking. I have to be aware of what I'm thinking (this is blue) but I can be unaware that I'm just thinking.
Not so much unaware…but that there seems to be thoughts that you are more aware of than others….yes?
The content of thought is just further thought and is therefore AE of thought.
What I think is thought. What I experience is experience. I don't think experience, I experience thought, like I experience colour, sound, smell, taste, touch or a thought.
There is no you experiencing, only (the) experience is.
Knowing ABOUT something is called knowledge (ie thought). Knowing what actually IS, is direct/actual. Nothing is known as in knowledge – only thought says something is known because thought seemingly knows it. What is direct/actual is known because it is THIS/experience. But in regards to knowledge, THIS is unknown.
Ok, so there's a distinction: 1. knowing directly from experience = I feel pain, that's direct, knowing THIS/what is= experience ; and 2. a thought that says me something about something else = knowledge : "such and such mushrooms are poisonous and make me feel pain"= thoughts
Yup! And just to clarify…experience, THIS, awareness, knowing, consciousness etc are all synonymous and all point to the one thing….What IS.
There is an assumption here that there is a difference between thought and silence. Experience/Knowing/THIS is the appearance of both thought and silence. Silence is also no different to sound. Only thought says some 'thing' isn't there. Darkness is just a colour, like any other, no different from light. Thought labels darkness as the absence of some 'thing' but it is no less knowing/known than light is. Empty space is no different to solid matter, it is still a some 'thing', not a lack of some 'thing' .
I understand that :
- on the one hand, direct experience/knowing makes no difference between gap and thought. It experiences/knows it anyway. To it silence or thought are the same, it just knows them, there's no labelling there. Since there's no thought in direct experience there's nothing that says any "thing" like "there's a gap" or "there's a thought", or "there's sound" or "there's silence", or "there's darkness" or "there's color".
- and on the other hand, when there's a thought that says "there's a gap" it's just another thought. Whether thought says that there is some "thing"/thought or says that there is not some "thing"/thought, it's all thought.
It seems there is an identifying with awareness at the time being? Is this awareness you talk about something separate from all the rest?
Noticing happens - how do you know awareness is what notices?
Does awareness have a shape, a location, a weight? Can you point to this awareness?
Is awareness something other than, different to, or separate from experience?
Can you find anything at all that is called "awareness", or do you just find coloursoundsmellsensationtastehought


Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Marc108
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2019 9:32 am

Re: Who or what am I ?

Postby Marc108 » Sat May 18, 2019 10:01 am

Hey Kay,
1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is simply AE of colour labelled ‘black’?
Yes, what is experienced is simply black, AE of colour labelled ‘black’;
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than seeing ‘black’?
No, there's just seeing, nothing else;
3) Can what is seeing ‘black’ found?
No, what is seeing cannot be found, no"thing"/"one" sees, there's just seeing black;
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?
No the seeing is all there is;
What do you find?
The seeing and the black are same.
Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘black’?
No witness can be found, there's just black.
Or ‘black’ just is?
Yes, black just is, the seen and the seeing is one and the same, there's no see-er.
Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin?
Seeing does not end where colour would begin, it's all just one seeing-colour.
Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found?
I can't find any "border" between seeing and colour.
Or is there just seeingcolour?
Seeing and color are one "seeingcolor"
Can a 'see-er' be found at all in 'what is being seen' – AE colour?
No, ne see-er can be found anywhere in the experience that is happening, the AE of "seeingcolour".
No hearer hears sound : just hearing-sound, no taster tastes taste: just tasting-taste, no smeller smells odours : just smelling-odours, no feeler feels touch : just feeling-touch, no thinker thinks thoughts: just thought-thinking.
If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
Oh yes, a see-er would be a thought, a concept, an idea only. A see-er cannot be found in direct experience of seeing but only as a thought labelling something that is supposed, assumed, not seen directly.
Okay….then open the eyes and look around. Is there a difference between the ‘black’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open, or are they both simply the appearance of colour?
No, the experience is exactly the same, only the black is now colour, but the experience is the same;
Is there anything that is witnessing colour?
That wich is witnessing cannot be found, I can't find any entity that sees, no shape or form that witnesses/sees, there's only the actual experience of seeing; as a result of this I must conclude that there is no one who sees; any other conclusion would be contrary to the lived experience.
Is the ‘see-er’ actually separate from the seen, or is it all a singular experience ie see-erseen/seeingcolour?
There's no see-er, there's only seeing, seeer-seeing-seen-colour are one, only one experience.
A thought is known, yes…as is colour, smell, taste etc. Where does thought (known) end, and the knowing of it begin?
Thought and knowing are the same. Thought is knowing. Thought doesn't end where knowing begins. Thought and knowing begin at the same beginning-place/time/point and end at the same end-place/time/point.
Actually, "place/time/point" are all wrong, all thoughts, concept, not IT. Because IT is always changing.
Can you find a dividing line between the knowing of thought and the thought itself?
No, there is no separation. The knowing of thought and the thought are the same.
Or is there simply knowingknown – ie no dividing line?
Yes, knowingknown is one happening, one experience.
Not so much unaware…
Right, indeed, thought can't happen in total unawareness since a thought is awareness, knowing.
but that there seems to be thoughts that you are more aware of than others….yes?
Exactly, it's only an awareness gradation.
There is no you experiencing, only (the) experience is.

Yes. IT is.
It seems there is an identifying with awareness at the time being?
Right, mistake. Awareness and experience are one and the same.
Is this awareness you talk about something separate from all the rest?
No, awareness is all the rest. There is no rest, only one awarenessexperience or experienceawareness.
Noticing happens - how do you know awareness is what notices?
It's all one experience, noticing (knowing), awareness (the see-er) and the colour (seen, known) it's all just one and the same, one experience, one "fact", IT, where subject (see-er) and object (seen, colour-sound-smell-taste-touch-thought), are one.
Does awareness have a shape, a location, a weight?
No, awareness has no shape/form, I can't point any location where it would be, it's not material and therefore has no weight, I can't even say it has any attribute, like "immaterial", because it just happens, there's no "awareness-ghost".
Can you point to this awareness?
No, trying to point to it remains impossible because it is all experience, even the experience of pointing at something.
It is beyond any inner or outer movement because it is ALL, therefore it it indescribable, unspeakable because it's more alive than any representation, it is reality itself. Present is more present than "representation".
Is awareness something other than, different to, or separate from experience?
Awareness and experience IS one. It's same. It's all there is.
Can you find anything at all that is called "awareness", or do you just find coloursoundsmellsensationtaste-thought
Coloursoundsmellsensationtastethought is all there is and it is the same as awareness.
It's awarenesscoloursoundsmellsensationtastethought or also coloursoundsmellsensationtastethoughtawareness.

Thank you very much !

Marc

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4982
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Who or what am I ?

Postby forgetmenot » Sat May 18, 2019 10:53 am

Hello Marc,
If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
Oh yes, a see-er would be a thought, a concept, an idea only. A see-er cannot be found in direct experience of seeing but only as a thought labelling something that is supposed, assumed, not seen directly.
Yes…seeing and knowing are one and the same. Seeing of colour and seeing of seeing are one and the same = colour. And colour is just a label that thought has slapped on THIS.
Is there anything that is witnessing colour?
That wich is witnessing cannot be found, I can't find any entity that sees, no shape or form that witnesses/sees, there's only the actual experience of seeing; as a result of this I must conclude that there is no one who sees; any other conclusion would be contrary to the lived experience.
What are the implications when there is no witness to be found? No separable awareness of any kind?
A thought is known, yes…as is colour, smell, taste etc. Where does thought (known) end, and the knowing of it begin?
Thought and knowing are the same. Thought is knowing. Thought doesn't end where knowing begins. Thought and knowing begin at the same beginning-place/time/point and end at the same end-place/time/point.
So is a thought actually a thought?
Actually, "place/time/point" are all wrong, all thoughts, concept, not IT. Because IT is always changing.
THIS/experience is the movement of change when viewed from the perspective of subject/object split. There is no movement of change when viewed from the perspective that THIS/experience is whole, seamless and complete.
Can you find a dividing line between the knowing of thought and the thought itself?
No, there is no separation. The knowing of thought and the thought are the same.
Or is there simply knowingknown – ie no dividing line?
Yes, knowingknown is one happening, one experience.
For there to be “one experience” points to there being many “experiences”. What exactly is it that is having many experiences?

Experience is appearing as colour, smell, taste, sensation, thought and sound….and not the other way round. Experience is not derived from people and things. People and things are derived from experience/THIS.
Can you find anything at all that is called "awareness", or do you just find coloursoundsmellsensationtastethought
Coloursoundsmellsensationtastethought is all there is and it is the same as awareness.
It's awarenesscoloursoundsmellsensationtastethought or also coloursoundsmellsensationtastethoughtawareness.
Where does 'awareness' fit in there? If there is no separation between the known and the knowing ie knowingknown...then how can there be awarenesscoloursoundsmellsensationtastethought? Where is the dividing line between awareness and coloursmellstastesensatonthoughtsound?

Coloursoundthoughtsmelltastesensation IS experience/awareness!
Experience is not aware of itself AS coloursoundsensationtastethoughtsmell...it IS coloursoundsensationtastethoughtsmell! Just like a rainbow is not made out of colour...it IS colour!
Experience is NOT outside of itself looking at itself...how could it do that?

Okay, so let’s start to look at the nature of thought.

Here is a thought exercise. Look carefully when doing this exercise and do it several times if necessary. Please answer each question individually.

Sit quietly for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear. Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and just notice how they appear, without you doing anything at all.

Where are they coming from and going to?

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?
Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?
Can you predict your next thought?

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?
Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?
Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?
Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised 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"?


Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Marc108
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2019 9:32 am

Re: Who or what am I ?

Postby Marc108 » Sat May 18, 2019 9:58 pm

Hello Kay,
What are the implications when there is no witness to be found? No separable awareness of any kind?
It implies that experience and witness are necessarily one/the same.
It implies that knowing, experiencing, witnessing and witness all are labels for the same IT.
Coloursoundsmelltastetouchthought are awareness manifesting as such. Sensations are nothing but manifestations/appearances of awareness/knowing.
So is a thought actually a thought?
The word "thought" is a label we put on experiencing/knowing. The label is not and cannot be the reality itself of a thought.
For there to be “one experience” points to there being many “experiences”. What exactly is it that is having many experiences?
"knowingknown is one happening, one experience" didn't point to there being many experiences but meant that knowing and known are one and the same, not two.
What happens can only be singular because it happens here, which is a unique location, and now, the present moment, which is also always singular.
Experience is appearing as colour, smell, taste, sensation, thought and sound….and not the other way round. Experience is not derived from people and things. People and things are derived from experience/THIS.
Yes, I didn't mean or say that experience is derived from people and things. Experience is just happening and people and things are the "objects" derived from experience.
Where does 'awareness' fit in there?
Awareness is indeed not a supplementary kind of experience but it's the experience itself.
"Awarenesscoloursoundsmellsensationtastethought" was a clumsy way of saying that awareness and coloursoundsmellsensationtastethought are the same, at least that's what I meant. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding it caused.

Thought exercise:
Where are they coming from and going to?
Thoughts aren't coming from somewhere neither going somewhere, they just appear as "here and now".
Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?
No, thought is happening beyond my will.
Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?
No, a thought appears as it is, without me intervening. No magic trick is available for making a different thought appear.
Can you predict your next thought?
No, because during the prediction the thought would already be present and so, not pre-dicted anymore.
Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?
No, I cannot select a thought before it appears because if I had to select it it would already have been present in order to be selected; once it has appeared it's present, there's no way back.
Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts ?
No, I cannot choose not to have a painful thought.
A thought is not preceeded by a thought-free timelapse during which I could freely choose (without thinking!)whether or not to have the next thought, because the thought is present or not present, all of a sudden. Choice necesseraly implies thought. Without thought there is no choice.
This doesn't mean that I cannot think to choose to think about something else instead of continuing thoughts about a painfull subject. But this thought (by which I think to choose to think about something else) doesn't result from a choice, it is there or not, outside of my will.
Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?
No, this only would be possible if I could go before thought/awareness itself, which is impossible. Thought/aewareness is always happening in the present, not in any future time.
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?
No, I can't imagine my awareness going before itself to choose not to let a thought happen...
Prevent nowadays means to hinder but that verb comes from the latin "prae-venire", that meant "to come before" (in order to hinder), act in anticipation. So, in order to prevent a thought from appearing something would have to be present before the (present) thought in order to hinder it from appearing. Of course it's impossible to be present before the present... therefore it's impossible to prevent a thought from appearing.
Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?
No, I can't stop a thought to arise neither to be what it is.
What could be the middle of a thought? A thought is present experience and the present has neither a beginning nor a middle nor an end, it is ever present.
It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised 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"?
Thoughts have no logical ordered appearance (that can be sometimes very obvious!).
A thought can indeed link previous thoughts in a logical discourse, or say the previous thoughts are in sequence but these appearances are only the achievement of a thought or several thoughts.

Thank you again for guiding these wonderfull inquieries,

Marc

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4982
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Who or what am I ?

Postby forgetmenot » Sun May 19, 2019 5:46 am

Hello Marc,

Thank you for clarifying my questions re knowingknown!
This doesn't mean that I cannot think to choose to think about something else instead of continuing thoughts about a painfull subject. But this thought (by which I think to choose to think about something else) doesn't result from a choice, it is there or not, outside of my will.
Lovely!
Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?
No, this only would be possible if I could go before thought/awareness itself, which is impossible. Thought/aewareness is always happening in the present, not in any future time.
Yes. And if we could actually choose…who would want to choose negative and fearful thoughts lol
Thank you again for guiding these wonderfull inquieries,
Well, it is clear to me that you are clear about thoughts! Great post to read :)

So let’s have a look at the idea of control, choice and decisions.

1. Hold a hand in front of you; palm turned down.
2. Now turn the palm up. And down...and up and so on.

Watch like a hawk.

Don't go to thoughts, examine the actual experience. Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire…

How is the movement controlled?
Does a thought control it?
Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?
How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.
Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?


Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Marc108
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2019 9:32 am

Re: Who or what am I ?

Postby Marc108 » Sun May 19, 2019 8:55 am

Hi Kay,

Thank you for your kind reply.
How is the movement controlled?
The inquiery being confined to the seen, to looking at the way by which (how) the movement is controlled, I cannot find/see how movement is controlled. Since I couldn't see from where or how a thought appears, it's logical that similarly I can't see wherefrom or how the thought to control a movement is appearing.
Does a thought control it?
Of course I can think that some movements are controlled by a thought, like turning my hand upside down while watching it and that other movements, like my heartbeats, are not controlled by a thought but that's all thought.
Thought is not what we do here, looking is and I don't see a thought controlling the movement, even if I can think that a thought controls the movement.
Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?
Same as I see that there is no thinker, I see that there is no controller. I can think, imagine, a thinker and a controller but not see these fictions.
How is the decision made to turn the hand over?
The decision arises, it comes out of nowhere, suddenly it is here. That's all I can see.
There can be different thoughts succeeding each other and giving rise to the thought that there is hesitation, like "turn the hand yes, no, yes, no..." but I can't see how this is all made.
Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.
A thought cannot make a decision, just like colour can't, or taste or etc...
Tracking a decision point means tracking the point of origin of a thought. We have seen that thoughts don't come from anywhere or begin anywhen and don't go to another point/moment, they are an always-present phenomenon, always here and now. If there was a decision point (origin), the decision should have been made before it is made.
A decision is a thought and therfore has no beginning, no middle and no end.
Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?
No, I can exhaust myself trying but I will not find/see a hidden magician because there is none.

Marc

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4982
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Who or what am I ?

Postby forgetmenot » Mon May 20, 2019 12:19 am

Hello Marc,

Lovely looking!
How is the decision made to turn the hand over?
The decision arises, it comes out of nowhere, suddenly it is here. That's all I can see.
There can be different thoughts succeeding each other and giving rise to the thought that there is hesitation, like "turn the hand yes, no, yes, no..." but I can't see how this is all made.
Even if a thought appears saying to turn the hand...and the hand turns, if you notice, even when that thought appears...the hand doesn't always turn. So if it was a thought that was the mechanism that turned the hand...then the hand would turn each time the thought appeared...whether you wanted the hand to turn or not.

The aim of the following exercise is to discover whether the function of choice can really be found or confirmed in actual experience. The idea of making ‘choices‘ is a very clear example of a function that we wrongly identify as the basis of our identity.

You need to get any two different drinks you like for this exercise, ie coffee, tea, milk, water, juices, smoothies, beer, wine, etc. One will be drink A the other will be drink B

Sit for a few moments, take a few relaxed breaths and let the dust settle. When you feel ready:

1. Look at drink A and at drink B. Think about their respective qualities, the things you like about them, compare and weigh the pros and cons of each. See if a preference is manifesting for one or the other.
2. Count to 5.
3. Choose one of the drinks. Pick it up and take a sip.

Questions:
Remember that we’re looking for some kind of function, a something, an ‘I’ which is doing the ‘choosing’.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Have you seen this function in action?

In step 3 where you made a choice, did you actually witness or directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does this function look like?

Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘choose’?


Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Marc108
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2019 9:32 am

Re: Who or what am I ?

Postby Marc108 » Mon May 20, 2019 2:18 pm

Hey Kay,
Even if a thought appears saying to turn the hand...and the hand turns, if you notice, even when that thought appears...the hand doesn't always turn. So if it was a thought that was the mechanism that turned the hand...then the hand would turn each time the thought appeared...whether you wanted the hand to turn or not.
Starting from the observation that the hand does not turn automatically, I looked more closely and saw that when I think of turning it, immediately afterwards I think not do it. So, looking closely I see that there are several thoughts that quickly follow each other. It's as if my mind wanted to play magic tricks to itself, being both the magician and the audience.
But if I do not have the second thought (that tells me to wait) and if I only have only the first thought, which says to turn my hand, then of course my hand turns.
In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves?
Looking at the drinks, their qualities appear spontaneously, water is thirst-quenching, tea is tasty. I don't fabricate these qualities, they appear by themselves as such, they are spontaneously associated with the appearance of each drink.
If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves ?

No, I didn't choose the preference, I had preference for water at that moment, and this preference arised spontaneously, I didn't have the feeling of really choosing. I just preferred water, that was the thought that came up.
I neither choosed water to be thirst-quenching nor tea to be tasty, These qualifiers appeared spontanuously in the situation, they popped up by themselves.
In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event?
When I counted to 5 my attention went to the counting, it took distance from the preferences and from the drinks. The drinks faded away.
Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting?
No, it happened unconsciously, like an automatism.
Did you directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’?
No, not at all. The thought/idea of the choice just appeared. It's not there ... bam!, it's there.
Have you seen this function in action?

No, I did not see anything like that.
In step 3 where you made a choice, did you actually witness or directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’?
No, the thought of the choice arised just before I picked the drink and drank it. I choosed the drink but the prior thought came "from the sky".
Did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does this function look like?
No chooser could be found, just like no thinker could be found. Nobody home.
Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘choose’?
Yes, the feeling is felt easily. It's obviously a mistaken identification with the thought that says "I choose this", which is only a thought. A feeling can't choose. The nature of a feeling seems to be nothing but a thought closely linked to / tainted by / immersed with another thought, positive (attachment) or negative (aversion).

Thank you !

Marc

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4982
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Who or what am I ?

Postby forgetmenot » Tue May 21, 2019 12:27 am

Hello Marc,
Even if a thought appears saying to turn the hand...and the hand turns, if you notice, even when that thought appears...the hand doesn't always turn. So if it was a thought that was the mechanism that turned the hand...then the hand would turn each time the thought appeared...whether you wanted the hand to turn or not.
Starting from the observation that the hand does not turn automatically, I looked more closely and saw that when I think of turning it, immediately afterwards I think not do it. So, looking closely I see that there are several thoughts that quickly follow each other. It's as if my mind wanted to play magic tricks to itself, being both the magician and the audience.

But if I do not have the second thought (that tells me to wait) and if I only have only the first thought, which says to turn my hand, then of course my hand turns.
Hmmm…does it? Have you ever found yourself scratching an itch without being aware that you had started to scratch? Do you need a thought to tell you how to walk? Do you need a thought to tell you or the body to lift up your left foot, extend it, then to put it down, and then to lift up your right foot, extend it to take a step and then put it down? If so…babies would never learn to walk!
Did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does this function look like?
No chooser could be found, just like no thinker could be found. Nobody home.
Haha…lights on, but nobody at home! :) (Old joke)
Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘choose’?
Yes, the feeling is felt easily. It's obviously a mistaken identification with the thought that says "I choose this", which is only a thought. A feeling can't choose. The nature of a feeling seems to be nothing but a thought closely linked to / tainted by / immersed with another thought, positive (attachment) or negative (aversion).
There are actual ‘body’ sensations which are termed as feelings. If a ‘feeling’ is not an actual body sensation….then it is simply a thought/idea. It’s like when you lose your car keys. You had a feeling you left them in your pant pocket, but when you looked they weren’t there. That feeling is not an actual ‘body’ sensation…it is just a thought.

Okay, so we have looked at the idea of a controller, decider and chooser. Now let’s look at the idea of a doer/doership.

We’ll do a little exercise on this topic. It has to do with the sense of seeing.

Take a few relaxed breaths to let the dust settle for a while, and then:
Look on your right.
Then look on your left.
Finally, bring your head back to centre, close your eyes and look in front.

Okay, so when you look on the right, the view on the right is seen (whatever that is).
When you look on the left, the view on the left is seen (whatever that is).
And then, when you look in front of you with eyes closed, the view in front is seen (ie ‘black space’).

So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ not to see? I’m not asking can you ‘choose’ to see something else like another view or ‘black space’ if you close your eyes. The question is, can you turn seeing off? Can you NOT see what is seen?

Same thing with the view on the left, can you NOT see the view on the left?

Same thing with the view in front with closed eyes, can you NOT see the ‘black space’?

Can you turn off seeing?

What did the 'chooser' choose? Did a 'self' choose something?

If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?


Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Marc108
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2019 9:32 am

Re: Who or what am I ?

Postby Marc108 » Tue May 21, 2019 12:01 pm

Hello Kay
Hmmm…does it? Have you ever found yourself scratching an itch without being aware that you had started to scratch? Do you need a thought to tell you how to walk? Do you need a thought to tell you or the body to lift up your left foot, extend it, then to put it down, and then to lift up your right foot, extend it to take a step and then put it down? If so…babies would never learn to walk!
Yes, you're right. Most of our movement are unconscious, like heartbeat, breathing and walking.
I only meant that when there''s no second thought, contradictory to the first thought, then the action will be done according to this first thought.
So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ not to see? I’m not asking can you ‘choose’ to see something else like another view or ‘black space’ if you close your eyes. The question is, can you turn seeing off? Can you NOT see what is seen?
No, I have no choice, I can't be blind to what I'm seeing, I can't turn seeing off.
Same thing with the view on the left, can you NOT see the view on the left ?
No, I can't turn seeing off on the left as well.
Same thing with the view in front with closed eyes, can you NOT see the ‘black space’?
I can't turn seeing black off either.
Can you turn it off ?
No, same answer, turning off isn't possible.
What did the 'chooser' choose? Did a 'self' choose something?

No, there's no room for a chooser to choose not to see what is seen. Such a freedom is an illusion based on the belief that there's an independent "guy in there" that chooses if I see or not what I'm looking at.
If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?
There's no choice because I can't I be aware of something else than what I'm aware of neither can I be unaware of what I'm aware of . In that sense freedom is an illusion.

Thank you.

Marc

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4982
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Who or what am I ?

Postby forgetmenot » Wed May 22, 2019 12:10 am

Hello Marc,
Yes, you're right. Most of our movement are unconscious, like heartbeat, breathing and walking.
I only meant that when there''s no second thought, contradictory to the first thought, then the action will be done according to this first thought.
You are still saying that a thought is what creates or stops the movement. If the second thought appears and the movement doesn’t stop…then how can a thought be the catalyst for movement/choice?
What did the 'chooser' choose? Did a 'self' choose something?
No, there's no room for a chooser to choose not to see what is seen. Such a freedom is an illusion based on the belief that there's an independent "guy in there" that chooses if I see or not what I'm looking at.
Lovely, yes. Free will is based on the idea that there is an independent chooser, decider and controller.
If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?
There's no choice because I can't I be aware of something else than what I'm aware of neither can I be unaware of what I'm aware of . In that sense freedom is an illusion.
It’s interesting you say “in that sense freedom is an illusion”? What exactly is it that would see it as not having freedom? YOU (not Marc) have the freedom to show up as anything and everything that is appearing in the dream. What other freedom is there?

Okay…so we have looked at control, decisions making, choice and doership. We are moving on to look at the body.

Okay, so let’s have a look at 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 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 - 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.

Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest