Jump to content

Inspection 1


Eothasian
 Share

Recommended Posts

Something in my chest doesn't want to allow me to be more. 

Something beating me up for it, whenever I start building courageous believes around myself it immediately tries to counteract it with negative self doubt to pull me down.

Feels like tight and piercing constriction, that's a bit painful.

 

Why

 

Like I adopted someone's fears about me being unleashed.

 

Oh yeah, I know why.

Edited by Eothasian

Animals are good people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Phil

 

I don't know. I just feel it in my chest in the body sort of. 

I can't make any directions to the mind.

The mind to me is the language in my head and the visions before my eyes.

 

But this speaks from a different direction, to me.

Edited by Eothasian

Animals are good people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Eothasian

Yes, the place so to speak, to look is the language in the mind. Put more simply, is the activity of thought, and put most simply, thoughts.

 

It is like if you were fishing. You would know that a fish has been caught by the sensation of the fishing pole in your hands. This sensation is not caused by the fishing pole, and though the fish is not seen as it is underwater, it can be deduced that the sensation is caused by the fish.  
 

If you were to put on a pair of polarized sunglasses which allow you to see through the surface reflection of the water, thus allowing you to see underwater, it would be readily seen that a fish is the cause of the tugging sensation felt by the hands holding the fishing pole.

 

This metaphor though, like all metaphors, is in reference to, so to speak, to the physical, or the apparent world of seemingly separate objects.
 

Where the metaphor ends and the point of the usage of the metaphor lands, is in the recognition of the exact opposite. That the polarization, albeit apparent, is already the case with respect to the contention between the heart, and some thoughts believed, or, belief(s). 
 

So the heart, in terms of truth, intuition, or spirituality, is working perfectly. It is the belief(s), much like a fish, which is causing the ‘tugging’. The resolve is the depolarizing, the not holding or believing something to be separate, something to exist as separate, when in truth that something is (also) yourself.  The heart ‘knows’ the truth, and is the hands and pole, is where the feeling of the fish is felt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Phil said:

Yes, the place so to speak, to look is the language in the mind. Put more simply, is the activity of thought, and put most simply, thoughts.

 

It is like if you were fishing. You would know that a fish has been caught by the sensation of the fishing pole in your hands. This sensation is not caused by the fishing pole, and though the fish is not seen as it is underwater, it can be deduced that the sensation is caused by the fish.  

That's what I mean. Beautiful metaphor.

 

12 minutes ago, Phil said:

This metaphor though, like all metaphors, is in reference to, so to speak, to the physical, or the apparent world of seemingly separate objects.
 

I only understand this intellectually, phil.

 

I'm feeling a bit guilty, when you put all this work into explanation and I am not able to get onto it.

 

16 minutes ago, Phil said:

So the heart, in terms of truth, intuition, or spirituality, is working perfectly. It is the belief(s), much like a fish, which is causing the ‘tugging’.

The tugging or the disturbance when tugging is happening?

Animals are good people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Eothasian said:

This metaphor though, like all metaphors, is in reference to, so to speak, to the physical, or the apparent world of seemingly separate objects.

 

I only understand this intellectually, phil.

I hear ya. No worries. Read that again… and notice, right now, in real time so to speak… what thought next arises… 

 

“This metaphor though, like all metaphors, is in reference to, so to speak, to the physical, or the apparent world of seemingly separate objects.”

 

The thought that arose is:

 

I only understand this intellectually”

 

That thought is a subject object thought.

 

The subject, the “I” - of the thought- is assumed to be - you. The object, the “this” - of the thought- is assumed to be, that there is no such thing as separate objects. 

 

Notice what the direct experience is - the experience is of -  a thought. A thought about… there being… a subject, and, an object. 

 

Now consider, in the simplest sense… allow ease, relaxation, and simple ness…. 

Consider - where is this “subject” and this “object”?

 

Notice the obviousness of the answer is - in the thought. 

 

Now bring awareness to perception. Simply said, just look around for a sec. Notice, there is no subject or object in perception. The only “place” - “subject” and “object” are experienced… is the thoughts about there being a subject - “I”… and an object… “this”. 

 

Now question, what is aware

 

Is anything, or, any thing in direct experience - found to be, aware

It could be assumed people are aware, the dog is aware, the cat is aware… but simply notice this would in fact be an assumption. This would need to be assumed, this is not direct experience. 

 

In being aware of thoughts, and of perception…. Notice the simple obviousness of the fact that of course - only awareness - is - aware. 

 

You are aware? 

Yes?

 

Evidenced by the simple obvious fact that you are aware of thoughts, and of perception - you are aware. 

And only awareness is aware. 

 

Thus - you are awareness. You = awareness. 

 

You can not be found “in” thoughts, about a subject… because you are already the awareness, aware of, the thought - of any and all thoughts. 

 

It is only in overlooking this simple, obvious fact - that you are aware - that it can seem like - a thought is about you - awareness. 

But when direct experience is questioned, inspected, noticed - it is noticed that in fact - you are the awareness which is aware. 

 

 

There is very literally no such thing as an intellectual, or as someone who intellectually understands something - anything! 🙂 

There is only the thoughts - that there are intellectuals, or separate selves who intellectually understand. 

This is a fact, which is always readily verifiable in direct experience. 

 

 

 

48 minutes ago, Eothasian said:

 

I'm feeling a bit guilty, when you put all this work into explanation and I am not able to get onto it.

Apply the very same to the “I” of “I’m feeling a bit guilty”. 

Bring awareness to perception - where is this “I” which this thought is about? 

This “I” can not be awareness - because awareness is already aware of the thought. 

 

1 hour ago, Eothasian said:

Well, guilty is the wrong word.

Like letting down but weaker.

 

Now notice the same thing, but now in the thought - Phil is thought to be - the ‘separate self’. 

Notice - there is in fact no Phil in perception. 

Notice what there actually is - in accordance with direct expereince - is a thought - about there being - a Phil - which is let down.

But there is not, never has been, and never could be - a Phil which is let down, or which is disciplined, etc. 

There is only the thoughts that there is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Phil said:

The subject, the “I” - of the thought- is assumed to be - you. The object, the “this” - of the thought- is assumed to be, that there is no such thing as separate objects. 

I don't know, phil, I don't know.

It's like a it's like an imagined communication into nothingness and then there is a bump, and that bump is this.

 

12 minutes ago, Phil said:

Notice what the direct experience is - the experience is of -  a thought. A thought about… there being… a subject, and, an object. 

I guess I don't know how to look at a thought without a thought about the thought.

 

24 minutes ago, Phil said:

Notice the obviousness of the answer is - in the thought.

No, in me, originally.

 

 

I need some time on this one

Animals are good people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Eothasian said:

I don't know, phil, I don't know.

It's like a it's like an imagined communication into nothingness and then there is a bump, and that bump is this.

Apply the same to the “I” of “I don’t know”. Where, what, is, that “I”… a thought. 

8 minutes ago, Eothasian said:

I guess I don't know how to look at a thought without a thought about the thought.

If it seems semantical, allow that thought, and then inspect… There is no actual experience of “looking at a thought”. Looking, is seeing, and is perception. Awareness is directly aware of perception, and of thoughts. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Eothasian said:

@Phil great now I am labeling everything internal as thought.

 

Just tell me how you do this, maybe I can get there through imitation.

Same thing… the thought arises about there being a ‘separate self’, “Phil”, which can do this. There is no such thing as a Phil, there is only the thought about a separate self which can do this (Phil) and indirectly the thought about a separate self which can’t ‘do this’. There is no ‘doing’ whatsoever involved in noticing the simple fact that awareness is aware of thoughts. It is common, the most common experience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By clicking, I agree to the terms of use, rules, guidelines & to hold Actuality of Being LLC, admin, moderators & all forum members harmless.