Are sensations part of the thought?

[B_Naz]

Can we listen to these sensations in our body without interpreting it? 

When we listen to these sensations, are these not part of the thought as well?

Is listening part of the thought process?

[NoSelfSelf]

It can be if you judge it if you dont there is just a sensetion if you give it attention...no attention no thought no sensations

[B_Naz]

4 minutes ago, NoSelfSelf said:

It can be if you judge it if you dont there is just a sensetion if you give it attention...no attention no thought no sensations

But aren't my sensations perceiving the universe, or is that just my imagination that I (when I say I, we mean the self) created?

I say this since you can argue that my knowledge of how the universe is perceived is blinding me from the truth because I created it the knowledge/perception... But then again, there is some phenomenon that is going on with the sensations...

What is this phenomenon? 

 

[NoSelfSelf]

You are percieving the sensations and the univers and its all one" thing" ...why do you care about phenomena if you care about whats being watched you will never be free you need to be in neutrality and ignore all phenomena appering for awhile...by neutrality i mean the space of yourself

[B_Naz]

Yeah... Why the fuck do I actually care? It's just the universe, it's just a phenomenon.

Omg hahaha, I'm only experiencing the universe, that's all... There is no need to watch it, watching it is attaching to it.

But, isn't there a way to authentically feel the universe through your sensors? Without judgement. Without attachment? You said it yourself, if you judge it, you give it attention. But if we just gave attention to the sensations and not judge it, wouldn't that mean that's the authentic universe, or at least,  apart of it?

[Faceless]

Just in case this is any use in your conversation...

 

Process of experience/thought/self

 First there is.....

A) Perception 

B)contact

C)sensation

D) thought/desire “identification with the center...”The experience of “i” and what that “i” experiences is born. But remember these are one and the same movement actually. Feelingns and emotions reside within the movement of identification of thought/THE “i”.....Remember that feelings and emotions are given continuity by the movement of thought. If that movement wasn’t in motion there would be no entity that identified with them in the first place. 

And then through memory of that experience thought operates and creates the desire to repeat that experience through the seeking of E) which is pleasure. 

 

Until we understand the whole of the nature of how experience is born we will remain slave to this process of experience. 

If one wants to empty the mind of its conditioned content/movement so there is consciousness with NO-THING IN IT, one has to be able to understand the entire movement so that thought/self/experience does not leave a mark on any new experiencing. 

THEN THERE IS THIS TIMELESSNESS. 

BUT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE RELETIVE IN ORDER TO CEASE TO MOVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY DUALITY /DESIRE/IDENTIFICATION MOVEMENT AND ACTIVITY.

[NoSelfSelf]

@B_Naz you are the univers to experience it you should give up all thoughts giving atention to sensations and remain in the space of yourself to "find" the space you need to get rid of ego/thoughts control neurosis etc you are watching automatically there is no active watcher just attention jumping around giving birth to experience

Edited May 26, 2018 by NoSelfSelf

[B_Naz]

4 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Process of experience/thought/self

A) Perception 

C)sensation

 

These two interest me the most. So sensation is part of this movement/motion of the thoughts and thus identity? I can see that...

So what you're saying is htat sensation is therefore part of the experience. It is in motion...

But here's where I get stuck. What if this isn't part of the experience, and that we're only using our ego/thoughts/self to attach to the sensations to create the experience?

Don't we create the experience by thinking? Because we are allowing the motion to take place. But sensations seem to always be static. Always there, and that we apply meaning to those sensations. Aren't sensations, therefore, objective?

[B_Naz]

5 minutes ago, NoSelfSelf said:

@B_Naz you are the univers to experience it you should give up all thoughts giving atention to sensations and remain in the space of yourself to "find" the space you need to get rid of ego/thoughts control neurosis etc you are watching automatically there is no active watcher just attention jumping around giving birth to experience

I really do want to try this out, giving up no thoughts/sensations but it's so hard when I just want to question everything haha... My mind is constantly trying to understand stuff which is opposing non-duality. It's really hard to kill duality when sensations never really change. Our thoughts change but never our sensations. Well, that's what I think so. The fact that it doesn't change makes it significant because it's indicating that sensation isn't supposed to be ignored. 

I guess you can say don't try to give up thoughts. Trying = thinking. 

Edited May 26, 2018 by B_Naz

[Faceless]

@B_Naz

52 minutes ago, B_Naz said:

So what you're saying is htat sensation is therefore part of the experience.

Without thought there would be no entity to identify with the sensation. The “i” is the result of knowledge, past experience, through memory. Yes all of the above are what make up an experiencing. 

52 minutes ago, B_Naz said:

What if this isn't part of the experience, and that we're only using our ego/thoughts/self to attach to the sensations to create the experience?

Without thought the sensation has no reference point. 

Thought comes in and starts the identification of the “i” or center. Then there is desire in the pursuit for pleasure and so on. This is all determined upon the movement of memory, knowledge, and past experiences.

52 minutes ago, B_Naz said:

Don't we create the experience by thinking?

No, the “you” and the current experience is the result of, and is determined by the past “knowledge, past experience, through memory” which is the response of thought. This is thought. And “thoughts” arise out of that conditioned stream of thought/memory. 

52 minutes ago, B_Naz said:

But sensations seem to always be static.

As far as I see the only thing static is thought being the content of memory. Anything that is living  “sensations”  before thought gets ahold of them are dynamic.

52 minutes ago, B_Naz said:

Always there, and that we apply meaning to those sensations. Aren't sensations, therefore, objective?

You can say that yeah. This all becomes subjective when thought/self “memory” enters in. Once identification takes place “objectivity” ceases. 

The subject “knowledge, experience, memory” being STATIC is then impressed on to the “DYNAMIC present now experiencing.”

Which is to impose that which is static “dead, old, limited” onto the the dynamic now “alive, active, new” 

This is where all the trouble arises in not being able to be one with the now.

 

Forgive me if I have not understood your questions clearly. 

I will try and come on later sometime. 

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Faceless

[B_Naz]

This has cleared up some underlining issues. Thank you

Great insight on how thoughts uses memory for pleasure. How it uses knowledge and past experiences. I need to explore further into that. Also great insight on being the universe from @NoSelfSelf

So every past has a beginning, implying we have a beginning. When we were born, we were even unaware of the world. We cannot remember anything. We were just doing our own thing, crying and shit... But how did we learn to become the I, and the center... That is very interesting... Well, the only time we even identify ourselves is when we started remembering stuff...

Perhaps evolution? Who knows.

18 minutes ago, Faceless said:

 

Forgive me if I have understanding your questions clearly enough. 

I will try and come on later sometime. 

 

Take your time, I don't mind late replies. Any input is helpful. Thank you both @NoSelfSelf and @Faceless

[B_Naz]

You can't create an experience when you was a baby (as in, you can't think of it), since it can't be found from the memory... You were still developing the brain for the memory... So you can't be a baby anymore... That is also interesting. Experience is done by memory? I hope I'm understanding this stuff right, lol

Edited May 26, 2018 by B_Naz

[Nahm]

@B_Naz Were you really born? 

[Solace]

You are much greater than thought. You are the awareness in which thought arises, and sensations arise. You can walk around this Earth without thoughts once your soul enters your body, once you know yourself as the awareness.

 

[Ananta]

20 minutes ago, Solace said:

You can walk around this Earth without thoughts once your soul enters your body, once you know yourself as the awareness.

 

Huh??

[B_Naz]

18 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@B_Naz Were you really born? 

There was no "me" to be born. I was reality until I identified, then "I" was born. I still am reality, but I can't see it. Or I can see it, but I'm blind to it. Maybe there is nothing to see...

Who the fuck am I? What the fuck am I? Am I even a thing? Mhmmmm hmmm hmmm

Fucks with my mind, need more of this

16 minutes ago, Solace said:

You are much greater than thought. You are the awareness in which thought arises, and sensations arise. You can walk around this Earth without thoughts once your soul enters your body, once you know yourself as the awareness.

 

You are right. I am not my ego/thought. I am something more. Or nothing more. We will see. This is a really deep topic. Thank you all

[Ananta]

10 minutes ago, B_Naz said:

I can't see it. Or I can see it, but I'm blind to it. Maybe there is nothing to see...

You can only BE it! ...no seeing it.

You (awareness) are aware OF seeing.

Edited May 27, 2018 by Anna1
.

[B_Naz]

1 minute ago, Anna1 said:

You can only BE it! ...no seeing it.

You are aware OF seeing.

I am aware of seeing it. But that is not all I am. At the same time, I know nothing. So I do not know if I am awareness or not. Is it fair saying that?

[Faceless]

10 minutes ago, Anna1 said:

You can only BE it! ...no seeing it.

You are aware OF seeing.

But, not if duality is being expressed in action. We can’t say we are “it” until we are it. 

We cant go beyond where we haven’t yet began. 

“It” isn’t fragmented. “It” isn’t dualistic and mechanical. “It” doesn't move in the dimension of time. 

     IT IS WHOLE, TIMELESS. 

Until we are that☝️            we are not “IT”

RIGHT?

Edited May 27, 2018 by Faceless

[Ananta]

1 minute ago, B_Naz said:

I am aware of seeing it. But that is not all I am.

I think you miss read or misunderstand what I wrote. The first sentence doesn't apply to what I said/meant, so I'm not sure what you meant by the 2nd sentence. If you'd like me to clarify I will.

 

6 minutes ago, B_Naz said:

So I do not know if I am awareness or not. Is it fair saying that?

Fair enough.