It is not known because a thought knows it…thought knows nothing. Going back to the apple exercise. Thought says an apple is known because of its shape, taste, smell and other attributes and that an apple has been seen/eaten before…so an apple is known. That is knowledge based on thought stories about experience ie colour, taste, smell, sensation. Thoughts knows absolutely nothing. The apple is not known because it is an apple, it is known because it is experience itself/THIS and THIS is self aware.That sentence could be read two ways, but I’ll assume the question is ‘Is something from the past really known?’ and answer accordingly.Knowing ABOUT something is called knowledge (ie thought).…right, so it is thought that suggests that something is known from the past. But is it really?
A thought containing a story about experience can arise and be labelled ‘past experience’ by thought. That is what is labelled as knowledge, but it can’t be ‘known’, because that would require a knower, and there isn’t one. There’s just thought, thinking and knowing.
Yes, the idea of colour being a cup is a product of knowledge and not of knowing. The cup isn’t known because it is a cup, it is known because it is AE of colour, and ‘colour’ is experience appearing exactly as it is. And experience is self aware.To illustrate the point, let’s say there’s an object a little way from where I’m sitting, and from my vantage point it looks like ‘a cup’. The thought arises, ‘I’m looking at a cup’, and then all the labels and attributes and past experiences that comprise the concept of ‘a cup’ arise in thought. This in turn engenders the thought: *I know it’s a cup*. Then I walk closer to the object and see that it isn’t ‘a cup’ at all, it’s some other object entirely that isn’t recognised. Does the fact that thought constructed a cup out of past / learned experiences make this object ‘a cup’ in reality? No. The same would be true if the object *had* turned out to be what is conventionally recognised as ‘a cup’. It would be no less a construction of learned experiences; a product of knowing, not experience of seeing.
Let’s muddy the waters a little here now. Without thought, how would it be known that a cup has been seen before? When are the thoughts about colour being a cup actually arising?Are not your aesthetic reactions to the cup, too, based on past experiences? How else would you know whether or not this kind of cup will break if you drop it? What do you know about this cup except what you learned in the past? You would have no idea what this cup is, except for the past learning of/about it. Do you, then, really see it?
Yes, aesthetic reactions arise from thoughts labelled past experiences.
Where is the dividing line between seeing and knowing? Are seeing and knowing separate or are they one and the same. Is seeing of colour and seeing of seeing different, or are they are one and the same ie colour?The ‘cup’ is seen, but not by ‘me’; there’s no ‘me’ to see it. It is actual experience taking place now, it’s not a ‘known’ object created by thought from other thoughts labelled ‘past experiences’. Seeing is seeing, knowing is knowing.
Yes, lovely.I’m a bit thrown by the structure of the question but I’ll do my best to answer.Knowing what actually IS, is direct/actual and what is a cup in actual experience?
The concept of ‘a cup’ is actual experience of thought; numerous thoughts labelled ‘past experiences’ -aka knowledge- layered onto actual experience happening now. Actual experience of a cup is imagesensationsmellsoundtastethought
With this exercise we are focussing on sound only.
Sit quietly and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust. Now listen to the sounds in the room where you are, or sounds from outside. Choose one sound and focus on that one sound.
1) In 'hearing' can anything be found other than sound?
2) Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only sound?
3) Can an 'I', a 'body’, a ‘person' be found? Or are there only thoughts about these, and thoughts about a ‘something’ that is hearing sound?
What do you find?
Where does sound stop and the ‘hearing’ of it begin?
Can a 'hearer' ever be found in sound? Or is there simply sound?
Is that confirmable experientially?
If no INHERENT HEARER is found . . . so would anything suggested as the hearer be anything other than speculation / ideas / beliefs / thoughts etc?
Thought cannot think. Thoughts do not have thoughts and thoughts are not aware. To say a thought is aware would be the same as saying that a cloud is aware. Thoughts as thought claims themselves to be…are not real either.It would be experienced as thought, by thought, as actual experience of thought. Which is to say: it’s not real, it has no physical existence.And how would this be experienced exactly? And what exactly is it that would experience whatever you think this experience will be experience as?I accept and believe this. There have even been times very recently when the separation (or rather, assumed separation) has very fleetingly seemed to dissolve. But at this point it’s still conceptual. Not a not-self experience but still a belief.
A thought is much like a piece of graffiti scribbled on a wall. Graffiti doesn't know the wall exists. It doesn't know it is appearing on the wall. It doesn't know whether its words are true or not. It doesn't know that it is saying anything. It doesn't know anything *whatsoever*. Similarly, a thought is just a bit of decoration appearing in THIS. It appears. You are aware of it. But it knows nothing whatsoever about reality. And that is all there is to thought
So look at the question again:-
And how would this be experienced exactly? And what exactly is it that would experience whatever you think this experience will be experience as?
How about you stop engaging with thoughts that have no relevance to anything. Being upfront about it to me means nothing. It just adds unnecessary lines to posts. It is time for you to start putting into daily practice what we are doing here and part of that daily practice is for you to just be aware of thought and check if what thought is rabbiting on about is AE, or just thought fluff.I have indeed checked it and yes, I absolutely see that it’s all thought story. I mentioned it only because it arose unexpectedly and was being pesky and it put me off my stroke and I thought I should be upfront about that.And where exactly is this ego? Can you see that this is simply all thought story? Have you checked it with actual experience to see if this is simply a story or if it is actual experience?
THOUGHT KNOWS NOTHING. A thought isn't known because of its appearance or its content...it is known because it is THIS/experience. If ‘you’ are aware of thought, then You must the knowing AS thought..and I don’t mean Glenn.Thought / thoughts are intangible. A thought is simply known—known by other thoughts. Words, pictures, feelings arise as the contents of thoughts but they have no physical presence. Something that doesn’t physically exist can’t be found.Can a thought be seen, felt, smelled, tasted or heard...or is it simply known?
I want you to look and 'find' a thought. You may see the label 'thought' and some mirage-like arisings, but can a thought be actually seen? Can you see that even the label 'thought' is also a mirage-like arising!
Thought is NOT knowing. Is a rock knowing? NO! Thought is known but it is not knowing. Objects and things do not KNOW anything. Experience is not derived from people and things, including objects. People, things and objects are derived from experience/THIS!Without thought there can be no knowing. If thought stopped, I assume that the physical phenomena that constitute the universe would continue to exist—but without thought there would be no way for them to be known. Thought is knowing.However, is thought needed to know experience (ie colour, sound, sensation, smell, taste, thought)? Is there ever a time when experience isn’t? If thoughts were to stop spontaneously and never return…would not what is labelled as ‘colour’, ‘smell’, ‘sound’, ‘taste’, ‘sensation’ still be known?
Where does thought end and the knowing of it begin? Where is the dividing line between the knowing and the known?
What? Do you need thought to know experience/THIS? Do you need thought to tell you when colour, sound, thought, smell, taste or sensation appear? Experience has nothing to do with what is called ‘human experience’! Experience here is being referred to as THIS/God/awareness/consciousness or whatever other name you want to use.No. As long as there is thought, there is experience.Is there a time when experience isn’t.
What is it exactly that is experiencing thought?‘Awareness’ is experience of thought, thus it is experience. ‘What is known’ is experience of thought, thus it is experience. Knowing is experience. It’s all experience.And here is the idea that there is experience and an awareness of that experience, which points to two. What is "awareness"? Is it something other than, different to, or separate from, experience? Is "knowing" (experience/THIS) separate from what is “known", or are they one and the same?
The word "experienced" is the past tense of the VERB "to experience", so it obviously implies that something DID the experiencing. And for something to do the experiencing, it would be required to do an experiencing (knowing) of experience (known). Since there is no dividing line between knowing and known, obviously there can never be experiencing of experience…
…therefore there is NO such thing as experiencing.
‘ExperiencING’ is a verb.
No verbs could point to what actually IS. Verbs point only to THOUGHTS ABOUT what actually IS.
‘ExperiencING’ (or any verbs) is just a BELIEF.
A belief about TIME.
There is ZERO actual experience of ‘experiencING’.
There is ZERO actual experience of any verb!
There is no such thing as ‘experiencING’, just as there is no such thing as ‘happenING, or ‘seeING’, or ‘knowING’, etc.
So, let’s look at verbs in general. Let’s take a verb ‘experiencING’. For ‘experiencing’ there should be:
1. a separate thing (person = body) an 'experiencER', that is doing or having the ACT of ‘experiencing’
2. a separate thing, an object that is being experienced
3. the ACTION of ‘experiencing’ (as an interACTION between #1 and #2)
4. TIME in which the 'action of ‘experiencing’ unfolds
Without these 4 elements there is NO VERB.
All verbs based on the assumption of the existence of these 4 elements.
Is this clear?
A verb implies not just a doer, but an action in time. A verb is an action, a doing. In order to an action take place not just a doer (in case of an experiencer = person = body) is needed, but time in which the action (the action of experiencing itself between two seeming objects/bodies) unfolds.
Is this clear?
Wonderful! So is there an awareness OF experience?There’s no division between seeing and the seen. There’s no seer though, just seeing and seen. The seer is a thought construct. I realised this for the first time earlier this afternoon, when I was travelling home from work on the train. Looking out the window, I became aware of looking. The thought arose ‘there’s no one in there’, meaning ‘there’s no person in that brain doing this looking’, and found no resistance to that arose. There was experience of colour, sensation, seeing, thought, all together, no roadblocks or turnstiles anywhere in the tableau of experience.Look at the display before you. When seeing it, is there any division between seeing, see-er, and the seen? Are these three separate? If yes, can you find the boundary between the three? Not an imagined, conceptual boundary, but an actual boundary that can be perceived with one or more of the senses?
Are thoughts what thought says they are?Thought is what is meditating. To better describe what I was reaching for before: the act of meditation seems to reduce the frequency with which the contents of thoughts enter into awareness.Then what is it exactly that is meditating?
Yes…this would be correct if thoughts were what thought says they are. Since everything is simply experience, it doesn’t really matter whether thoughts appear or not, does it?The impression is that the process of thought is to a great extent divested of the words and pictures that typically ‘clutter’ the thought process, and that chains of cross-referencing thoughts happen much less frequently. There arises awareness of ‘space’ more than of ‘occupation’. Of course this is still a phenomenon of thought. It’s just rather different form the mundane experience of thought.
Is silence any different to noise? Is darkness any different to light?