High intellect meets high intuition

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
Ready2end
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:06 am

Hi Vivien,

I’m still trying to see what my gut says on whether we should continue or not. Yesterday I was leaning no and today yes. My concern is we don’t seem to be on the same page at times. Yet at other times, you’ve been good at getting me to see past things. Then there is the resistance you speak of and to which I’m often blind. I’ll see how tomorrow feels.

If I overstepped a boundary in the last correspondence, I apologize. Didn’t mean for that to happen.

Thank you for your patience,

Jim

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 6370
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:08 am

Hi Jim,

All right, this is your decision to make.

Have a nice day,
Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Ready2end
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:39 am

Hi Vivien,

Let’s continue.

So I spent a lot time today looking at AE and trying to find a ‘me.’ Not sure why it was easier to do today than other days. It came naturally. Will wait and see what tomorrow is like.

Have a good night,
Jim

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 6370
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:26 am

Hi Jim,
Let’s continue.
All right. But I will ask you repeated questions about the same topic again and again. And I will as you: “Can you see this?” – regardless of what you said before. With these questions I just want to point you to the same direction to look at the same thing again. Or maybe I pointing to the same thing, but from a slightly different direction or to a different aspect to it.

So it’s not personal. I’m not doing this because I don’t believe you, or because I didn’t pay attention what you wrote before, or because I think that you are not doing it right. Not at all. This is just how this guiding works. All right? :)

I also often use capital letters or sometimes bolds or even colors (as you’ve already noticed it) to emphasise the importance of certain sentences or words. I’m not doing this to yell at you or show that I am frustrated with you. :) It’s not personal. It’s just my way of emphasise the importance of certain things. I put certain words in caps to guide your attention to a certain direction. I might ask: “How does the ‘I’ is FELT?” – the word ‘felt’ is in caps to point your attention to the sensations itself that are labelled as ‘I’ (and not to other aspects of the self).
So I spent a lot time today looking at AE and trying to find a ‘me.’ Not sure why it was easier to do today than other days. It came naturally. Will wait and see what tomorrow is like.
Please let me know what you find or not find.

If you feel that you have difficulties to look, please write about it; or if there is anything we have covered so far that is not totally clear.


Also, let’s look at resistance a bit (if there is any):

What would happen if it turned out that Jim is just a fantasy?

What would happen if it turned out that there is no ‘me’ inside the body, having and governing life?


Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Ready2end
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:35 pm

Hey Vivien,
Let’s continue.
All right. But I will ask you repeated questions about the same topic again and again. And I will as you: “Can you see this?” – regardless of what you said before. With these questions I just want to point you to the same direction to look at the same thing again. Or maybe I pointing to the same thing, but from a slightly different direction or to a different aspect to it.

So it’s not personal. I’m not doing this because I don’t believe you, or because I didn’t pay attention what you wrote before, or because I think that you are not doing it right. Not at all. This is just how this guiding works. All right? :)
All on board :)
I appreciate you saying all this. Even if you hadn't, I would've done my best to answer your questions while focusing on AE / DE and Inquiry.
So I spent a lot time today looking at AE and trying to find a ‘me.’ Not sure why it was easier to do today than other days. It came naturally. Will wait and see what tomorrow is like.
Please let me know what you find or not find.
I didn't find anything. There wasn't anything stressful about today, but I felt more easily distracted than yesterday. The "I/me" felt more sticky. Still kept looking for everything I identify myself within thoughts and sensations.
If you feel that you have difficulties to look, please write about it; or if there is anything we have covered so far that is not totally clear.
As mentioned above, it feels harder to practice looking. As I practice, it doesn't hit me the same way.
So I try and use that as well, and question who is feeling/thinking this.
Then distractions quickly ensue. Don't know why. My situation is relatively calm for the time being.
What would happen if it turned out that Jim is just a fantasy?
With today's operating mode, my answer is doesn't matter, who cares. Music and movies and relations that mattered once upon a time are disappearing in importance. I want to know what's beyond.

What would happen if it turned out that there is no ‘me’ inside the body, having and governing life?
I would feel foolish for thinking me so important, ha. So let's get it over with. Ready to release control, albeit it's purportedly illusional.

Jim

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 6370
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Wed Jul 31, 2019 2:08 am

Hi Jim,
I didn't find anything. There wasn't anything stressful about today, but I felt more easily distracted than yesterday. The "I/me" felt more sticky. Still kept looking for everything I identify myself within thoughts and sensations.
“looking for everything I identify myself within thoughts and sensations”. – please read this sentence carefully. It assumes that there are:

- Someone or something, an ‘I’, or a ‘me’, or a ‘self’ that is identify with
- Something within thoughts and sensations

So we are not looking what I identify WITH, rather we are looking for the ONE that is identifying.
Searching for the ONE that identifies with thoughts and sensations.
We are looking for the IDENTIFIER itself.
Do you see the difference?

I would feel foolish for thinking me so important, ha. So let's get it over with. Ready to release control, albeit it's purportedly illusional.
Great! :) but before starting to investigate control, we have to go back to continue investigating thoughts. Since thoughts are the main ‘creators’ of the illusion. First, you have to see how tricky and coning thoughts are.

Thoughts can be looked at in 2 different ways:

- seeing the CONTENT of a thought, what is a thought ABOUT
- and only seeing the thought itself (as phenomenon taking place), as a ‘CONTAINER’

When a thought is seen only as a container, and the content of a thought (what it’s about) is being ignored, is what we call the actual experience of a thought. Do you see the difference?


Thoughts as arising thoughts (the containers) are ‘real’, but their contents (what they are ABOUT) are not. Like when you think about E.T. There is an arising thought, it cannot be denied, but its content “E.T.” is not real. Sometimes thoughts point to something tangible, like chair, however a thought about a chair is not a chair. A thought about a chair is just a mental concept with an arising visual thought of a ‘chair’ but that thought is not ‘real’. However, as an arising thought is there, it is ‘real’, but not its content (what it’s about).

Certain sensations can be felt in the body that is labelled such and such emotion, like ‘cheerful’. However, ‘cheerful’ is just a mental label / thought on the felt sensation. So the felt sensation is ‘real’, the arising mental label, simply as arising label is ‘real’, but its content ‘cheerful’ is just an idea. Can you see this?

Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising verbal or visual thought, check whether its content (what it’s about) is really happening, or the content is just pure imagination.
Let me know how it goes.

Could you please write me some examples from your life about the difference between a thought as a phenomenon and its content?


Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Ready2end
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:11 pm

Hi Vivien,

Today my mind was less cluttered than yesterday. Again, no doing of my own. The effect was that it made it easier to reflect and look. Here goes..
So we are not looking what I identify WITH, rather we are looking for the ONE that is identifying.
Searching for the ONE that identifies with thoughts and sensations.
We are looking for the IDENTIFIER itself.
Do you see the difference?
It’s weird. I’ve stared at this question for a while pondering it over and still can and cannot get it. So let’s use an example to clarify what’s occurring:
-Yes, in principle I see the difference. I am looking for the ‘me’ that identifies with thoughts/sensations. For example, I catch myself believing a thought stating ‘I am feeling hungry.’ Which implies there is a ‘me’ who is hungry, and another ‘me’ who is aware of being hungry.
-But what you’re saying is don’t look at either, instead look for the ‘me’ that identifies with both feeling hungry and the awareness of it, right?
-If so, wouldn’t looking for a ‘me’ in whatever I identify with lead to the identifier? ...like following a trail of crumbs leads to the cookie.
-If not, how do you then look for the one identifying? It seems like good practice to find the source of the 'me-ness' in any thought/sensation. (which makes the line between WITH and ONE blurry again.)

Let's look at what’s happening at this very moment. All words used to write this here and now must enter awareness/consciousness in order for them to be used. I have to be conscious enough of the words in order to express these thoughts. They feel like my words, but I know I can’t claim them as mine. Still, I identify with the awareness behind the words (which is something that you’ve previously mentioned- awareness is the last refuge for the illusion of self). So am I to look for the one that identifies with this awareness?
When a thought is seen only as a container, and the content of a thought (what it’s about) is being ignored, is what we call the actual experience of a thought. Do you see the difference?
I do see the difference. Still confused though. Like in the example above, being aware of the container becomes identification with awareness itself. I am aware of the AE of thought. This awareness is me.
So the felt sensation is ‘real’, the arising mental label, simply as arising label is ‘real’, but its content ‘cheerful’ is just an idea. Can you see this?
I do see this. Using the example of hunger above, the sensation of hunger is real. The thought ‘hunger’ itself is just a label.
If we apply this to the thought: “I am the container of awareness behind all thoughts,” then the contents of that thought are mere labels for the imagining of this awareness. However, the awareness is as real as thoughts and sensations contained therein (because I cannot deny the awareness aspect any more than denying thoughts and sensations).

[then I imagine your response would be to look for this awareness and describe it in detail. To which I'd say I don't how to. I could not describe what a thought is, but we agree they are real too.]
Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising verbal or visual thought, check whether its content (what it’s about) is really happening, or the content is just pure imagination. Let me know how it goes.
It's a fun exercise. I caught myself thinking about actual present things like this avocado is ripe, and this one isn't. Or, today I have to pay a bill. I also caught myself in distracted thoughts of imagination, such as what people said in the past, what will happen in the future when future bills are due, or whether a trip will happen or not happen.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 6370
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Thu Aug 01, 2019 4:59 am

Hi Jim,
Yes, in principle I see the difference. I am looking for the ‘me’ that identifies with thoughts/sensations. For example, I catch myself believing a thought stating ‘I am feeling hungry.’ Which implies there is a ‘me’ who is hungry, and another ‘me’ who is aware of being hungry.
Yes.
But what you’re saying is don’t look at either, instead look for the ‘me’ that identifies with both feeling hungry and the awareness of it, right?
Yes.
If so, wouldn’t looking for a ‘me’ in whatever I identify with lead to the identifier? ...like following a trail of crumbs leads to the cookie.
Not necessarily. Most of the time won’t. Since looking would be directed to the object of identification, and not to the subject that is identifying. So the subject can ‘hide’ in the background without ever even looking there. Since the focus is on the objects.

There could be a never ending list of objects of identification, with a never ending search. It could take years and years of looking at objects, without every occurring to look at the subject directly. As if the solution would be south, but you were constantly focusing to the direction of north.

Why not go directly to the source of the illusion and bypassing all the effort of looking at the objects of deification? It’s like looking for the needle in the haystack, while all along the needle was in my hand without realizing it.
-If not, how do you then look for the one identifying? It seems like good practice to find the source of the 'me-ness' in any thought/sensation. (which makes the line between WITH and ONE blurry again.)
You have to look for the subject and not for the object. You are doing it by turning the attention to the other direction, to the subject who is supposedly doing the identification.
Let's look at what’s happening at this very moment. All words used to write this here and now must enter awareness/consciousness in order for them to be used. I have to be conscious enough of the words in order to express these thoughts. They feel like my words, but I know I can’t claim them as mine. Still, I identify with the awareness behind the words (which is something that you’ve previously mentioned- awareness is the last refuge for the illusion of self). So am I to look for the one that identifies with this awareness?
Yes, exactly. And also looking if there is really such thing as an independent awareness in the background waiting for things to appear in.
I do see the difference. Still confused though. Like in the example above, being aware of the container becomes identification with awareness itself. I am aware of the AE of thought. This awareness is me.
OK. Let’s assume there is an independent awareness in the background (which isn’t actually) but let’s assume for a moment that there is.

So even if there were an awareness that is aware of thoughts, how is it known EXACTLY that this awareness = me?
What makes this awareness into a me?

I do see this. Using the example of hunger above, the sensation of hunger is real. The thought ‘hunger’ itself is just a label.
Yes. The sensation labelled ‘hunger’ is there.
But there is no actual hunger there. Hunger is just a label on the experience/sensation.
If we apply this to the thought: “I am the container of awareness behind all thoughts,” then the contents of that thought are mere labels for the imagining of this awareness. However, the awareness is as real as thoughts and sensations contained therein (because I cannot deny the awareness aspect any more than denying thoughts and sensations).
No, there is no actual awareness in which sensations contained in.

If there were an actual awareness which sensations and thoughts could appear in or on, then this awareness could be easily found without any object being present.

An independent awareness or consciousness implies separation, a subject-object split.
But there is no separation. Separation is just imagined/suggested by thoughts.

Please sit down, let thoughts come and go. When a thought is present, investigate:

Are there two separate things there, a thought + the knowing or awareness of it?
Where does a thought end and its knowing/aware-ing starts?

Is there a dividing line between a thought and the knowing of it?
If yes, where is this line exactly?

Can a thought be separated from the aware-ing of it?
Can an aware-ing/knowing be separated from a thought?


Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Ready2end
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:08 am

Hi Vivien,

Are there two separate things there, a thought + the knowing or awareness of it?
Where does a thought end and its knowing/aware-ing starts?
So I've been looking for a while trying to notice where they begin and end.
The pattern so far is that the aware-ing happens after thoughts end, never before.
A thought passes through.
You notice it's just a container, by that I mean the content is not real.
Then a 'notice-ing' is sensed, and the word 'awareness' comes to mind followed by a short silence.
I ask who is identifying with awareness? Where is identification coming from?
And then there is silence again. Can't trace the origin. Conventional thoughts eventually return.
Is there a dividing line between a thought and the knowing of it?
If yes, where is this line exactly?
I don't know. Don't seem to be able to distinguish a boundary.
Can a thought be separated from the aware-ing of it?
Can an aware-ing/knowing be separated from a thought?
As noted above, thoughts seem to precede aware-ing.
It occurs to me that aware-ing seems to be just a thought in of itself.
Sill, there's this silent presence too.
No matter how many questions I ask it...it never responds.

So taking a real-time example:
I have the thought 'I've been in my own civil war for quite some time.'
There is a me that feels like this is true.
There is also an awareness present stating this is just another fictional story.
This awareness helps to divorce attachment to the story.
Then there are thoughts of all the supporting evidence for why the metaphor is true.
It goes back and forth. Take a breath. Silence. Conventional thoughts return.

So even if there were an awareness that is aware of thoughts, how is it known EXACTLY that this awareness = me?
What makes this awareness into a me?
I don't know. Still working on it.
You have to look for the subject and not for the object. You are doing it by turning the attention to the other direction, to the subject who is supposedly doing the identification.
I understand this in theory. Not so sure how to tell subject/object apart in experience.
'I' seems to be a thought itself.
Without thoughts of "I," silence ensues.
Every time I have an 'I' thought, identification comes automatically attached to it.
I can't find a separation between the two.
So I ask who am I that is identifying?
No answer comes.
Eventually get distracted by new thoughts.

Is this too much detail?
Am I missing something when I look?


Let me know,
Jim

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 6370
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Sat Aug 03, 2019 1:32 am

Hi Jim,
This reply is long and dense. I didn’t want to leave any beliefs unquestioned. So please read it many times and look very carefully with each question. There is some repetition, but this is necessary. Always look with each repeating question. NEVER rely on the memory of a previous looking. Always look afresh.
So I've been looking for a while trying to notice where they begin and end.
The pattern so far is that the aware-ing happens after thoughts end, never before.
How is it known that a thought is present if the aware-ing/knowing of it happens after the thought has ended?
Is this possible at all?
How can the presence of a thought be known if there is no knowing of the presence of a thought?


How can a statement be made that there is a thought, and the aware-ing/knowing of it happens just after the thought ended? If the presence of the thought wasn’t known in the moment when the thought was there, because the knowing came after the thought ended, then how is it known there was a thought at all?

Can there be a thought without knowing that there is a thought present?
If yes, how so?


The confusion is probably coming from mixing the actual experiential knowing of the presence of a thought, and the thought claim “there is/was a thought” that comes after the previous thought ended.

Let’s have an example:
Thought 1: “I’d like to drink a coffee”
Thought 2: “There was a thought present about coffee”

Does thought 2 is needed to know or be aware of the presence of thought 1?
In other words, is there no knowing/awareing of thought 1, without thought 2?

Does thought 2 actually know or aware of thought 1?

When thought 2 doesn’t follow thought 1, the presence of thought 1 is still known, isn’t it?


Let’s look the same thing with sensation, it might be easier.
Please focus on the sensations of the hands.
Does a thought needed to know the presence of the sensation?
Or as soon as there is a sensation it is automatically known/aware-ed at the same time?

Can there be a sensation without the knowing of it?
Try to peel off the sensation from the knowing of it? Can it be done?

V: Is there a dividing line between a thought and the knowing of it?
If yes, where is this line exactly?
R: I don't know. Don't seem to be able to distinguish a boundary.
Yes, because there is no boundary.

There are no two things there: thought + knowing.
These are not two, but one.
The presence of a thought and the knowing/aware-ing of it are one and the same.
Can you see this experientially?

As noted above, thoughts seem to precede aware-ing.
It occurs to me that aware-ing seems to be just a thought in of itself.
You are referring here to the thought that claims that previously there was a thought there.

But does this thought is aware or know that presence of the previous thought?
Or the knowing of the thought appears in the same moment when the thought appears?


When there is a thought present, it’s already known.
Since the thought and the knowing of it not two, but one phenomenon. Can you see this?
So taking a real-time example:
I have the thought 'I've been in my own civil war for quite some time.'
There is a me that feels like this is true.
There is also an awareness present stating this is just another fictional story.
This awareness helps to divorce attachment to the story.
Then there are thoughts of all the supporting evidence for why the metaphor is true.
It goes back and forth. Take a breath. Silence. Conventional thoughts return.
Dear Jim, this is all story. Let’s break it down:
I have the thought 'I've been in my own civil war for quite some time.'
This is a thought. And as soon as this thought is present, it’s already known.
No further thought is required to know the presence of this thought. Is this clear?
There is a me that feels like this is true.
This is a thought only. And if this thought is not seen clearly only as an appearing thought, but rather its content is taken as ‘real’, then the content SEEMINGLY becomes reality with a SEEMING ‘me’ that SEEMINGLY feels that something is true.

Be careful with expressions with ‘SEEMS’. A SEEMING thing is NOT an actual thing.

Every time a sentence starts with “it seems” or “it feels like” is the sure sign that what will follow is just an analogy, just the content of a thought and not an actual bodily sensation. It’s not coming from looking at AE directly, rather from thought speculation. Can you see this?

How is FELT exactly that something is true?
Can ‘trueness’ be actually felt?
Or only thoughts talk about trueness or the feeling of trueness?
There is also an awareness present stating this is just another fictional story.
Please read this above sentence carefully.

Can there an actual awareness be present, or only this thought is talking about an awareness?
Can there be an actual awareness present making statement? Or is this just a thought content?

This awareness helps to divorce attachment to the story.
Is this awareness an entity that can do things like divorce attachment to the story?
Can this awareness actually be seen divorcing the attachment?
Or is this just a thought not seen only as a thought (as a phenomenon) but rather its content is taken as ‘real’?
Then there are thoughts of all the supporting evidence for why the metaphor is true.
And these are just appearing thoughts. Which are known only as thoughts, and experienced as thoughts.
But their contents are not real, not happening, not experienced. Can you see this clearly?
'I' seems to be a thought itself.
Without thoughts of "I," silence ensues.
Every time I have an 'I' thought, identification comes automatically attached to it.
I can't find a separation between the two.
So I ask who am I that is identifying?
No answer comes.
Eventually get distracted by new thoughts.
Am I missing something when I look?
From this example it seems to me that after the question is asked ‘Who am I that is identifying?’ there is a passive waiting for an answer to arrive. Is this so?

When you look, you ask a question and then wait for an answer to arrive? – If yes, then this not looking. Looking is not a passive thing. It’s not about waiting for a thought answer to the questions. Waiting still happens in the level of thinking.

Looking is stepping outside of the realm of thoughts, and actively SEARCHING for an ‘I’.
Searching through the whole body from head to toe.
Searching for anything (especially sensations) that could be a good candidate to be a ‘me’.
Can you see the difference?

And the question “Who am I that is identifying?” is not the best one, since the question is based on flawed beliefs.
This question makes that statement that I AM, and just tries to figure out WHO I am – but the question is based on the flawed assumption that there is an I, and the only question is WHO (I am). So this question points to the wrong direction. It is pointing to look for an OBJECT (who am I?) and not to the seeming subject (Am I at all?). Just as I explained to you in my previous post. You want to go to south, but this question is pointing to north. Can you see this?

So here is a question that points to south: “WHAT is it that is identifying?” – this question doesn’t assume that “I AM”, but rather asks WHAT is it that is doing the seeming identification. So this question is pointing to look for the SUBJECT. It is pointing to search for something that is doing the identification. It doesn’t make the statement that this thing (I) exists, rather it’s ask to search for its existence, if there is any. Can you see this?

Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Ready2end
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Sat Aug 03, 2019 6:21 pm

Hey Vivien,

Thank you all the pointers. :)
They help clarify things.
I’m going through each one slowly.
Will get back to you tomorrow.

Jim

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 6370
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Sat Aug 03, 2019 11:50 pm

Hi Jim,

All right. I'm looking froward to your replies.

Have a nice day,
Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Ready2end
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Mon Aug 05, 2019 10:15 am

Hi Vivien,

I don't know where to begin. I've been reflecting on what you wrote little by little trying let the meaning sink in.

Perhaps I am confusing the two here:
The confusion is probably coming from mixing the actual experiential knowing of the presence of a thought, and the thought claim “there is/was a thought” that comes after the previous thought ended.

Let’s have an example:
Thought 1: “I’d like to drink a coffee”
Thought 2: “There was a thought present about coffee”

Does thought 2 is needed to know or be aware of the presence of thought 1?
In other words, is there no knowing/awareing of thought 1, without thought 2?
No, thought 1 doesn't need thought 2. There is inherent knowing within all thoughts. We can agree on this.
When I was originally trying to describe aware-ing or awareness, it's different than 'knowing' in that it requires a subject to have a prior experience to become aware of. For instance:
Does thought 2 actually know or aware of thought 1?
(is this a trap?) I say yes. If thought 1 never happened, thought 2 would not exist.
Thought 2 is aware that there is a desire for coffee because thought 1 came before it.
Thought 1 is a knowing, and thought 2 is, for lack of a better word, a reflexive aware-ing of some sort that encompasses info from prior thoughts or sensory inputs.
When thought 2 doesn’t follow thought 1, the presence of thought 1 is still known, isn’t it?
Yes, thought 1 is still known.
Let’s look the same thing with sensation, it might be easier.
Please focus on the sensations of the hands.
Does a thought needed to know the presence of the sensation?
Or as soon as there is a sensation it is automatically known/aware-ed at the same time?
No, thought's are not needed to know the presence of the sensation. The sensations are felt and known automatically. Thoughts are needed if you wish to identify the sensation.
Can there be a sensation without the knowing of it?
Try to peel off the sensation from the knowing of it? Can it be done?
No, knowing comes with thoughts and sensations automatically.

I'm not even sure I know what I'm saying to be honest. I can't seem to be able to express myself.
There are no two things there: thought + knowing.
These are not two, but one.
The presence of a thought and the knowing/aware-ing of it are one and the same.
Can you see this experientially?
I don't know. I feel like fly trapped in a web tangling myself up the more I struggle with these questions.
But does this thought is aware or know that presence of the previous thought?
Or the knowing of the thought appears in the same moment when the thought appears?

When there is a thought present, it’s already known.
Since the thought and the knowing of it not two, but one phenomenon. Can you see this?
I agree knowing and thoughts are one phenomenon. For some reason, I get tangled up using the word awareness and aware-ing. For me, there is a difference between the two. I don't know how to describe it though. Let's continue and see if other examples help.
No further thought is required to know the presence of this thought. Is this clear?
Yes
Every time a sentence starts with “it seems” or “it feels like” is the sure sign that what will follow is just an analogy, just the content of a thought and not an actual bodily sensation. It’s not coming from looking at AE directly, rather from thought speculation. Can you see this?
It doesn't feel like thought speculation. But I do see that is false because it's a content of thought.
How is FELT exactly that something is true?
Can ‘trueness’ be actually felt?
Or only thoughts talk about trueness or the feeling of trueness?
I don't know how it is felt when something is true.
It's an inherent knowing that is confirmed afterward with thoughts of trueness.
For example:
Meet someone new. You sense they're trustworthy after a little while.
Thought 1: this person is trustworthy
Thought 2: I can trust them with x y or z
The knowing came first.. Thoughts about it, second.
Can there an actual awareness be present, or only this thought is talking about an awareness?
Can there be an actual awareness present making statement? Or is this just a thought content?
So it's the thought talking about the awareness that it's fictional.
Awareness isn't able to make statements. Only thoughts can.
Or is this awareness an entity that can do things like divorce attachment to the story?
Can this awareness actually be seen divorcing the attachment?
Or is this just a thought not seen only as a thought (as a phenomenon) but rather its content is taken as ‘real’?
I don't know. Being aware of things can help know what is and isn't true.
Like having awareness that thoughts are passing through allows me to ignore the content.
But their contents are not real, not happening, not experienced. Can you see this clearly?
Exactly, I see that the contents are not real precisely because there is an awareness.
At the same time, I suspect I'm not looking in the manner you want me to. And I apologize for this failure.
As you can see, I'm still getting caught up in content.
From this example it seems to me that after the question is asked ‘Who am I that is identifying?’ there is a passive waiting for an answer to arrive. Is this so?

When you look, you ask a question and then wait for an answer to arrive? – If yes, then this not looking. Looking is not a passive thing. It’s not about waiting for a thought answer to the questions. Waiting still happens in the level of thinking.
Yes, guilty. This goes with what I was admitting in the response above.
Looking is stepping outside of the realm of thoughts, and actively SEARCHING for an ‘I’.
Searching through the whole body from head to toe.
Searching for anything (especially sensations) that could be a good candidate to be a ‘me’.
Can you see the difference?
Yes and no. I see the difference between active and passive.
I get confused when you mention 'what could be a good candidate to be a 'me.''
Because I want to then practice searching for everything/anything that feels a 'me-ness' attached to thoughts or sensory inputs.
For example: 'I want ' turns into looking for the 'me' that wants a coffee. Where is it felt? What makes it me? What is aware of this 'me?' What is identifying with it?
You want to go to south, but this question is pointing to north. Can you see this?
I see what you're saying about looking N vs S. But I still have trouble distinguishing between object and subject.
The understanding comes and goes.
So this question is pointing to look for the SUBJECT. It is pointing to search for something that is doing the identification. It doesn’t make the statement that this thing (I) exists, rather it’s ask to search for its existence, if there is any. Can you see this?
Well, I'm beginning to wonder if feelings of 'me-ness' are really just thoughts or thoughts plus sensations.
What you're saying is to question whether this 'me' exists at all.
Ok getting it, I think.

Jim

User avatar
Ready2end
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:45 am

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Mon Aug 05, 2019 10:31 pm

Hey Vivien,

I've been at it all day trying to see what you're pointing to.
To look for what is identifying with 'I' and 'me' thoughts.
And ask, "am I at all?"

I'm still stuck on 'me' being something real.
I have a hard time looking because I don't know what to look for.
You say it should be as real as finding the keys in your pocket.
Doesn't add up. If thoughts are real, but intangible. Then why not 'me'?
I don't say this out of anger or to be cheeky.
Wanted to share where it is I feel stuck.
If this is resistance, I apologize. It's not on purpose.

-Jim-

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 6370
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:55 am

Hi Jim,
No, thought 1 doesn't need thought 2. There is inherent knowing within all thoughts. We can agree on this.
What do you mean by ‘there is inherent knowing within all thoughts”? Do you mean that as soon as a thought is there it’s that the presence of that thought is automatically known? OR do you mean that the thought itself knows things?
V: Thought 1: “I’d like to drink a coffee”
Thought 2: “There was a thought present about coffee”
Does thought 2 actually know or aware of thought 1?
J: (is this a trap?) I say yes. If thought 1 never happened, thought 2 would not exist.
Thought 2 is aware that there is a desire for coffee because thought 1 came before it.
Thought 1 is a knowing, and thought 2 is, for lack of a better word, a reflexive aware-ing of some sort that encompasses info from prior thoughts or sensory inputs.
No, it’s not a trap :) It’s just an illusion, based on a false conclusion. Since you are trying to figure this out by the intellect, by thinking. You are focusing on the contents of thoughts 1 & 2, and not to the thought phenomena themselves.
Just because thought 2 makes a claim that “there was a thought present about coffee” – it doesn’t mean that this thought was aware or new about the presence of the previous thought.

If this were the case, then thought 2 had to be present at the time when thought 1 appeared.
And this thought has to be a very special thought, more than a thought actually, it has to be an entity or agency that is aware and can observe other objects, like thought 1.

With this investigation we are not focusing on the contents of thoughts. If you focus on the contents only (on the words), then yes, there could be a LOGICAL conclusion (which is coming from thinking) that thought 2 is talking about thought 1, therefore it must be aware or it must know about thought 1. But this is merely a thought speculation.

So we don’t do that, since that won’t help us. Rather, we zoom out of the content to the thought phenomenon itself. So we are not focusing on the content, but rather on the ‘container’, on the phenomenon of an arising thought. So we are focusing on the thought-ness aspect of the thought, and not what the thought is about.
Can you see the difference?

If you look at the thoughts as phenomena than you can see that thoughts are all the same. The only difference between thoughts are their contents. But we zoom out of the contents, and focus on the ‘containers’ themselves.

So when I ask ‘Does thought 2 actually know or aware of thought 1’ – I am not asking to focus on the content (what the thoughts are about) and make a logical conclusion on that, but rather I ask you to focus on the pure phenomena of those thoughts, and look and see if thought 2 is an aware entity that can observe or witness other thoughts.
Can you see the difference?

So, does thought 2 is an aware entity that is observing thought 1? – don’t think, but rather look if it can be literally seen/observed/witnessed that thought 2 is observing thought 1?
V: There are no two things there: thought + knowing.
These are not two, but one.
The presence of a thought and the knowing/aware-ing of it are one and the same.
Can you see this experientially?
J: I don't know. I feel like fly trapped in a web tangling myself up the more I struggle with these questions.
You are struggling, because you are trying to solve this as a puzzle, to solve it intellectually. But that’s all right. You stated in your introduction that you are quite intellectual, so there is no surprise here :)
For some reason, I get tangled up using the word awareness and aware-ing. For me, there is a difference between the two. I don't know how to describe it though.
Does my above explanation about zooming out of the content and looking at the pure thought itself help with this confusion?
If not, could you please write some examples? But please, be as precise in your description as you can.

V: Every time a sentence starts with “it seems” or “it feels like” is the sure sign that what will follow is just an analogy, just the content of a thought and not an actual bodily sensation. It’s not coming from looking at AE directly, rather from thought speculation. Can you see this?
J: It doesn't feel like thought speculation. But I do see that is false because it's a content of thought.
:) :) :) Do you see how you replied to my comments about ‘seems like’/ ‘feels like’?
You have fallen to the same trap I was trying to point out.
J: There is a me that feels like this is true.
V: How is FELT exactly that something is true?
Can ‘trueness’ be actually felt?
Or only thoughts talk about trueness or the feeling of trueness?
J: I don't know how it is felt when something is true.
It's an inherent knowing that is confirmed afterward with thoughts of trueness.
For example:
Meet someone new. You sense they're trustworthy after a little while.
Thought 1: this person is trustworthy
Thought 2: I can trust them with x y or z
The knowing came first.. Thoughts about it, second.
Here, you tried to answer my questions by thinking through it.

You wrote: “There is a me that feels like this is true.”
You used the word ‘FEELS’, that ‘truth can be felt’. - What I was trying to point out is that truth cannot be felt.
It’s a thought based statement, it’s not an actual bodily sensation.
Just because there is a word ‘feel’ in a sentence, it doesn’t mean that it’s an actual feeling/sensation.
Thoughts talk about all sorts of things which are NOT in line with experience. Just with the above example.

Truth cannot be felt. Since truth is a concept. Concepts cannot be felt. Concepts appear only as the content of thoughts. Can you see this?

Awareness isn't able to make statements. Only thoughts can.
And does a thought actually know what it’s talking about?

If you say yes, it mean that thoughts are aware entities with self-reflection ability.
But are they so? – don’t try to solve this logically, rather let a thought come, and LOOK at the thought as a ‘container’ and see if the thought itself is self-aware
V: Or is this awareness an entity that can do things like divorce attachment to the story?
Can this awareness actually be seen divorcing the attachment?
Or is this just a thought not seen only as a thought (as a phenomenon) but rather its content is taken as ‘real’?
J: I don't know. Being aware of things can help know what is and isn't true.
Like having awareness that thoughts are passing through allows me to ignore the content.
This reply comes from thinking.
V: But their contents are not real, not happening, not experienced. Can you see this clearly?
J: Exactly, I see that the contents are not real precisely because there is an awareness.
Contents are not real because there is an awareness? – what do you mean by that? What does awareness have to do with the realness of the content?
At the same time, I suspect I'm not looking in the manner you want me to. And I apologize for this failure.
As you can see, I'm still getting caught up in content.
Yes, you don’t, but that’s why you are here to learn how to look at experience directly, instead of looking at what thoughts are about experience.
V: From this example it seems to me that after the question is asked ‘Who am I that is identifying?’ there is a passive waiting for an answer to arrive. Is this so?
When you look, you ask a question and then wait for an answer to arrive? – If yes, then this not looking. Looking is not a passive thing. It’s not about waiting for a thought answer to the questions. Waiting still happens in the level of thinking.
J: Yes, guilty. This goes with what I was admitting in the response above.
I wouldn’t say guilty. I would rather say that you don’t know (yet) how to look at experience directly. But this can be learned just any other skill.
V: Looking is stepping outside of the realm of thoughts, and actively SEARCHING for an ‘I’.
Searching through the whole body from head to toe.
Searching for anything (especially sensations) that could be a good candidate to be a ‘me’.
Can you see the difference?
J: Yes and no. I see the difference between active and passive.
I get confused when you mention 'what could be a good candidate to be a 'me.''
Because I want to then practice searching for everything/anything that feels a 'me-ness' attached to thoughts or sensory inputs.
For example: 'I want ' turns into looking for the 'me' that wants a coffee. Where is it felt? What makes it me? What is aware of this 'me?' What is identifying with it?
A good ‘candidate’ is exactly what you described; that which sensation is labelled as ‘me’? Or Where is it felt?
What is aware of this 'me?' What is identifying with it?
These are very good questions. This is what you have to look for.
Well, I'm beginning to wonder if feelings of 'me-ness' are really just thoughts or thoughts plus sensations.
What you're saying is to question whether this 'me' exists at all.
Yes, exactly. Thoughts constantly talking on behalf of ‘me’.
And we are investigating if this ‘me’, on behalf thoughts are talking about’ is actually there at all.

So we are looking if we can FIND an ACTUAL ‘ME’ that thoughts are talking about.
If there is ACTUAL ME/SELF behind the word ‘me’.
Is this clear?

I've been at it all day trying to see what you're pointing to.
To look for what is identifying with 'I' and 'me' thoughts.
And ask, "am I at all?"
“Am I at all?” – is not the best questions, since it’s still engages the intellect, it sounds as a philosophical/speculative question.

Rather use the ones you wrote me in your previous post:
What is aware of this 'me?' What is identifying with it?

And then actively search for anything that can be SEEN being aware or doing the identifying.
I'm still stuck on 'me' being something real.
I have a hard time looking because I don't know what to look for.
You say it should be as real as finding the keys in your pocket.
Doesn't add up. If thoughts are real, but intangible. Then why not 'me'?
All right. Thoughts are intangible, yet when they are there, their presence are unquestionably and experientially known.

So, we are looking for a ‘me’, tangible or intangible, which presence is unquestionably and experientially known.
Just as you know very well when there it a thought present. You can describe that thought, you know very well what the thought is about (the content).
So when a thought is there, it is there, and it is automatically known that it is there.

So we are looking for the ‘me’ similarly.
Thoughts are constantly talking about ‘me/I/my/mine’.
When thoughts are about me/I/my/mine, those thoughts are there, the presence of those thoughts automatically known. They are there.

But where is the ‘me’ on behalf of those thoughts are talking about?
Is the presence of the ‘me’ as clearly known as the presence of the thought “me”?


So when there is a thought: “I” or “me” – the presence of these thoughts/words are automatically known.
They can be found, they are here now.
But where is the ACTUAL I/ME that those thoughts are referring TO?
I don't say this out of anger or to be cheeky.
Wanted to share where it is I feel stuck.
If this is resistance, I apologize. It's not on purpose.
I can see from your comments your honesty and desire to see this.

Please read through my comments above several times, and try to get beyond thinking. Try to step out of the thinking process and just observer what is actually going on. At some point it will click how to do it.

Vivien
The most profound discoveries arise from questioning the obvious.

Website: https://www.viviennovak.com/

Blog: https://fadingveiling.com/


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest