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 » Wed Aug 07, 2019 4:32 am

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?
I mean the presence of the thought is automatically known. Or another way to say it is...there is a knowing that comes with thought.
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.
Ok fair enough. But something is aware and produced thought 2. (more on this below)
So we are focusing on the thought-ness aspect of the thought, and not what the thought is about.
Can you see the difference?
I do see the difference. I still get caught up on how thought 2 came to exist then. Here's why. If thoughts are contained to themselves with no awareness of other thoughts, then there's a greater awareness that is aware all thoughts.

I'm not trying to get caught up in the content, but instead on the phenomenon of how this development of thoughts can start with basic info and build upon it, much like pattern recognition and mathematics. Some awareness had to take info from an experience that already happened in the past and apply it to a new one in the present. And if thoughts are not aware themselves...I wonder what is?
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?
I see the difference. Thoughts cannot be aware themselves. Thanks for making this clear.
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.
I think the example just given about what is that phenomenon that knows past thoughts/experiences and can incorporate them into the present moment is what I was trying to point to...this aware-ing presence or awareness.
:) :) :) 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.
Yeah yeah yeah...we can't expect old habits to die suddenly :D
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?
I see what you mean. How do we know anything is true then since the contents of thoughts cannot be trusted?
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
After looking, I confirmed thoughts are not self-aware.
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?
I meant since there is an awareness present that thoughts are like containers, the awareness is more real than the content inside those containers. Containers and their contents come and go, but awareness is always present and steady.
Not to say I still stand behind this comment. I can see the phenomenon of thoughts more clearly after reading your comments and looking into them.
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.
Well good! Looking at experience directly seems like a healthier way to escape one's mind compared to other methodologies (ok ok another use of "seems"...but this is one doesn't count :p)
These are very good questions. This is what you have to look for.
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?
This is awesome. We are on the same page. Very clear :)

I'm gonna pause here for now and practice some more looking before continuing onto the next section.
Have a good rest of your day,

Jim

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

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Ready2end » Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:17 pm

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.
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?
Here's what's happening typically:
I notice how I am identifying with most thoughts throughout a day.
Some of the times, I catch myself in this identification and ask, what is it that I am identifying with? What am I? What is aware of this me?
Which is met with blank/nothing response.
Then thought enters again as awareness of this blank/nothing followed by a desire to find something.
I try to focus on this 'me' that always is identifying.
I look for a location. I look for something experiential...something as you described is as definitive of an experience as a thought or sensation.
Blankness returns. Breathing enters awareness. Thoughts of not doing the exercise correctly arise.
Arms and feet tingle as awareness of present moment fills the void.
Continue breathing until distracted by future thoughts.
Eventually tire of looking or continue on to the next activity until I catch myself in identification again.
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.
Fingers crossed this click happens.
When I go to observer mode and watch thoughts pass by as little containers, that's usually when blank awareness kicks in. I don't yet know how to get out of mind thinking. Still trying.

Thanks,
Jim

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

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:56 am

Hi Jim,
Ok fair enough. But something is aware and produced thought 2. (more on this below)
I do see the difference. I still get caught up on how thought 2 came to exist then. Here's why. If thoughts are contained to themselves with no awareness of other thoughts, then there's a greater awareness that is aware all thoughts.
This is purely a thought speculation.

You don’t have figure out HOW or WHY it happens. This could happen only conceptually, which all would be just theory. This belongs to neuroscience or philosophy, but definitely not to looking.

We are just observing what can be known without any thoughts. We are looking at experience directly.

Language is dualistic, and thus it’s assumes that there has to be a subject (like an awareness) that is aware of the objects (like thoughts). But this is not in line with experience at all. In reality, there is no subject-object split. There is no separation. There is just what is. Without any doer (subject) at all.

We say: the rain is raining. But is there a rainer?
Or, the wind is blowing. But is there a blower?
Similarly, the knowing of the presence of a thought is happening. But is there a knower/awareness? – no there isn’t.
I'm not trying to get caught up in the content, but instead on the phenomenon of how this development of thoughts can start with basic info and build upon it, much like pattern recognition and mathematics. Some awareness had to take info from an experience that already happened in the past and apply it to a new one in the present.
This is a thought speculation again. Your comment is based on the belief of cause and effect, which is built on the notion of time, which is also just a belief but not an experience. We will look at these later.
And if thoughts are not aware themselves...I wonder what is?
Nothing. That’s the whole point. Just as there is no blower of winds, or rainer of rains.
Things just happen without anything doing in.

Can you entertain the possibility (even if just intellectually) that there is NOTHING being aware of thoughts?
That although the thought is known but there is no knower/awareness whatsoever?
Can you be open to this possibility?


Because if you want to see this, first you have to be open to it intellectually first.
I think the example just given about what is that phenomenon that knows past thoughts/experiences and can incorporate them into the present moment is what I was trying to point to...this aware-ing presence or awareness.
It’s thought speculation based on the notion of cause and effect and time.

If there is such thing as ‘aware-ing presence or awareness’ then find it. Where is it exactly?
V: 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?
B: I see what you mean. How do we know anything is true then since the contents of thoughts cannot be trusted?
The only way to know if something is actually ‘true’ is to see if what thought is about is in line with experience or not. If it’s not, then it’s just a concept, an idea, a thought story, phantasy.
After looking, I confirmed thoughts are not self-aware.
Great! Yes, they are not self aware.
I meant since there is an awareness present that thoughts are like containers, the awareness is more real than the content inside those containers. Containers and their contents come and go, but awareness is always present and steady.
Not to say I still stand behind this comment. I can see the phenomenon of thoughts more clearly after reading your comments and looking into them.
All right. So thoughts ‘say’ that there is an awareness present, and this awareness is more real than the content, since the contents come and go, but awareness is always present and steady.

So, where is this AWARENESS EXACTLY that thoughts are ‘talking’ about?
If it’s always present and steady, then you have no problem at all to find it. It’s easy. So where it is?

And how does it look like?
What does it made of?
What size is it? Where are its boundaries?
How can this awareness be recognized?


So thoughts are talking about awareness, just as they talk about a me.
But we are after a REAL awareness, just as we are after a REAL me.

So where is the REAL, ACTUAL awareness that thoughts are ‘talking’ about?
Wat does the word ‘awareness’ is actually pointing to in experience?
Blankness returns. Breathing enters awareness.
How is it known that breathing enters awareness?

In order to breathing be able to enter awareness, both of them has to exist separately.

Can breathing be separated from the knowing or awareness of it?
Where does breathing ends and the awareness/knowing of it starts
?

When I go to observer mode and watch thoughts pass by as little containers, that's usually when blank awareness kicks in.
There is no such thing as ‘blank awareness’. This is just a thought story overlaying the experience when there is no thought response to the question. That’s all. 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 » Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:29 pm

Hey Vivien,
Can you entertain the possibility (even if just intellectually) that there is NOTHING being aware of thoughts?
That although the thought is known but there is no knower/awareness whatsoever?
Can you be open to this possibility?
I can. No blower in the wind. No color in the snow. The assumption of 'something' turns out to be nothing.
I keep thinking in the conventional mind set. More than I'd like to. One step at a time.

If there is such thing as ‘aware-ing presence or awareness’ then find it. Where is it exactly?
So, where is this AWARENESS EXACTLY that thoughts are ‘talking’ about?
If it’s always present and steady, then you have no problem at all to find it. It’s easy. So where it is?

And how does it look like?
What does it made of?
What size is it? Where are its boundaries?
How can this awareness be recognized?
It's EVERYWHERE!! Everything I can see and perceive is awareness, right?
It couldn't otherwise be without it? Awareness = knowing.
Anything I touch and feel and think and so on, it all falls into awareness/knowing.
How is it known that breathing enters awareness?
A thought says so. How the recognition of the sensation of breathing came into that thought remains a mystery.

Can breathing be separated from the knowing or awareness of it?
Where does breathing ends and the awareness/knowing of it starts?
It cannot. There isn't a boundary. This inability to separate awareness from anything else is why I think awareness is everywhere.
There is no such thing as ‘blank awareness’. This is just a thought story overlaying the experience when there is no thought response to the question. That’s all. Can you see this?
Ok. So can this empty-thought state be used to look for what's 'me/I'?

Thanks,
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 10, 2019 2:24 am

Hi Jim,
V: Can breathing be separated from the knowing or awareness of it?
Where does breathing ends and the awareness/knowing of it starts?
J: It cannot. There isn't a boundary. This inability to separate awareness from anything else is why I think awareness is everywhere.
All right. So first, there is an experiential seeing that breathing and the awareness/knowing of it cannot be separated. This is coming from looking.

But the second half of your reply is coming from purely thought speculation.
You even said it yourself: “This inability to separate awareness from anything else is why I THINK awareness is everywhere.”

‘Awareness is everywhere’ is NOT an experience. It’s just a thought speculation, which is NOT in line with experience at all. Can you see that this is just a thought speculation?
V: So, where is this AWARENESS EXACTLY that thoughts are ‘talking’ about?
If it’s always present and steady, then you have no problem at all to find it. It’s easy. So where it is?
And how does it look like?
What does it made of?
What size is it? Where are its boundaries?
How can this awareness be recognized?
J: It's EVERYWHERE!! Everything I can see and perceive is awareness, right?
It couldn't otherwise be without it? Awareness = knowing.
Anything I touch and feel and think and so on, it all falls into awareness/knowing.
No, not at all. Here, you didn’t look at all. You wrote down the contents of thoughts.

I would like to ask you to not bulk-reply. There are several questions above that are pointers for you where to look. And you neither replied to those questions, nor looked there.
It's EVERYWHERE!! Everything I can see and perceive is awareness, right?
Definitely no. This sentence is full of beliefs.

There are the following beliefs there:

- There is an I/me
- This me/I have an ability to see and perceive things
- There is an independent awareness
- And all there is to the seen and the perceived is awareness

But in experience NONE of them can be verified. All of these just thought assumptions only.
Anything I touch and feel and think and so on, it all falls into awareness/knowing.
This sentence assumes, that there is not just an I/me that has the ability to touch, feel and think, but it also assumes that there is an independent awareness waiting in the background for things to fall into it.

So a thought cannot be separated from the knowing of it.
A sensation cannot be separated from the knowing of it.
A sound cannot be separated from the knowing of it.
A taste cannot be separated from the knowing of it.
A smell cannot be separated from the knowing of it.
A color cannot be separated from the knowing of it.

That’s all. Can anything else be said about the knowing part other than it cannot be separated from the known?

So the knowing and the known are inseparable.
They are not two phenomena, but one.
Can you see this?


Can you see that nothing else can be said other then there is just thoughtknowing, or sensationknowing, or tasteknowing, etc.?


But we cannot say that awareness is everywhere. How could we? On what bases?
That would be only a speculation.
There is not even the experience of everywhere.
And there is no experience of awareness either.

How everywhere would be experienced? Is it a sound, smell, taste, color, sensation or thought?

And how awareness is experienced? Is it a sound, smell, taste, color, sensation or thought?


Here are the questions you did looked at before:

And how does it [awareness] look like?
What does it made of?
What size is it? Where are its boundaries?
How can this awareness be recognized?
V: How is it known that breathing enters awareness?
J: A thought says so. How the recognition of the sensation of breathing came into that thought remains a mystery.
So there is no such thing as breathing ENTERING awareness which was waiting in the background for things to enter into it.
This is just a thought fantasy.

If there were an awareness waiting for the breathing to enter it, then the breath and the knowing of it could be easily separated. Awareness can be easily separated and put at the left side, and breathing on the right side, without touching each other. But can this be done?
V: There is no such thing as ‘blank awareness’. This is just a thought story overlaying the experience when there is no thought response to the question. That’s all. Can you see this?
J: Ok. So can this empty-thought state be used to look for what's 'me/I'?
Looking is much simpler than you think.

You just ask the questions: “Where is awareness?”
And then you start to SEARCH FOR the awareness. Search through the whole body from head to toe. But don’t just think through it, but actually put attention to the body part that you are searching in the moment, and FEEL what is there.

So when you put the attention on the soles of the feet, and FEEL the sensations there, can there anything else be found other than the sensation?
Can an ACTUAL awareness be found there?


Yes, the sensation of the soles of the feet cannot be separated from the knowing of it.
But does this mean that there is an ACTUAL awareness there?
Or it just means that the presence of that sensation is known?


Then put the attention to the sensations of the hands and FEEL them. Can there be anything else be found other than sensations?
Is this the place where an ACTUAL awareness is located?


The presence of the sensation is known.
But is there an ACTUAL awareness there DOING the knowing of that sensation?

Put the attention to the chest and FEEL the sensations there.
Is there anything else there other than a sensation?
The presence of the sensation is known. But is there a KNOWER/AWARENESS of that sensation?
Or just a sensation known, or sensationknowing?

Go through the head similarly as above.
Throat, face, eyes, forehead, behind the eyes, the back of the head, to top of the head, the middle of the head.
What can be found?


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 10, 2019 11:59 pm

Hi Vivien,

‘Awareness is everywhere’ is NOT an experience. It’s just a thought speculation, which is NOT in line with experience at all. Can you see that this is just a thought speculation?
Yes. I can see the speculative nature of such comment coming from thought.
Still, we may or may not be pointing to the same thing.
Many of the questions you asked below and my responses to them should help clarify if we are on the same page or not.
No, not at all. Here, you didn’t look at all. You wrote down the contents of thoughts.

I would like to ask you to not bulk-reply. There are several questions above that are pointers for you where to look. And you neither replied to those questions, nor looked there.
It's not that I didn't look per se. It's the looking and seeing that everything falls into knowing awareness that made me say what I did. I agree the conclusion is speculation. But what's being speculated is how to reference what this 'knowing-experience' of everything and anything is.
And how does it look like?
Based on awareness = knowing, then awareness looks like whatever it is I'm seeing.
What does it made of?
I don't know what knowing is made of.
What size is it? Where are its boundaries?
Whatever is being perceived is its size and boundary. It encompasses all.
How can this awareness be recognized?
It is recognized automatically. The knowing-awareness cannot be separated from that which is being perceived.
There are the following beliefs there:

- There is an I/me
- This me/I have an ability to see and perceive things
- There is an independent awareness
- And all there is to the seen and the perceived is awareness

But in experience NONE of them can be verified. All of these just thought assumptions only.
Hmm. Alright let's continue looking at experience.
Thing is, wouldn't the following comment also be presumptive?- "I looked at thoughts and saw them as containers."
Which assumes an 'I' , an 'I' that is looking etc..
This sentence assumes, that there is not just an I/me that has the ability to touch, feel and think, but it also assumes that there is an independent awareness waiting in the background for things to fall into it.
I agree if there is no-self, then the 'I' that is perceiving cannot be independent of the awareness-knowing.
That’s all. Can anything else be said about the knowing part other than it cannot be separated from the known
Exactly it can't be separated.
So the knowing and the known are inseparable.
They are not two phenomena, but one.
Can you see this?
I can.
Can you see that nothing else can be said other then there is just thoughtknowing, or sensationknowing, or tasteknowing, etc.?
I can see. There's still confusion. More on that below.
How everywhere would be experienced? Is it a sound, smell, taste, color, sensation or thought?
It can only be experienced though thought.
And how awareness is experienced? Is it a sound, smell, taste, color, sensation or thought?
Everything that happens experientially could be called is aware-ing-knowing.
They are inseparable as you said earlier.
Yes, the sensation of the soles of the feet cannot be separated from the knowing of it.
But does this mean that there is an ACTUAL awareness there?
Or it just means that the presence of that sensation is known?
The word presence throws me off. What do you mean by that?
Is this presence separate from 'me' the looker or the 'aware-ing-knowing'?
So when you put the attention on the soles of the feet, and FEEL the sensations there, can there anything else be found other than the sensation?
Can an ACTUAL awareness be found there?
I don't know I am confused. Sorry. But if we bring in presence of sensation...then why not an awareness of one?
I can ask myself where is 'presence' in any body part and not find it. Yet, there is a knowing-presence-awareness inseparable from the experience.

I don't mean to ignore the remainder of your questions. Could we clarify this before continuing? It seems important we're on the same page. Do you see what I'm trying to point to about knowing-awareness inseparable from experience?

Jim

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

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:06 am

Hi Jim,
It's the looking and seeing that everything falls into knowing awareness that made me say what I did. I agree the conclusion is speculation. But what's being speculated is how to reference what this 'knowing-experience' of everything and anything is.
There is no everything and anything.

There is no such thing as the knowing of a chair.
Since chair is just a conceptual overlay on the AE of color, which thoughts conceptualize into objects and labels them as ‘chair’ and ‘table’.

But this is a different topic and I don’t want to complicate things.
V: And how does it look like?
J: Based on awareness = knowing, then awareness looks like whatever it is I'm seeing.
No, this is a thought conclusion again.

There are no objects being seen.
There are only the AE of colors.

So when there is the AE of colors, and all thoughts are ignored, how is it known that the colors = awareness?
This cannot be known, only thoughts make that assumption.

In the experience there is only the experience.
Awareness doesn’t look like anything, since there is NO awareness.
There are only the experience of colors.
But there is no experience of awareness.
V: What does it made of?
J: I don't know what knowing is made of.
Awareness doesn’t made of anything, since there is no such thing as awareness.
Awareness is just INFERRED by thoughts.
V: What size is it? Where are its boundaries?
J: Whatever is being perceived is its size and boundary. It encompasses all.
This is all thought speculation.
Awareness doesn’t have a size or boundaries, since there is NO such thing as awareness.
Awareness ONLY a concept! Not an experience.
V: How can this awareness be recognized?
J: It is recognized automatically. The knowing-awareness cannot be separated from that which is being perceived.
No. There is thoughtknowing yes, but there is NO knowing-awareness, it’s just a CONCEPT.
There is ZERO AE of awareness.

Remember, AE is: sound, color, taste, smell, sensation and thought (but not what the thought is about).

When there is soundknowing, it’s NOT the AE of ‘awareness’, but the AE of SOUND only.
When there is colorknowing, it’s NOT the AE of ‘awareness’, but the AE of COLOR only.
When there is tasteknowing, it’s NOT the AE of ‘awareness’, but the AE of TASTE only.
When there is smellknowing, it’s NOT the AE of ‘awareness’, but the AE of SMELL only.
When there is sensationknowing, it’s NOT the AE of ‘awareness’, but the AE of SENSTION only.
When there is thoughtknowing, it’s NOT the AE of ‘awareness’, but the AE of THOUGHT only.
Can you see these?

There is ZERO AE of ‘awareness’.
Awareness is only a concept, an idea, nothing more.
Can you see this?
V: How everywhere would be experienced? Is it a sound, smell, taste, color, sensation or thought?
J: It can only be experienced though thought.
Through thought NOTHING can be experienced. Nothing.
Since what a thought is about is NEVER EVER experienced.
It is ESSENTIAL to see this clearly, that what a thought is ABOUT is never ever experienced.


If experience would be possible through thoughts, then the thought ‘sweet’ could be tasted, and the word ‘hot’ could be felt. But can they?

If the thought ‘sweet’ cannot be stated, then it means that what the thought is about ‘sweeetness’ is NOT experienced.
If the thought ‘it is hot’ cannot be felt, then it means that what the thought is about ‘hotness’ is NOT experienced.
Is this clear?

So when I ask how awareness is experienced, and you say through thoughts, then it shows exactly what I am pointing at.
That it’s IMPOSSIBLE to experience ‘awareness’, since awareness can only THOUGHT ABOUT.
Without thought, there is nothing left from the concept of ‘awareness’.
Can you see this?
V: And how awareness is experienced? Is it a sound, smell, taste, color, sensation or thought?
J: Everything that happens experientially could be called is aware-ing-knowing.
They are inseparable as you said earlier.
“Everything that happens experientially’ – NOTHING HAPPENS experientially.
There is ONLY the AE of sound, color, smell, taste, sensation and the knowing of thought. Nothing else.

“could be called aware-ing-knowing” – this ‘COULD BE CALLED’ happens only in thought.
V: Yes, the sensation of the soles of the feet cannot be separated from the knowing of it.
But does this mean that there is an ACTUAL awareness there?
Or it just means that the presence of that sensation is known?
J: The word presence throws me off. What do you mean by that?
Is this presence separate from 'me' the looker or the 'aware-ing-knowing'?
No. I didn’t mean ‘presence’ as a spiritual concept, I just simply meant by ‘presence of sensation’ is that the sensation is PRESENT. The sensation is THERE. It’s not not-there. Just that, not a spiritual concept.

But we can leave out this word completely, and say that the sensation comes with the knowing of it, since the sensation is there.

So what I meant is:
sensation is there = sensation is present (it is there = it is present)
I don't know I am confused. Sorry. But if we bring in presence of sensation...then why not an awareness of one?
I can ask myself where is 'presence' in any body part and not find it. Yet, there is a knowing-presence-awareness inseparable from the experience.
But I didn’t talk about a mystical presence that some people believe in.
sensation is there = sensation is present (it is there = it is present)
Do you see what I'm trying to point to about knowing-awareness inseparable from experience?
Yes, I see that. The problem is that you have glimpses of experience is automatically appearing with the knowing of it, but you make all sorts of thought conclusions based on that.
Thing is, wouldn't the following comment also be presumptive?- "I looked at thoughts and saw them as containers."
Which assumes an 'I' , an 'I' that is looking etc..
Exactly!
V: This sentence assumes, that there is not just an I/me that has the ability to touch, feel and think, but it also assumes that there is an independent awareness waiting in the background for things to fall into it.
J: I agree if there is no-self, then the 'I' that is perceiving cannot be independent of the awareness-knowing.
Let’s see what happened here. I made a statement, and you started to think about it, you compared with your current knowledge about things, and with the possibility of no-self, and based on your information and beliefs you made a conclusion that that ‘I’ that is perceiving cannot be independent of the awareness-knowing’.

This all happened in the realm of thoughts.

You have been honest from the beginning that you are very intellectual and you need a guide who can help you guide out from the realm of thoughts. And honestly, what I’m doing here is that I’m trying to figure out ways that could ‘trick you’ out of thinking into looking at experience directly.

So I think that it would be best if we put aside the notion of awareness for a while, and try to look at experience form a totally different angle.

I would like to ask you to sit quietly and close your eyes and just listen to the sounds for a few minutes that can be heard both inside and outside of the room. Really hear them.

Tell me ONE sound that you heard when doing this?
Make sure it is a sound that you will be able to hear again for part 2 of this exercise.


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 12, 2019 8:51 am

Hi Vivien,

Can you see these?

There is ZERO AE of ‘awareness’.
Awareness is only a concept, an idea, nothing more.
Can you see this?
Not yet, but it's eroding this belief in it.
If experience would be possible through thoughts, then the thought ‘sweet’ could be tasted, and the word ‘hot’ could be felt. But can they?
They cannot. No.
If the thought ‘sweet’ cannot be stated, then it means that what the thought is about ‘sweeetness’ is NOT experienced.
If the thought ‘it is hot’ cannot be felt, then it means that what the thought is about ‘hotness’ is NOT experienced.
Is this clear?
It is becoming clearer.
Without thought, there is nothing left from the concept of ‘awareness’.
Can you see this?
I do understand conceptually.
Still working on seeing it in AE.
So what I meant is:
sensation is there = sensation is present (it is there = it is present)
Ok I see what you mean.
But I didn’t talk about a mystical presence that some people believe in.
I thought it meant more like presence = attention. I agree we should move on.

You have been honest from the beginning that you are very intellectual and you need a guide who can help you guide out from the realm of thoughts. And honestly, what I’m doing here is that I’m trying to figure out ways that could ‘trick you’ out of thinking into looking at experience directly.
I've heard individuals like myself who are stuck in the mind are among the more difficult cases. So thank you. :)
Let’s see what happened here. I made a statement, and you started to think about it, you compared with your current knowledge about things, and with the possibility of no-self, and based on your information and beliefs you made a conclusion that that ‘I’ that is perceiving cannot be independent of the awareness-knowing’.
True. My main point here was to show that I see what you mean in theory. That I'm not completely blind to what's being pointed. I remember a time you wanted to know if I could understand something if only intellectually. So this is me trying to do that. I readily admit there is a strong belief in a separate self that thinks too much. Good news is that it's we've been punching holes through these beliefs.

Tell me ONE sound that you heard when doing this?
Make sure it is a sound that you will be able to hear again for part 2 of this exercise.
I hear the sound of distant traffic from the freeway.
It's a constant, hollow hum.

Look forward to part 2.

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 13, 2019 12:18 am

Hi Jim,
I've heard individuals like myself who are stuck in the mind are among the more difficult cases. So thank you. :)
Yes, there is some truth in it, but please try not to identify yourself as a difficult one :)
I readily admit there is a strong belief in a separate self that thinks too much. Good news is that it's we've been punching holes through these beliefs.
Great!
I hear the sound of distant traffic from the freeway.
It's a constant, hollow hum.
Please focus on the sound again. Just keep the attention on the sound for a few minutes and investigate:

Without thought, how is it known that the sound is the "sound of the traffic"?

In other words, what is it that suggest the sound is the ‘sound of traffic’?

Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it’s the traffic?

Does the sound itself suggest in any way that the sound is coming from the freeway?

What is the actual experience (AE) of ‘traffic from the freeway’?

When thoughts are ignored, can it be known that the sound is ‘hollow hum’?

Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it’s ‘hollow hum’?

What is the AE of ‘hollow hum’?


Please look very carefully with each questions, and reply to them one-by-one. Please don’t bulk-reply.

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 Aug 13, 2019 7:26 am

Hey Vivien,
Without thought, how is it known that the sound is the "sound of the traffic"?
Without thought or memory, it isn't known that the sound is the "sound of traffic."
In other words, what is it that suggest the sound is the ‘sound of traffic’?
Only thoughts suggest it. Without thoughts, it isn't suggested.
Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it’s the traffic?
No it doesn't.
Does the sound itself suggest in any way that the sound is coming from the freeway?
It does not.
What is the actual experience (AE) of ‘traffic from the freeway’?
It is only a sound being heard. Or better said, hearing is happening.

When thoughts are ignored, can it be known that the sound is ‘hollow hum’?
No it cannot.
Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it’s ‘hollow hum’?
Nope
What is the AE of ‘hollow hum’?
Just another noise being heard...hearing is happening.

I know these exercises and overall inquiry are not about winning or losing. Felt like it still the way each question forced me into a corner to get me to admit that without thought, sounds are just sounds. I mean this in a good way. So what's next?

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 13, 2019 7:57 am

Hi Jim,
V: What is the actual experience (AE) of ‘traffic from the freeway’?
J: It is only a sound being heard. Or better said, hearing is happening.
The ‘sound being heard’ is NOT the AE of ‘traffic from the freeway’ but the AE of SOUND only.
The thought label ‘traffic from the freeway’ is NOT the AE of ‘traffic from the freeway’ but the AE of THOUGHT only.
There is NO AE of ‘traffic’ or ‘freeway’ or ‘traffic forms the freeway’. None at all.
‘Traffic’, ‘freeway’, ‘traffic form the freeway’ are CANNOT be experienced at all.
Can you see these?

Only SOUND ITSELF can be experienced (and no traffic or freeway).
Everything else ‘traffic’ ‘freeway’ ‘sound of traffic coming from freeway’ are just THOUHGT LABELS.
So there is ONLY the AE of sound + thought (the labels themselves).
Can you see this?
V: What is the AE of ‘hollow hum’?
J: Just another noise being heard...hearing is happening.
The sound being labelled as ‘hollow hum’ is NOT the AE of hollow hum, but the AE of SOUND only.
The sound being labelled as ‘noise’ is NOT the AE of noise, but the AE of SOUND only.
Can you see these clearly?

The thought labelled as ‘hollow hum’ is NOT the AE of hollow hum, but the AE of THOUGHT only.
The thought labelled as ‘noise’ is NOT the AE of noise, but the AE of THOUGHT only.
Can you see these clearly?

So there is ZERO AE of ‘hollow hum’ or ‘noise’.
Since there is only the AE of sound + thoughts.
That’s all. Can you see this?
I know these exercises and overall inquiry are not about winning or losing. Felt like it still the way each question forced me into a corner to get me to admit that without thought, sounds are just sounds. I mean this in a good way. So what's next?
Very good. Are you impatient? :) We are going to explore sounds more deeply, and after that we are going to look at image/color.

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 Aug 14, 2019 9:02 am

Hi Vivien,
There is NO AE of ‘traffic’ or ‘freeway’ or ‘traffic forms the freeway’. None at all.
‘Traffic’, ‘freeway’, ‘traffic form the freeway’ are CANNOT be experienced at all.
Can you see these?
I don't know. At first I was really confused by these questions. Then I saw that I originally misread them. And that was followed by more confusion probably caused by over thinking intended meanings.

So with the quote above, it wouldn't matter if I were literally in traffic on a freeway because it's still not AE. AE cannot be concepts, just the experience of 5 senses plus thoughts. Am I seeing correctly?
So there is ONLY the AE of sound + thought (the labels themselves).
Can you see this?
I see it.
The sound being labelled as ‘noise’ is NOT the AE of noise, but the AE of SOUND only.
Can you see these clearly?
Not sure. I used the word 'noise' as a substitute for 'sound.'
Would you be asking the same question had I wrote: "Just another sound being heard...hearing is happening"?
Because both statements are synonymous to me.
At some points, conventional language fails to convey understanding.
But I also allow the possibility that I could be missing something obvious.

The thought labelled as ‘hollow hum’ is NOT the AE of hollow hum, but the AE of THOUGHT only.
The thought labelled as ‘noise’ is NOT the AE of noise, but the AE of THOUGHT only.
Can you see these clearly?
Yes, this I see clearly.
So there is ZERO AE of ‘hollow hum’ or ‘noise’.
Since there is only the AE of sound + thoughts.
That’s all. Can you see this?
I do.
Very good. Are you impatient? :)
It's more like eagerness to keep punching holes.
But yes, this latest round demonstrated the need to take it slow and not overlook things. :)

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 Aug 14, 2019 9:36 am

Hi Jim,
I don't know. At first I was really confused by these questions. Then I saw that I originally misread them. And that was followed by more confusion probably caused by over thinking intended meanings.
Yes, this happens quite often and not just for you. We (humans) are misreading, mishearing and misinterpreting things in accordance with our beliefs and assumptions.

And we (humans) are often literally blind and deaf to what is in contrast with our beliefs.
So with the quote above, it wouldn't matter if I were literally in traffic on a freeway because it's still not AE. AE cannot be concepts, just the experience of 5 senses plus thoughts. Am I seeing correctly?
Yes, this is exactly what we are investigating here.

How could concepts be experienced?

Just as a reminder, AE is: sound + color + taste + smell + sensation + thought (but not the content).
LITERALLY that’s all. Nothing more.


So next time when you are in traffic, try to find the traffic itself:

Is the sound labelled ‘the sounds of cars’ are the traffic? Or is this just the experience of sound?
Are the colors labelled ‘cars, lights, sign posts’ are the traffic? Or is this just the experience of color?
Is the smell labelled ‘the gas fume’ is the traffic? Or is this just the experience of smell?
Is the sensation labelled ‘sitting in the car’ is the traffic? Or is this just the experience of sensation?
Is the thought label ‘traffic’ is the experience of traffic? Or is this just the experience of a thought?

WHERE is the experience of ‘traffic’?


Please investigate this when you are ACTUALLY in the traffic, and not just by imagining it. It has a bigger impact if you do it not just in imagination but in real life. Or you don’t have to sit in a car waiting in traffic, it’s enough if you are standing in a street and watching the traffic or cars coming and going.
V: The sound being labelled as ‘noise’ is NOT the AE of noise, but the AE of SOUND only.
Can you see these clearly?
J: Not sure. I used the word 'noise' as a substitute for 'sound.'
If you equate noise with sound, then it’s all right. However, I would like to use the same labels to avoid misunderstanding.

I like the label ‘sound’ better, since it’s more neutral. In my interpretation the word ‘noise’ can be interpreted as a sound which has not specific characteristics or structure, which could be different for example from music (which is a structured sound). But both are just sounds (noise and music) and only thought labels them structured and unstructured or music or noise.
Would you be asking the same question had I wrote: "Just another sound being heard...hearing is happening"?
I’m not sure I understand what you are asking here.
Do you ask if hearing is happening at all or there is only sound?

If yes, this is a very good questions, and we will investigate this. But I don’t want to jump ahead, just one step at a time.
Because both statements are synonymous to me.
Which both statement? ‘Just another sound being heard’ + ‘hearing is happening’?

We will investigate if there is such thing as ‘sound HEARD’ or hearing (as a verb) later.
But yes, this latest round demonstrated the need to take it slow and not overlook things. :)
Yes, please do so. We don’t have to rush through this. The more thorough investigation you do, the better the outcome will be.

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 » Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:09 pm

Hey Vivien,

I drove through some traffic earlier. Then I pulled over to answer the questions.
Is the sound labelled ‘the sounds of cars’ are the traffic?
No it is just sound.
Or is this just the experience of sound?
It is the experience of sound. Different than other experiences of sound.
Are the colors labelled ‘cars, lights, sign posts’ are the traffic? Or is this just the experience of color?
It’s the experience of colors and shapes shifting.
Is the smell labelled ‘the gas fume’ is the traffic? Or is this just the experience of smell?
It’s the experience of smell.
Is the sensation labelled ‘sitting in the car’ is the traffic? Or is this just the experience of sensation?
It’s the experience of sensation.
Is the thought label ‘traffic’ is the experience of traffic? Or is this just the experience of a thought?
It’s just a thought experience. I confess there is still a strong attachment to the belief that traffic is all of the above experiences happening. Even though we went through each one by one and saw that they are not traffic at all, but just AE. Only mentioning this to give you an idea of where I am. It's more of an intellectual understanding than experiential in other words.
If you equate noise with sound, then it’s all right. However, I would like to use the same labels to avoid misunderstanding.
You got it, will use sound.
Would you be asking the same question had I wrote: "Just another sound being heard...hearing is happening"?
I’m not sure I understand what you are asking here.
Do you ask if hearing is happening at all or there is only sound?
This is just a further clarification on whether noise and sound could be interchanged. The original comment that prompted your response was, “Just another noise being heard…hearing is happening.”
Because both statements are synonymous to me.
Which both statement? ‘Just another sound being heard’ + ‘hearing is happening’?
This is the same topic of noise = sound. I was trying to say that "Just another noise being heard" is synonymous with "Just another sound being heard."

(Thank you for the preview of what’s next though: being heard vs hearing is happening :)

Jim

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

Re: High intellect meets high intuition

Postby Vivien » Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:19 am

Hi Jim,
I drove through some traffic earlier. Then I pulled over to answer the questions.
You tried it in real situation. Very good. Your determination will help a lot.
It’s just a thought experience. I confess there is still a strong attachment to the belief that traffic is all of the above experiences happening. Even though we went through each one by one and saw that they are not traffic at all, but just AE. Only mentioning this to give you an idea of where I am. It's more of an intellectual understanding than experiential in other words.
All right. We are doing this in small steps. It’s very good even if you have only short glimpses. With time they will last longer, and the more glimpses you have, the more beliefs get ‘wobbly’.
(Thank you for the preview of what’s next though: being heard vs hearing is happening :)
Probably not even that :) There is not even hearing happening, there is only sound. But this is for a later investigation.

Let’s try the following experiment to help make what is being pointed at, clearer.

We are looking at the raw experience labelled as sound and ignoring the thought ABOUT what the sound is as described by thought.

For this experiment you will need to sit yourself near a clock that has an audible second hand. If you don’t have a ticking clock, then here is a link to a clock on Youtube. Do this experiment several times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al3Xt8YnGE0

Take in a couple of deep breaths and close your eyes.

Listen to the sound. “Tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock”

Focus on the tick tock. Attune to the sound itself. IGNORE all verbal and visual thoughts about what seems to be creating the sound.

Try to find the clock.

Going just by the tick tock sound, can a clock be found?
Is there any experience of a clock in the sound?

Does the sound come self-labelled as originating from the clock?

Can a hidden clock be found in the sound?
Can a clock be found beyond the sound?

In experience of the sound, is there any evidence that the sound is caused by a clock?
What can be found?

Can it be established that in the experience of the sound ‘tick tock’ there is a clock?

Please repeat this exercise several times before replying.

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: Google [Bot] and 1 guest