Take me away

This is a read-only part of the forum. All threads where seeing happens are stored here and come from this forum, the Facebook guiding area and various LU blogs. The complete list, sorted by guide, contains all links. The archives include threads of those that came to LU already seeing as well.
User avatar
Bengo
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Take me away

Postby Bengo » Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:36 am

Dear Vivien,
Can you see that only thoughts ‘assume’ a mover or a decider, but in experience there is nothing there?
So that the mover and/or chooser is just an assumption but NOT a reality?
Yes
“I am being moved” – what does the word ‘I’ points to this sentence?
Find the “I” that is being moved. Where is it exactly?
'I' refers to the body, in this sentence. I see it and I sense it, such as the hand that is moving. I assume it is my body and my hand because it is always there when I look. Or I could say it is the body and hand that are always there when I look or sense.
“I am surrounded by all those thoughts” – what is it exactly that is being surrounded by thoughts?
What is surrounded or accompanied by thoughts is the experience of everything else. So there is images and sounds and touch and other sensing, and then there is also thoughts.
Where is this ‘thing’ that is being surrounded by thoughts?
It is not a thing and it's not a place. Rather a space or some backdrop against which experience occures.
What is it that is considering these options?
Is there anything that is listing the pros and cons, or only just thoughts appear about pros and cons? – look very carefully
It is only thoughts. I cannot find what's evaluating the pros and cons.
So the thought about the decision just appeared. What made that thought to appear?
I don't know and I cannot identify thoughts' origin.
Can you find the thing that made that decision, apart from the presence of the thought about the decision?
No
How exactly the decision is made?
It doesn't seem to be a decision really but a done thing. That tasty piece of cheese would be devoured eventually, no matter what.
Now, do according to the decision. (Either eat or don’t eat the chocolate.)
What is it that performed the chosen action?
Hands cut the piece off the cheese, mouth and teeth and digestive system and other body parts ingested. 'I' saw, smelled, tasted the cheese, experienced the thoughts accompanying the process.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2734
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:45 am

Hi Ben,

Please read my questions very carefully, and then LOOK very thoroughly.
'I' refers to the body, in this sentence. I see it and I sense it, such as the hand that is moving. I assume it is my body and my hand because it is always there when I look. Or I could say it is the body and hand that are always there when I look or sense.
“I see it [body] and I sense it” – what is it exactly that is seeing the body?
What is it exactly that is sensing/feeling the body?

Where is the seer? – find the location
Are there 2 things, a seer + a body being seen?

Where is the feeler? – find the location
Are there 2 things, a feeler + body being felt?


“I assume it is my body because it is always there when I look” – what is it that is looking at the body?
Where is the looker?

Are there 2 things there, a looker + the body being looked at?

'I' saw, smelled, tasted the cheese, experienced the thoughts accompanying the process.
Please take a piece of cheese or any food you like in front of you.

What is it exactly that is seeing the cheese?
Can a seer be found in experience?


Now smell it.
Can a smeller be found in experience, or there is only the smell?

Now start eating it.
Can a taster be found in experience, or there is only the taste?
V: “I am surrounded by all those thoughts” – what is it exactly that is being surrounded by thoughts?
B: What is surrounded or accompanied by thoughts is the experience of everything else. So there is images and sounds and touch and other sensing, and then there is also thoughts.
Please read my above questions and your reply to it carefully.

You made the statement previously that “I am surrounded by all those thoughts.” Then I asked you “what is being surrounded by thought?”. And then you replied that “What is surrounded or accompanied by thoughts is the experience of everything else”

But previously you wrote that “I AM surrounded by thoughts”
And now you are saying that: “What is surrounded by thoughts is the experience of everything else”

So are you saying that YOU ARE the experience of everything else?
Where is the I/YOU that is surrounded by thoughts?

V: Where is this ‘thing’ that is being surrounded by thoughts?
B: It is not a thing and it's not a place. Rather a space or some backdrop against which experience occures.
This reply is a thought story, it’s not coming from looking at experience.

What is the AE of a space? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?
What is the AE of a backdrop? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?

How is it known EXACTLY that experience occurs against a ‘backdrop’?
Is there an ACTUAL experience of experience happening against a ‘backdrop’ or a ‘space’ at all, or only thoughts suggest so?


Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Bengo
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Take me away

Postby Bengo » Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:57 am

Dear Vivien,
Please read my questions very carefully, and then LOOK very thoroughly.
And I'll phrase my answers more carefully.
“I see it [body] and I sense it” – what is it exactly that is seeing the body?
What is it exactly that is sensing/feeling the body?
That what is seeing and feeling is not and cannot be found, as we repeatedly asserted. So let this be phrased "a body is being seen and felt" or, more accurately, "there is images and sensations", overlaid with thought content that calls and actually makes all this a "body". This itself is not just a thought story, because it is experienced: image+label=item, order, archive, story.
Where is the seer? – find the location
Are there 2 things, a seer + a body being seen?
(Seemingly there are, in thought, which we are not interested in.)
There is only a body being seen, hence the answer is one, not two. Again, to be accurate, there is not a body being seen, but only images that thought content translates into "body" and everything that comes with it.
Where is the feeler? – find the location
Are there 2 things, a feeler + body being felt?
Same experience, same answer" there is only body being felt, no actual evidence of 'a feeler'. Again, not a body but sensations that thought content associates with bodily sensations.
“I assume it is my body because it is always there when I look” – what is it that is looking at the body?
Where is the looker?
That assumption is thought. AE, as stated, is that there is merely seeing (a body), and no looker to be found. There is also AE of thought, and that thought has content that creates the misperception about there being a looker and a body.
Are there 2 things there, a looker + the body being looked at?
No, as asserted, there is not even one, but zero.

***
Please take a piece of cheese or any food you like in front of you.
It's a small piece of unsweetened liquorice this time.
What is it exactly that is seeing the cheese?
Can a seer be found in experience?
There are images of a black pea-sized thing, which could not be named if it wasn't for labeling thoughts. Again, a seer cannot be found.
Now smell it.
Can a smeller be found in experience, or there is only the smell?
Unlike cheese, there is no distinguishable smell. And there is no smeller, with or without smell.
Now start eating it.
Can a taster be found in experience, or there is only the taste?
There is taste but no taster in experience. There are thoughts too.

***
So are you saying that YOU ARE the experience of everything else?
Where is the I/YOU that is surrounded by thoughts?
I AM NOT, since I cannot be found, and there just is such experience.
This reply is a thought story, it’s not coming from looking at experience.
Indeed, I see that there is no AE of lack of or no AE.
What is the AE of a space? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?
Indeed, it is none of these.
What is the AE of a backdrop? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?
Same. None.
How is it known EXACTLY that experience occurs against a ‘backdrop’?
Is there an ACTUAL experience of experience happening against a ‘backdrop’ or a ‘space’ at all, or only thoughts suggest so?
Only thoughts suggest so. There is no experience whatsoever outside experience, if I may put it that way.

Ben

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2734
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:55 am

Hi Ben,
And I'll phrase my answers more carefully.
Yes, please do. Describe your experience as precisely as you can, without adding anything extra. Your written words are the only thing I can work with and react to.
That what is seeing and feeling is not and cannot be found, as we repeatedly asserted.
It’s not clear for your replies whether you ALWAYS LOOK every time I ask you a question, or sometimes you look, but some other times you rely on the memory of a previous looking. Could you please clarify which one?
So let this be phrased "a body is being seen and felt" or, more accurately, "there is images and sensations", overlaid with thought content that calls and actually makes all this a "body".
Yes.
This itself is not just a thought story, because it is experienced: image+label=item, order, archive, story.
Could you please explain this?
What is not just a thought story, the body?
What do you mean by item? And order? And archive?
What do you mean by: image + label = item, order, archive, story?
V: Where is the seer? – find the location
Are there 2 things, a seer + a body being seen?
B: (Seemingly there are, in thought, which we are not interested in.)
But is the seeming seer an actual seer?
Is there an actual seer in thoughts?
Is there any form of seer in thoughts?

Or are there only THOUGHTS ABOUT a seer?
Like an assumption or an idea without any reality behind it?
Again, to be accurate, there is not a body being seen, but only images that thought content translates into "body" and everything that comes with it.
Yes.
V: Where is the feeler? – find the location
Are there 2 things, a feeler + body being felt?
B: Same experience, same answer" there is only body being felt, no actual evidence of 'a feeler'. Again, not a body but sensations that thought content associates with bodily sensations.
Going back to my previous question: Have you actually looked for the feeler with the above questions, or you deducted it from the memory of previous looking?
V: Are there 2 things there, a looker + the body being looked at?
B: No, as asserted, there is not even one, but zero.
Why do you say that there is not even one, but zero?
Because there is no AE of a body? Or why?


Let me rephrase my above question:
Are there two things there, a looker/seer + looked at/seen?
There is no experience whatsoever outside experience, if I may put it that way.
Yes, exactly. So let’s investigate this a bit further.

Is there a thought + the knowing of it?
Is there a dividing line between a thought and the knowing of it?
Where does the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?

Is this backdrop you talked about something separate from all the rest?
Noticing happens - how do you know the backdrop/space/awareness is what notices?

Does the witness/awareness have a shape, a location, a weight? Can you point to this awareness/backdrop?
Is witness/knower/space something other than, different to, or separate from experience?

Can you find anything at all that is called "witness/backdrop/space/awareness/knower", or do you just find experience?


Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Bengo
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Take me away

Postby Bengo » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:56 am

Dear Vivien
It’s not clear for your replies whether you ALWAYS LOOK every time I ask you a question, or sometimes you look, but some other times you rely on the memory of a previous looking. Could you please clarify which one?
I remember what seen before but I do look afresh to answer your questions. I stated 'as asserted' not to suggest a response out of memory, rather than observation, but out of the impression that I kept looking at the same (no)thing essentially.
What is not just a thought story, the body?
Not a thought story I said not about the body but about the answer I was giving.
What do you mean by item? And order? And archive?
Okay, these are but words I used, quite loosely. 'Item' is everything appearing within thought stories. 'Order' is what those stories try to bring about, trying to make sense of everything around, creating the illusion. Archive is the same as ordering and reordering, quite continuously so.
What do you mean by: image + label = item, order, archive, story?
That there is experience and an overlay of thought/labeling that masks it and brings about illusion and misperception. Just an observation. Anyway, your request to not add anything extra is noted.
V: Where is the seer? – find the location
Are there 2 things, a seer + a body being seen?
B: (Seemingly there are, in thought, which we are not interested in.)
V:
But is the seeming seer an actual seer? [NO]
Is there an actual seer in thoughts? [NO]
Is there any form of seer in thoughts? [NO]
Or are there only THOUGHTS ABOUT a seer? [YES]
Like an assumption or an idea without any reality behind it? [YES]
V: Where is the feeler? – find the location
Are there 2 things, a feeler + body being felt?
B: Same experience, same answer" there is only body being felt, no actual evidence of 'a feeler'. Again, not a body but sensations that thought content associates with bodily sensations.
V: Going back to my previous question: Have you actually looked for the feeler with the above questions, or you deducted it from the memory of previous looking?
This one I may have simply deduced from having previously looked for the looker. Or I may have looked, I don't know (sometimes I see very clearly, so looking can be quick and spontaneous). But I looked just now and, indeed, no feeler is to be found. Hence there's none.
V: Are there 2 things there, a looker + the body being looked at?
B: No, as asserted, there is not even one, but zero.
V: Why do you say that there is not even one, but zero?
Because there is no AE of a body? Or why?
Yes.
Are there two things there, a looker/seer + looked at/seen?
No. There is only one.
Is there a thought + the knowing of it?
No. There is thought only.
Is there a dividing line between a thought and the knowing of it?
There is thought only. No dividing line, no knowing of it. Thought simply is.
Where does the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?
When thought is engaged with, known, then there is thought illusion already. That separates the two, thought and knowing of it, but they are not 'contemporaneous' or 'adjacent'. One excludes the other, so to say. One is (thought) the other isn't (knowing of it).
Is this backdrop you talked about something separate from all the rest?
So I assumed initially but then found no evidence in support of any backdrop.
Noticing happens - how do you know the backdrop/space/awareness is what notices?
I would not say it does. Actually, the opposite: there is no evidence of a backdrop to experience.
Does the witness/awareness have a shape, a location, a weight? Can you point to this awareness/backdrop?
I do not experience the witness/awareness, thus I'm unable to answer other than in the negative.
Is witness/knower/space something other than, different to, or separate from experience?
I have no experience outside experience, therefore my answer is no.
Can you find anything at all that is called "witness/backdrop/space/awareness/knower", or do you just find experience?
As you suggest, there is experience only.
(BTW: when you ask 'do you find', what are you referring to? ;)

Ben

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2734
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:01 am

Hi Ben,
I stated 'as asserted' not to suggest a response out of memory, rather than observation, but out of the impression that I kept looking at the same (no)thing essentially.
Yes, exactly. It’s the repeated looking, looking and looking and not finding that brings about the realization.
This one I may have simply deduced from having previously looked for the looker. Or I may have looked, I don't know (sometimes I see very clearly, so looking can be quick and spontaneous). But I looked just now and, indeed, no feeler is to be found. Hence there's none.
Good. Please always look afresh, it’s important.
V: Is there a dividing line between a thought and the knowing of it?
B: There is thought only. No dividing line, no knowing of it. Thought simply is.
When thought is engaged with, known, then there is thought illusion already. That separates the two, thought and knowing of it, but they are not 'contemporaneous' or 'adjacent'. One excludes the other, so to say. One is (thought) the other isn't (knowing of it).
Are you saying that knowing of a phenomenon, like the presence of a sensation happens only in the content of a thought, and there is no actual knowing of a sensation going on?

If this were true, then how could it be known that there is a sensation present at all?


There is no sensation without the knowning/aware-ing/noticing it.

When a sensation is there, it is automatically known that it’s there, without any thought claiming: “here is a sensation”. Can you see this?

To know/notice the presence of a sensation, no thought is needed. Can you see this?

When there is a sound present, it is known that a sound is present, regardless of a thought commenting on it or not, isn’t it?

Does a thought comment ‘here is a sound’ needed to know or be aware of the presence of a sound?

If you say that there is no knowing/noticing/aware-ing of experience, then it would mean that there is no experience at all. Without the ‘knowing/aware-ing’ element there cannot be experience, there cannot be a sound, sensation or thought. Can you see this?


But yes, there is no separation between a sensation and the knowing of it.
So there isn’t a separate subject (knower) knowing the sensation (object).
But it doesn’t mean that knowing of the sensation is not happening.
It just means that there is no separation between the sensation and the knowing of it.
Imagine experience as if it were a coin. A coin has a tail (subject) and a head (object).
We cannot say that the coin has only one side.

We cannot say that all there is to the coin (experience) the head (object: sound, sensation, etc).
So we cannot say that all there is to experience is sound, sensation, thought, color, taste, smell.
The head (object) cannot exist without the tail (knowing/aware-ing/noticing).
Can you see this?


When the coin is looked at from the point of view of the head (object), then it SEEMS AS IF all there is to the coin is the tail (objects: thought, sensation, color, etc). Can you see this?

When the coin is looked at from the point of view of the tail (subject), then it SEEMS AS IF all there is the coin is the tail (awareness/knowing). Can you see this?


But actually both of them are just point of views and not the ultimate reality.
These point of views don’t describe the coin ( = experience) accurately.
Can you see this?

So if we want to describe it precisely, then we could say that there is no such thing as a separate sound, or a separate sensation, since there is no sound or sensation without the knowing of it.

It would be a more precise description that there is sensationknowing, soundknowing, thoughtknowing, etc.

The coin (experience) = experienceknowing.
Or in other words the experience is self-aware.
Can you see this?

(BTW: when you ask 'do you find', what are you referring to? ;)
Lol :) :)

Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Bengo
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Take me away

Postby Bengo » Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:21 am

Dear Vivien,
Are you saying that knowing of a phenomenon, like the presence of a sensation happens only in the content of a thought, and there is no actual knowing of a sensation going on?
No, what happens in the content of a thought is irrelevant and cannot do anything really. I was referring to thought only, but I didn't distinguish carefully enough between thought content vs. thought as a phenomenon. While I appreciate the distinction between the two, in experience the two are seen together, that is thought arising and its content being seen. As soon as its content is being seen, it is as this contaminated the actual experience because of the arising illusion.
If this were true, then how could it be known that there is a sensation present at all?
There is just experience of sensations, which is the same thing, not two, that's all I see. It being known means it is being experienced, no more no less. There is no knower.
There is no sensation without the knowning/aware-ing/noticing it.
Okay, there is no knower but there is knowing. Sensation in and by itself means knowing.
When a sensation is there, it is automatically known that it’s there, without any thought claiming: “here is a sensation”. Can you see this?
Yes, absolutely. Thought is irrelevant.
To know/notice the presence of a sensation, no thought is needed. Can you see this?
There's much evidence to support this: a 'new' feeling, say a type of pain not felt before and which thought can't label at first.
When there is a sound present, it is known that a sound is present, regardless of a thought commenting on it or not, isn’t it?
Yes, kind of. A sound is being experienced but I don't see how sound becomes sound and smell becomes smell before thought categorizing it as such.
Does a thought comment ‘here is a sound’ needed to know or be aware of the presence of a sound?
A thought comment is not needed for sound experience as such only to translate such an experience to a body perception, of hearing sounds in this particular case. If there was no such translation, experience of sound and smell would still be there but not as sound and smell.
If you say that there is no knowing/noticing/aware-ing of experience, then it would mean that there is no experience at all. Without the ‘knowing/aware-ing’ element there cannot be experience, there cannot be a sound, sensation or thought. Can you see this?
Sensing, knowing, experiencing are all on and the same, or not?
We cannot say that all there is to the coin (experience) the head (object: sound, sensation, etc).
So we cannot say that all there is to experience is sound, sensation, thought, color, taste, smell.
The head (object) cannot exist without the tail (knowing/aware-ing/noticing).
Can you see this?
As I see it, the experience of sound, smell, etc are the same thing. There is no sound without its experience. So if it's a coin, we cannot say that it has only one side but can we say its sides are the same actually?
When the coin is looked at from the point of view of the head (object), then it SEEMS AS IF all there is to the coin is the tail (objects: thought, sensation, color, etc). Can you see this?
It may seem as if, but I see it as one.
When the coin is looked at from the point of view of the tail (subject), then it SEEMS AS IF all there is the coin is the tail (awareness/knowing). Can you see this?
I see it as one, as if the coin was transparent, or with sides undistinguishable.
But actually both of them are just point of views and not the ultimate reality.
These point of views don’t describe the coin ( = experience) accurately.
Can you see this?
Oh, yes, that's what I mean.
So if we want to describe it precisely, then we could say that there is no such thing as a separate sound, or a separate sensation, since there is no sound or sensation without the knowing of it.
Yes, that's what I mean!
It would be a more precise description that there is sensationknowing, soundknowing, thoughtknowing, etc.
Yes!
The coin (experience) = experienceknowing.
Or in other words the experience is self-aware.
Can you see this?
Yes!

Ben :)

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2734
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:34 am

Hi Ben,
Yes, that's what I mean!
Great!
A sound is being experienced but I don't see how sound becomes sound and smell becomes smell before thought categorizing it as such.
The word ‘sound’ POINTS TO the pure sound itself.
The word ‘smell’ POINTS TO the pure smell itself.

But, breaking up experience into 6 elements is ARTIFICIAL. We do it only for the sake of the investigation. We use this only as a tool to see the difference between what can be directly experience and thoughts about AE.

‘In reality’ experience doesn’t have 6 elements, it isn’t divided up into sections.
This division can be done only conceptually, only in thoughts.
Without thought, without the conceptual overlay there is no division in experience.
There is only one seamless experience.

But let’s have an experimental understanding on this. Now sit for about 10-15 minutes again, and look at the experience itself:

Where does a thought end and a sensation starts?
Is there a border or a dividing line between a thought or a sensation?

Where does a sound end and a thought starts?
Is there a dividing line or a border between sound and thought?

Or just take a thought. Does it have edges, or an outline?
And what about a sound? Does a sound have edges or an outline?

See in experience that there aren’t any lines or borders where one part of the experience ends and an another one starts. Can you see this?


So when we say that some elements can be removed individually (like there is no more smell or taste), then it’s just a thought interpretation, a conceptual overlay on the experience.

When there is only a thought + sensation + sound as one unit called experience, the experience doesn’t suggest in any way that 3 other elements are missing or removed.

Only the content of thoughts suggest this. But the experience itself doesn’t come self-labelled as “I’m missing 3 of my elements”, or “3 of my elements have been removed”.
Can you see this?

Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Bengo
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Take me away

Postby Bengo » Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:22 am

Dear Vivien
Where does a thought end and a sensation starts?
Is there a border or a dividing line between a thought or a sensation?
I can't see this clearly enough. There's a sensation and then there is also thought about that sensation. The two seem separate and one could be there without another but a border or dividing line I cannot see.
Where does a sound end and a thought starts?
Is there a dividing line or a border between sound and thought?
Again, there is sound and then there is thought (about sound or not) but the two appear almost separate.
Or just take a thought. Does it have edges, or an outline?
And what about a sound? Does a sound have edges or an outline?
No edges, shape or outline. But a beginning and an end. Or appearance and disappearance.
See in experience that there aren’t any lines or borders where one part of the experience ends and an another one starts. Can you see this?
I see overlapping parts of experience without any clear lines of separation. So there may be sound and thoughts and sensations, but although they're all here, they are not clearly in relation to one another.
Only the content of thoughts suggest this. But the experience itself doesn’t come self-labelled as “I’m missing 3 of my elements”, or “3 of my elements have been removed”.
Can you see this?
Yes, we do find again and again that thoughts can't do anything in reality, isn't it? Maybe that's why I observed thoughts and sensation being "separate" yet one overlapping experience (both are there).

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2734
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:37 am

Hi Ben,
So there may be sound and thoughts and sensations, but although they're all here, they are not clearly in relation to one another.
Yes, there is no relationship between them, meaning one didn't cause the other. Can you see this?

Yet, there is no separation between a thought, sound and sensation either.

Can you see that experience is not divided into 6 elements (sound, color, smell, taste, sensation, thought)?
That whatever is there is there without any divisions or elements?
And only thought content divides experience into parts or elements, but actually there is none?


Please look very carefully and several times before replying.

Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Bengo
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Take me away

Postby Bengo » Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:43 am

Dear Vivien,
Please look very carefully and several times before replying.
Well noted about the importance of looking and looking again and again :) And I did look repeatedly during the day.
Yes, there is no relationship between [sound and thoughts and sensations], meaning one didn't cause the other. Can you see this?
Yes, they're just part or aspects of experience.
Can you see that experience is not divided into 6 elements (sound, color, smell, taste, sensation, thought)?
Yes, that's why there are no dividing lines, as one element flows into another.
That whatever is there is there without any divisions or elements?
One movement so to say.
And only thought content divides experience into parts or elements, but actually there is none?
Yes, thoughts breaking it down to fit its own categories or elements, with reality getting lost in translation.

Ben

P.S. this hasn't t been a great looking day. I sometimes (periodically, actually) clog up a little, but I'm learning to accept (look at) that too, so I can work through it. All good, making a little progress I feel, and you are being a super guide!

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2734
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:08 am

Hi Ben,
Well noted about the importance of looking and looking again and again :) And I did look repeatedly during the day.
Yes, it is very important. And it’s very easy to forget to always look, so I often remind my clients about this.

With looking, you always have to look afresh and never rely on memory of previous looking. Why? Because if you rely on the memory of a previous looking in a form of a thought: “I know there is no self” without actually looking afresh for a self, then in that moment the no-self is just a belief. So every time it seems like or feels like as if there were a self, but you just remind yourself with the thought “there is no self”, then you just covering up one belief (the seemingly perceived self) with another belief (there is no self).

It’s the looking and looking and looking and not finding that brings about the realization.
P.S. this hasn't t been a great looking day. I sometimes (periodically, actually) clog up a little, but I'm learning to accept (look at) that too, so I can work through it. All good, making a little progress I feel
Please look for the one that has to learn to accept when it’s harder to look. Where is this one?
Is this in the head? In the chest? Behind the eyes? Or closer to the back of the scull?
and you are being a super guide!
Thank you for your kind words :)

Lie down onto a bed. Observer very carefully how the decision arises to get up.

Can a self be found making the body leave the bed?
Where does the "decision", the "command" to get up comes from?
What makes the body get up?
Is there a ‘you’ that commands the body?
When lying there, shout 'GET UP' internally as loudly as you can. Does that affect the outcome?


Repeat this with sitting in a chair. Describe in detail the decision of standing up.
How does the decision happen exactly?
Does a self come in and take over, weighing pros and cons, looking at possible consequences?
Or does standing up just happen, or not, without any doer?
What makes the body to stand up?


Now let’s investigate intention.
Sit in a chair and observe how the intention of standing up happens.
How is it known that there is an intention to stand up?
While sitting there, say internally several times ‘I intend to get up’. What happens?
What is it that made the intention to get up?


Now, zoom onto the intention (of getting up) very closely. Look at the intention itself directly.
Stare at the intention itself. Not the thoughts of “I intend to get up”, but THE intention itself.
Can you locate THE intention itself?
How the intention is actually experienced?


Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Bengo
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Take me away

Postby Bengo » Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:39 pm

Dear Vivien,

I took a close look at all you asked.
Please look for the one that has to learn to accept when it’s harder to look. Where is this one?
Is this in the head? In the chest? Behind the eyes? Or closer to the back of the scull?
I looked everywhere. That one is not to be found.
Can a self be found making the body leave the bed?
No
Where does the "decision", the "command" to get up comes from?
From nowhere. It's the same sensation as watching the wrist turn.
What makes the body get up?
Not thought, for sure. Could it be pure will, intent? No, because that doesn't explain the trigger causing the body to get out of bed. That just happens. So the answer is: I don't know; thought or intent kind of sets the stage, but what makes the body actually get up I cannot detect.
Is there a ‘you’ that commands the body?
No. The 'I' arises in the narrating thoughts around the body in bed and getting up.
When lying there, shout 'GET UP' internally as loudly as you can. Does that affect the outcome?
No, it's just a distraction. Thought. It doesn't affect the outcome. And I didn't know that I can't really shout internally, not only externally.
Repeat this with sitting in a chair. Describe in detail the decision of standing up. How does the decision happen exactly?
Ok: I sit in the chair. There is thoughts about the experiment. There is thoughts creating a voice in the head saying get up get up get up. Nothing happens while those thoughts are being looked at. When thoughts stop, body gets up. Not 'my' doing.
Does a self come in and take over, weighing pros and cons, looking at possible consequences?
No, there's no evaluating self doing anything really. There's body movement being observed and self in form of interpreting thoughts.
Or does standing up just happen, or not, without any doer?
Standing up just happens. There is no doer. There are thoughts about what is it leading to the circumstance (you asking me) and the moment when the action happens. Irrelevant, that's not the point (thought never is). Let's continue to look instead. Just stood up again. The intent seems to be of the body itself. It's in the action, it is the action of standing up, it is just standing up not as an action even. Tricky to decipher, so it will have to be looked at more closely.
What makes the body to stand up?
I don't know. There's a thought or intent leading right up to it, but standing up happens only when thought or intent is actually foregone, let go, dropped, and only then body gets up. Tricky, I don't quite get it.
Can you locate THE intention itself?
No. Intention is elusive just as the self. It's seemingly there until it's being looked for, only not to be found. That chimes with the observation about it being elusive to the very act of standing up. So it's absent and does not explain the body's standing up.
How the intention is actually experienced?
As thought.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2734
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Take me away

Postby Vivien » Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:40 am

Hi Ben,
The intent seems to be of the body itself. It's in the action, it is the action of standing up, it is just standing up not as an action even. Tricky to decipher, so it will have to be looked at more closely.
“The intent SEEMS to be of the body itself” – are you sure about this?
Or is this just a thought speculation?
Is there an AE of the body being the intent?

Intention is elusive just as the self. It's seemingly there until it's being looked for, only not to be found.
Can an ACTUAL intent be found outside of the realm of thoughts?
So thoughts ‘talk’ about an intent, but is there REALLY an actual one?
Is there a real intent behind the words ‘intent’?
V: How the intention is actually experienced?
B: As thought.
A thought ABOUT intent is NOT the AE of intent, but the AE of thought only. Can you see this?
So what is the AE of intent?


Investigate the followings one-by-one very carefully. Spend several minutes with each question.

Is there a control over ‘sensations’?
Is there a control over ‘thoughts’?
Is there a control over ‘sounds’?
Is there a control over ‘image/color’?
Is there a control over ‘smells’?
Is there a control over ‘tastes’?

Is there a control over anything?


Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Bengo
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Take me away

Postby Bengo » Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:36 am

Dear Vivien,

The intent SEEMS to be of the body itself” – are you sure about this?
SEEMS, so no, I am not sure but that's as far as I could see.
Or is this just a thought speculation?
I see the body get up. I see nothing moving it AS IF it had its own intent. I could have described it instead: as if body was moving by itself.
Is there an AE of the body being the intent?
No, there isn't.
Can an ACTUAL intent be found outside of the realm of thoughts?
No
So thoughts ‘talk’ about an intent, but is there REALLY an actual one?
No. Intent is within thoughts. No evidence of it outside.
Is there a real intent behind the words ‘intent’?
No. It's thought, thus not real.
A thought ABOUT intent is NOT the AE of intent, but the AE of thought only. Can you see this?
Yes
So what is the AE of intent?
No AE of intent. None detected.
Is there a control over ‘sensations’?
No AE of such control.
Is there a control over ‘thoughts’?
No. Even if I can count to 10 in my head or decide to have thoughts reminiscing about something past, that is but thought within thought. By contrast, the AE of thoughts is that they come and go uncontrolled.
Is there a control over ‘sounds’?
No.
Is there a control over ‘image/color’?
No.
Is there a control over ‘smells’?
No.
Is there a control over ‘tastes’?
No.
Is there a control over anything?
No.

So there SEEMS TO BE determination, intent, to be following your guidance. But that's thought, nothing more. The AE of it is you guiding, I following, that's that? 'Your' patience and 'my' determination are one movement? (I stop here; you asked me not to add)


Return to “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests