How do I realize the illusion of the separate self?

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
Vivien
Posts: 3132
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: How do I realize the illusion of the separate self?

Postby Vivien » Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:04 am

Hi Naya,
V: Can ‘you’ stop a thought in the middle?”
N: There is a noticing that ‘I’ have been lost in thought, this noticing is usually followed by a temporary cessation of the thought. So yes, my personal awareness (if there is such a thing) can notice that thinking is happening and decide to come back to the present moment.
Thought 1: “I like the weather today”
Thought 2: “Oh, I’ve been lost in thought!”
Thought 3: “Let’s go back to watch my thoughts.”
Thought 4: “Now I’m just noticing my thoughts”
Thought 5: “There is a temporary cessation of thoughts”
Thought 6: “My personal awareness noticed that thinking was happening and decided to come back to the present moment.”

Is there anything else present in experience than these thoughts? If yes, what else?

Can an ACTUAL awareness be found behind these thoughts?

Or only thoughts ‘assume’ that there is an awareness in which these thoughts appear?

Can it be DIRECTLY observed the process itself how this personal awareness is noticing thoughts?

Or only thoughts infer that there is an awareness in the background nothing thoughts? But is there an ACTUAL one, not just an inferred/assumed one?

Can it be DIRECTLY observed how this awareness is making the decision to come back to the present moment?

Or only thoughts ‘talk’ about awareness making a decision?


In order to say that awareness is noticing what is happening and it can decide to come back to the present moment, first this awareness HAS TO BE FOUND. Otherwise, it’s just an assumption, a story, a speculation, a belief, nothing more.

So let’s find this awareness.

Where is the EXACTLY LOCATION of this awareness?
How does this awareness look like or feel like?
Does it have a shape or a size?

How is it known EXACTLY that there is an ACTUAL awareness?


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
NayaCardena
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:48 am

Re: How do I realize the illusion of the separate self?

Postby NayaCardena » Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:11 am

Hi Vivien,
“Is there anything else present in experience than these thoughts? If yes, what else?”
Only these thoughts are present.
“Can an ACTUAL awareness be found behind these thoughts?”
I can be aware that I am aware but I can’t find the awareness behind these thoughts. That would imply that there is something else behind awareness noticing it.
“Or only thoughts ‘assume’ that there is an awareness in which these thoughts appear?”
I don’t think it’s an assumption to say that thoughts are being noticed by something. (This statement is equivalent, for me, to saying “thoughts appear in awareness”.) We conventionally call this something ‘awareness’ or ‘consciousness’.
“Can it be DIRECTLY observed the process itself how this personal awareness is noticing thoughts?”
No. I can only be aware of a particular thought.
“Or only thoughts infer that there is an awareness in the background nothing thoughts? But is there an ACTUAL one, not just an inferred/assumed one?”
When a thought appears, there is the knowing or the awareness of it. We call that thing that knows that there is a thought awareness.
“Can it be DIRECTLY observed how this awareness is making the decision to come back to the present moment?”
Lost in thought is noticed. A decision is made to focus on the present moment. The decision also appears in awareness. Who is making the decision? Me? But then that would imply that 'me' is different from my consciousness as I have initially defined it. I am stuck here.
“Or only thoughts ‘talk’ about awareness making a decision?”
A decision being made also appears in awareness.
In order to say that awareness is noticing what is happening and it can decide to come back to the present moment, first this awareness HAS TO BE FOUND. Otherwise, it’s just an assumption, a story, a speculation, a belief, nothing more.

So let’s find this awareness.
“Where is the EXACTLY LOCATION of this awareness?”
I cannot locate it. I only know that it is looking through my eyes.
“How does this awareness look like or feel like?”
It is invisible. It has no taste, sound, smell or shape.
“Does it have a shape or a size?”
No.
“How is it known EXACTLY that there is an ACTUAL awareness?”
When I am awake, there is a knowing of sense perceptions and thoughts. Doesn't the knowing imply that there is knower ? I don’t know.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 3132
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: How do I realize the illusion of the separate self?

Postby Vivien » Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:53 am

Hi Naya,
I can be aware that I am aware but I can’t find the awareness behind these thoughts. That would imply that there is something else behind awareness noticing it.
‘I am aware that I am aware’ – yes, it SEEMS LIKE that, and this is the BASIS OF THE ILLUSION OF THE SEPARATE SELF.

This awareness is an ultimate illusion, it really seems very real. But nonetheless, it’s still an illusion. And for those who engaged in non-dual teachings this sometimes can be a serious stumbling block.

Can you entertain the possibility that awareness is not what it seems like?
Do you have a resistance to the notion that awareness might be an illusion too?
If yes, could you please explain why?

I don’t think it’s an assumption to say that thoughts are being noticed by something. (This statement is equivalent, for me, to saying “thoughts appear in awareness”.) We conventionally call this something ‘awareness’ or ‘consciousness’.
You see, your started your statement with “I don’t think” – so what follows are NOT coming from looking at experience directly, rather it’s coming from thinking, from thoughts.

And thoughts make all sorts of statements.
The whole illusion is created by THOUGHTS.

So what we are doing here is that we investigate EXPERIENTIALLY (and not by analytically, not by thinking) if what thoughts ‘claim’ are in line with experience.
So we are checking if thoughts are telling the ‘truth’.
Can you see the difference?
We conventionally call this something ‘awareness’ or ‘consciousness’.
Yes, we conventionally use the words ‘awareness’ or ‘consciousness’.

But this is exactly what we are investigating here.
If the conventional BELIEFS are ACTUALLY in line with EXPERIENCE.


Consciousness is just a different word used for the same illusion.
It doesn’t matter what words you use.

Here are some common words used for the same illusion of the self:

awareness = consciousness = witness = experiencer = perceiver = knower = looker = noticer = watcher = feeler = seer = self = universal Self = true Self = I = me = myself = emptiness = nothingness = my real nature = field = field of experiencing = space = knowing space… and more

These are just the different words pointing to the same illusion.
V: “Where is the EXACTLY LOCATION of this awareness?”
N: I cannot locate it. I only know that it is looking through my eyes.
V: “How does this awareness look like or feel like?”
N: It is invisible. It has no taste, sound, smell or shape.
V: “Does it have a shape or a size?”
N: No.
V: “How is it known EXACTLY that there is an ACTUAL awareness?”
N: When I am awake, there is a knowing of sense perceptions and thoughts. Doesn't the knowing imply that there is knower ? I don’t know.
So, this awareness cannot be located, cannot be seen, tasted, smelled, heard, it doesn’t have a shape or size. So this awareness cannot be experienced at all.

So you are talking about and ASSUMPTION that there might be a stand-alone, independent awareness or consciousness hiding somewhere behind the scenes.
Doesn't the knowing imply that there is knower ? I don’t know.
You see, you are thinking about this. You are making logical conclusions. But an implication, or an assumption is not enough for us.

If we make the statement that there is awareness, then we have to PROVE it EXPERIENTIALLY.

It’s not enough to speculate about it.
It’s not enough to infer it or imply it.
We LITERALLY have to FIND IT.
Otherwise, this awareness is no different than a children tale about unicorns.
I only know that it is looking through my eyes.
But HOW do you know that EXACTLY that there is an awareness inside the head, behind the eyes?

I would like you to SEARCH through the whole head to find this awareness that is supposedly looking out the eyes.
You HAVE TO FIND IT.

Where is it exactly?
Is it inside the eyes?
Behind the eyes?
Or in the middle of the head?
Or maybe closer to the scull?
Up or down, or at the back of the head?
WHERE is the thing that is looking out of the eyes?

V: “Or only thoughts infer that there is an awareness in the background nothing thoughts? But is there an ACTUAL one, not just an inferred/assumed one?”
N: When a thought appears, there is the knowing or the awareness of it. We call that thing that knows that there is a thought awareness.
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?

Can you peel off the thought from the knowing of it, and putting the thought to the left and the awareness/knower to the right?
If not, HOW do is it KNOWN exactly that there is such thing as an independent awareness or knower?


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
NayaCardena
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:48 am

Re: How do I realize the illusion of the separate self?

Postby NayaCardena » Sat Jul 20, 2019 5:45 am

Hi Vivien,
“Can you entertain the possibility that awareness is not what it seems like?
Do you have a resistance to the notion that awareness might be an illusion too?
If yes, could you please explain why?”
I am open to this possibility. But I don’t understand how it could be an illusion. My own experience tells me that, other than when I am sleeping, I am always aware of my surroundings through sense perception.
“Can you see the difference?”
Yes, I do see the difference. My answer to your original question doesn’t really change, though, if I answer experientially.
You asked:
““Or only thoughts ‘assume’ that there is an awareness in which these thoughts appear?”
If I take into account your suggestion, I would say that “thoughts are being noticed by awareness.”
“If we make the statement that there is awareness, then we have to PROVE it EXPERIENTIALLY.”
Got it. So to prove that there is such as a thing as an experiencer we have to be able to single her out. Saying that there is experiencing and therefore there must be an experiencer is speculation. My mind freezes when I think about this possibility. It sounds so counterintuitive.
“But HOW do you know that EXACTLY that there is an awareness inside the head, behind the eyes?”
Because there is the experience of seeing and therefore there should be a seer. (Or so I thought.)
“I would like you to SEARCH through the whole head to find this awareness that is supposedly looking out the eyes.
You HAVE TO FIND IT.

Where is it exactly?
Is it inside the eyes?
Behind the eyes?
Or in the middle of the head?
Or maybe closer to the scull?
Up or down, or at the back of the head?
WHERE is the thing that is looking out of the eyes?”
I can’t find it. I only know that there is an experience of sense perceptions.
“Is there a thought + the knowing of it?
Yes. When thoughts arise in the mind, there is an awareness of it. It's pretty clear to me when my mind is restless, full of thoughts, or quiet. There is an experience of thoughts coming and going.
Is there a dividing line between a thought and the knowing of it?
If I have to answer experientially, I honestly don’t know. This puzzles me.
Where does the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?
As I think now, I would say that it is a simultaneous process. You can’t separate the arising thought from the noticing of it.
“Can you peel off the thought from the knowing of it, and putting the thought to the left and the awareness/knower to the right?”
No.
If not, HOW do is it KNOWN exactly that there is such thing as an independent awareness or knower?”
If a thought and the knowing of it happen at the same time, you can’t point to an independent knower. (My mind has a hard time imagining that there could be an experience without an experiencer but that’s another issue…)

Naya

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 3132
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: How do I realize the illusion of the separate self?

Postby Vivien » Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:31 am

Hi Naya,
I am open to this possibility. But I don’t understand how it could be an illusion. My own experience tells me that, other than when I am sleeping, I am always aware of my surroundings through sense perception.
“I am always aware of my surroundings through sense perception.” – this is the conventional belief, but it’s not in line with experience.

But it’s hard to see, since thought concepts are overlaying the experience, and we are so used to look through the filter of this conceptual overlay, and not looking at experience directly. So this overlay distorts the experience itself.

What we are trying to do here is to see what is ‘behind’ or ‘bellow’ this thought overlay. What is there without thoughts.
I am always aware of my surroundings through sense perception.
This statement assumes that there are:

- An ‘I’ / a knower/ a perceiver/ awareness / an experiencer
- This experiencer/knower/awareness is INSIDE the body or somehow is lined to the body
- There is an actual separating line between inside and outside. Everything inside is me, and everything outside is not-me.
- This me/experiencer is experiencing the world out there through the senses of the body.

And NONE of this is an AE. All of these are just BELIEFS, thoughts that are overlaying the pure experience.
What we are aiming to see is what is actually going on under these layers of beliefs.
If I take into account your suggestion, I would say that “thoughts are being noticed by awareness.”
But this is still just an ASSUMPTION.

Yes, thoughts are noticed! We are not denying that.

But HOW is it known that it is noticed by awareness?
How is it known that there is a noticer? A perceiver? A aware-er? A knower? A doer?
Noticing happens, yes. But how is it known that there is ANYTHING noticing it?
Where is the noticer? Where the experiencer?
Got it. So to prove that there is such as a thing as an experiencer we have to be able to single her out. Saying that there is experiencing and therefore there must be an experiencer is speculation
Exactly! And now we are testing if this speculation can stand the scrutiny of looking at experience directly.
My mind freezes when I think about this possibility. It sounds so counterintuitive.
First, you don’t have a mind.

Here are again 2 main beliefs.

- That there is a YOU/self/me, that is owning or having
- A mind.

But how is mind itself actually experienced? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?
Can a mind behind thoughts be actually experienced? Or is this just another thought speculation?
Is there an ACTUAL PLACE called mind, from where thoughts are coming from?
Not just an inferred one, not just an assumed one, but an actual one?
Have you EVER seen a mind?

Because there is the experience of seeing and therefore there should be a seer. (Or so I thought.)
This is another conventional belief, a thought assumption.

So it assumes that experience is divided into 3 elements:

- A seer
- The act of seeing what the seer is performing
- And the seen

But there is NO separation in experience. NONE. All separation just assumed by thought.

These 3 things are not separate. These are NOT 3. These are ONE.

But we will investigate this later thoroughly.
I can’t find it. I only know that there is an experience of sense perceptions.
Yes, but even this is not a completely clear statement.

Since there is no experience of ‘sense perceptions’.

There is ONLY the AE of: sound + color + smell + taste + sensation + thought (as a phenomenon, but NOT the content).
Yes. When thoughts arise in the mind, there is an awareness of it. It's pretty clear to me when my mind is restless, full of thoughts, or quiet. There is an experience of thoughts coming and going.
How is it known that thoughts arise in a mind?
Where is this mind exactly?
Is there a unlimited reservoir of thoughts which are stored hidden somewhere in a mind?
If yes, how is this actually known?

Have you ever seen a thought arising FROM A MIND?
Or only there be the experience of the PRESENCE of a thought?

But can it be SEEN, KNOWN, or OBSERVED where thoughts are coming from?
Or is this just another thought assumption?


“When my mind is restless” – Have you ever seen an ACTUAL restless mind? How does a mind look like? And how does a restless mind look like? – please don’t describe it by the number of thoughts present, or how stressful those thoughts are. But rather describe that how the ACTUAL MIND looks like? Is it big? Round? Does it have a color?

Yes, there could be thoughts about restlessness, there can be a big flux of incessant thoughts arising. But these are just the experience of thoughts after thoughts after thoughts. But were is the RESTLESS MIND itself?

V: Is there a dividing line between a thought and the knowing of it?
N: If I have to answer experientially, I honestly don’t know. This puzzles me.
This is the KEY.

If there is a separate knower that is aware of thoughts, then this knower must exist separately from the known.
There has to be a clear line where the thoughts end, and the knower starts.

So do everything you can, and actually FIND this line.
Don’t think about this, don’t try to analyse this. You cannot get anywhere by thinking this through.

You have to put aside everything thoughts have to say about this, and LITERALLY SEARCH for a dividing line IN EXPERIENCE. Not just an assumed one, but an ACTUAL one.

So where it the dividing line between the thought and the knowing of it?
And is there a dividing line between a sensation and the knowing of it?
V: Where does the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?
N: As I think now, I would say that it is a simultaneous process. You can’t separate the arising thought from the noticing of it.
The first sentence is coming from thinking. The second sentence is coming from looking at experience directly.

So if the thought cannot be separated from the knowing of it, then HOW is it known EXACTLY that there is an ACTUAL knower separate from the thought?

If a thought and the knowing of it happen at the same time, you can’t point to an independent knower. (My mind has a hard time imagining that there could be an experience without an experiencer but that’s another issue…)
The difficulty comes from the dulastic nature of langue. Language assumes that there is a separate subject and a separate object and the two are linked by the subject’s act of perceiving.

But when a thought is there, it is already known.
Can there be a known (thought) without a knower?
And can there be a knower without the known (thought)? - don't think, but actually SEARCH for a knower


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
NayaCardena
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:48 am

Re: How do I realize the illusion of the separate self?

Postby NayaCardena » Sun Jul 21, 2019 1:30 am

Hi Vivien,
“But HOW is it known that it is noticed by awareness?
How is it known that there is a noticer? A perceiver? A aware-er? A knower? A doer?
Noticing happens, yes. But how is it known that there is ANYTHING noticing it?
Where is the noticer? Where the experiencer?”
In experience, the existence of a witness cannot be proven. Inside my body there is just a bunch of organs communicating with one another with the help of the brain. I cannot find a substance called awareness or witness. As you suggest yourself, in English a verb must be performed by a noun so we gave a name to that thing (we assumed) was doing the witnessing.

“But how is mind itself actually experienced? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?
Can a mind behind thoughts be actually experienced? Or is this just another thought speculation?
Is there an ACTUAL PLACE called mind, from where thoughts are coming from?
Not just an inferred one, not just an assumed one, but an actual one?
Have you EVER seen a mind?”
Mind is an imagined entity in which thoughts appear and are processed. It doesn’t exist. I know that thoughts are noticed but I don’t know where they appear. I use the shortcut “my mind” to suggest that thoughts only appear to ‘me’. The noticing happens within the confines of this body. Unless one has psychic abilities, I am the only one who can hear my thoughts.

“How is it known that thoughts arise in a mind?”
“Where is this mind exactly?”
The mind is a fiction that I use to locate the place where thoughts are processed and observed. I usually locate it in my head because I know that thought processing is connected with the brain. In experience I don’t know where thoughts come from and where they go.
“Is there a unlimited reservoir of thoughts which are stored hidden somewhere in a mind?
If yes, how is this actually known?”
I don’t know where thoughts are stored. “My mind” is a fictional object.
“Have you ever seen a thought arising FROM A MIND?
Or only there be the experience of the PRESENCE of a thought?”
The second sentence rings truer to my experience. There is the experience of the presence of a thought. Saying that thoughts arise in the mind is an assumption. Even if I said thoughts arise in the brain, I still could not find any thoughts if I opened my brain. I only know that the movement of thoughts is connected with a surge in energy in some regions of the brain.
“But can it be SEEN, KNOWN, or OBSERVED where thoughts are coming from?
Or is this just another thought assumption?”
I don’t know where thoughts come from. I am just assuming there is a stock of knowledge that has accumulated over time in this fictitious storage unit called ‘my mind’.

“When my mind is restless” – Have you ever seen an ACTUAL restless mind? How does a mind look like? And how does a restless mind look like? – please don’t describe it by the number of thoughts present, or how stressful those thoughts are. But rather describe that how the ACTUAL MIND looks like? Is it big? Round? Does it have a color?”
The mind as such doesn’t exist. However – if I use the concept of brain instead of mind - there are observable differences between a brain during meditation and a brain in which more thoughts are coming.

“Yes, there could be thoughts about restlessness, there can be a big flux of incessant thoughts arising. But these are just the experience of thoughts after thoughts after thoughts. But were is the RESTLESS MIND itself?”
Restlessness is just a word to describe a fast stream of thoughts. This stream of thoughts is only assumed to appear in the fictional mind.
“So where it the dividing line between the thought and the knowing of it?”
I can’t find one. A thought cannot appear without the simultaneous noticing of it. At best, lost in thought can be noticed after the fact, but even then, thoughts are being noticed during the lost phase.
“And is there a dividing line between a sensation and the knowing of it?”
Same here. The sensation and the knowing of it happen simultaneously. Even when the sensation is not recognized at first, there is still the knowing of a sensation.
“So if the thought cannot be separated from the knowing of it, then HOW is it known EXACTLY that there is an ACTUAL knower separate from the thought?”
We cannot prove that there is a knower. It’s just that in our human languages, we cannot conceive of an action that isn’t performed by someone or something (as you suggested in your previous answer).

“Can there be a known (thought) without a knower?”
I have never experienced such as thing.
“And can there be a knower without the known (thought)? - don't think, but actually SEARCH for a knower.”
I cannot be a seer without seeing something. So subject and experience are intertwined.

Naya

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 3132
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: How do I realize the illusion of the separate self?

Postby Vivien » Sun Jul 21, 2019 6:16 am

Hi Naya,
Mind is an imagined entity in which thoughts appear and are processed. It doesn’t exist. I know that thoughts are noticed but I don’t know where they appear. I use the shortcut “my mind” to suggest that thoughts only appear to ‘me’. The noticing happens within the confines of this body. Unless one has psychic abilities, I am the only one who can hear my thoughts.
You see, this above comment is still coming from reasoning, from the intellect, from thoughts, and NOT from look at experience directly.

There is ZERO experience of thoughts coming from the body or belonging to this body. NONE.
Only thoughts ‘suggest’ this, which is NOT in line with experience.

The reasoning you wrote above could be accepted conventionally speaking, but you cannot see through the self with conventional truth. You cannot see through the illusion by thinking and reasoning. Since thoughts are the main cause for the illusion. You cannot use the same tool which creating the illusion in the first place.

Thought will always ‘want’ to understand and intellectualize everything, this is what thoughts are ABOUT: analysing, interpreting, and putting everything into categories or into order, and most of all, conceptualizing the actual experience.
And it’s not problematic in and of itself. But for this investigation we have to stick to the pure experience, BEFORE any thought interpretation.

Why? Because the whole illusion is mainly created by thoughts. The self is just a concept. It’s not a real thing. It’s a fantasy. It’s a mirage in the desert. For a newborn baby, there is no concept of self. For the newborn there is only pure experiencing. And just later, when language is introduced, the concept of a self emerges, out of the thin air. It’s just a fabrication, but with time this fabrication is taken as reality. And what is the problem with that? It’s suffering. Only a self could suffer.

So for the infant there is only pure experiencing. Sight, sound, taste, smell, sensation. She is in direct contact with experience. But as cognition develops she starts to conceptualize her experience. Putting everything into categories, labelling the experience, etc. And of itself it’s not problematic. But this conceptualization is overlaying the experience, and it gets thicker and thicker. And at some point she hardly can access her direct experience, since she can only see the conceptual overlay. Like seeing everything through a pink tinted glass. At some point pinkness gets so natural (used to), that she even stops knowing/seeing that everything is just coloured pink, but not in reality. And at that point this conceptual overlay is believed to be THE TRUTH. Pink becomes the ultimate truth. The pinkness distorts our perception of what is really going on.

Whatever thoughts ‘say’, is the truth/reality from now on. This is how humans live their lives. We hardly can connect with our immediate experience since we believe that the overlaying thought concepts are all there is. And of course concepts are very useful when solving a problem, building a bridge or a house. But concepts/thoughts are just tools. But for humans the tool itself is overthrown what is really happening and creating all sorts of problems. This tool cannot be turned off. It’s like having a hammer as tool. The hammer is very useful for hitting the nail into the wall, but it’s not so useful for making dinner. But for humans, thoughts (the hammer) cannot be switched off, and we hammer everything with thoughts.
Thoughts, as a tool, has its place and value when a problem needs to be solved, but when the task is done, we should be able to put the tool (thoughts) down and just rest in the natural peace of experience. But thoughts are constantly on in forms of self-referencing narrating talks. Which is the basis of human delusion and suffering.

But the aim is not to stop these overlays from appearing, but rather to see them for what they really are. The overlay in and of itself is not problematic, as long as we see that it’s just an overlay.

This is why we have to stick to our immediate experience while doing this investigation. Not to devaluate thoughts and concepts, but rather to see what is really going on ‘behind the scenes’. When investigating the nature of reality and the self we cannot use the same tool which created the illusion itself on the first place.

So, from now on, please try to put aside all doubting thoughts, and just trust the process. Trust your immediate direct experience. Trust that this process will yield result. If you stay with the actual experience and just keep looking and looking, you will be able to distinguish what is really happening and what is just a fabrication. At the end, many of your intellectual answers will be answered by your direct experience.

It’s the process of looking and looking and looking and not finding what brings about of the realization.

So, can you trust this process?
Can you commit looking at your actual experience rather than what thoughts has to say about it?
The mind is a fiction that I use to locate the place where thoughts are processed and observed. I usually locate it in my head because I know that thought processing is connected with the brain. In experience I don’t know where thoughts come from and where they go.
So the assumption is that thoughts are located or coming from the head, from the brain. But does this in line with experience?

How ‘thoughts are located in the head’ is actually experienced?
Try to find THE EXPERIENCE of ‘thoughts being located in the head’. Is it possible? Is there such experience?

And what is the brain in experience?
Is there a brain in experience at all?
I don’t know where thoughts are stored. “My mind” is a fictional object.
Are thoughts are ACTUALLY stored anywhere?
Or is this another thought assumption?
How is it known exactly that thoughts are stored somewhere?
Saying that thoughts arise in the mind is an assumption. Even if I said thoughts arise in the brain, I still could not find any thoughts if I opened my brain. I only know that the movement of thoughts is connected with a surge in energy in some regions of the brain.
Yes, exactly. So thought being in or produced by a brain can never ever be experienced. This scientific view-point is just an inference.

Neuroscientist might say that there is a pattern of conditioning in the brain. But they can only find a brain. They cannot see the process of conditioned patterns, they can only measure electric currents between neurons. They cannot see math problems being solved. They only can infer it. When they observe a functioning brain, they cannot see thoughts directly. The can only measure electric currents in Volts by machines (not even directly), and they just make a conclusion that those currents are thoughts. But they cannot see or experience the thoughts directly. They just infer it. But they cannot even find a memory. There isn’t a specific spot or slot in the brain where memories are stored. They cannot even find decision. Actually science has already discovered that there is no such thing as free will, that a self is making decisions.
V: “But can it be SEEN, KNOWN, or OBSERVED where thoughts are coming from?
Or is this just another thought assumption?”
N: I don’t know where thoughts come from. I am just assuming there is a stock of knowledge that has accumulated over time in this fictitious storage unit called ‘my mind’.
With this above reply, have you actually LOOKED and SEARCHED FOR an ACTUAL PLACE where thoughts are coming from experience, or you made an intellectual conclusion?
V: “When my mind is restless” – Have you ever seen an ACTUAL restless mind? How does a mind look like? And how does a restless mind look like? – please don’t describe it by the number of thoughts present, or how stressful those thoughts are. But rather describe that how the ACTUAL MIND looks like? Is it big? Round? Does it have a color?”
N: The mind as such doesn’t exist. However – if I use the concept of brain instead of mind - there are observable differences between a brain during meditation and a brain in which more thoughts are coming.
You are NOT looking at where I am point. Rather you use intellectual reasoning. You cannot get anywhere with thinking.

You have to put aside ALL learned knowledge, you have to IGNORE everything thoughts have to say on the matter, and LOOK at EXPERIENCE DIRECTLY. You have to SEE what is there ‘under’ and ‘behind’ conceptual thought overlay.

You have to SEE what can be KNOWN WITHOUT THOUGHTS.


Can you see the difference?
V: “So where it the dividing line between the thought and the knowing of it?”
N: I can’t find one. A thought cannot appear without the simultaneous noticing of it. At best, lost in thought can be noticed after the fact, but even then, thoughts are being noticed during the lost phase.
Exactly.
The sensation and the knowing of it happen simultaneously. Even when the sensation is not recognized at first, there is still the knowing of a sensation.
“Even when the sensation is not recognized at first, there is still the knowing of a sensation.” – what do you mean by “even when the sensation is not recognized at first”?
You mean not labelled by thought as a ‘sensation’? Or something else?
We cannot prove that there is a knower. It’s just that in our human languages, we cannot conceive of an action that isn’t performed by someone or something (as you suggested in your previous answer).
What other proof is needed to say that the knower not just cannot be proved, but there is NONE at all?


“we cannot conceive of an action that isn’t performed by someone or something” – this statement is not true even conventionally speaking. Lots of people are able to conceive the notion of action without a doer. For example, everybody who actually LOOKED for a chooser and SEEN that it’s not there - several thousands of not millions of people we are talking about. So it’s not inconceivable. With the language example I just wanted to point out that the belief in the doer comes from the dualistic nature of langue. But I didn’t suggest that it’s not possible to conceive an action without an actor.

I’m just point this out, because if you make this into a belief that it’s not possible to conceive an action without a doer, you are limiting yourself with this belief, which can be a big hindrance in looking.

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
NayaCardena
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:48 am

Re: How do I realize the illusion of the separate self?

Postby NayaCardena » Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:39 pm

Hi Vivien,
"So, can you trust this process?
Can you commit looking at your actual experience rather than what thoughts has to say about it?”
Yes, I will look at my direct experience to the best of my ability.

I think one misunderstanding stems from the fact that I also considered scientific evidence as actual experience. For instance, if you had asked me ‘do you experience having a liver?’ I would say no, I have never seen it and I can't feel it. Yet, I know that if you open my body, you will find an organ called liver. (I note that you address this point later with the case of the brain.)

“So the assumption is that thoughts are located or coming from the head, from the brain. But does this in line with experience?”
In experience, there is just the noticing of thoughts. I don’t know where they come from and whether they are located in the brain.

“How ‘thoughts are located in the head’ is actually experienced?
Try to find THE EXPERIENCE of ‘thoughts being located in the head’. Is it possible? Is there such experience?”
No, it’s not possible to have an experience of thoughts located in the head.

“And what is the brain in experience? Is there a brain in experience at all?”
There is no such thing as experiencing a brain.
“Are thoughts are ACTUALLY stored anywhere? Or is this another thought assumption? How is it known exactly that thoughts are stored somewhere?”
There is no evidence – in experience – that thoughts are stored somewhere in the body, or anywhere else for that matter.

“With this above reply, have you actually LOOKED and SEARCHED FOR an ACTUAL PLACE where thoughts are coming from experience, or you made an intellectual conclusion?”
I was speaking from experience and contrasting my actual experience with common assumptions about how the mind works. In truth, I am only experiencing thoughts coming and going but I have no way of knowing where they are coming from.
“You are NOT looking at where I am point. Rather you use intellectual reasoning. You cannot get anywhere with thinking.

You have to put aside ALL learned knowledge, you have to IGNORE everything thoughts have to say on the matter, and LOOK at EXPERIENCE DIRECTLY. You have to SEE what is there ‘under’ and ‘behind’ conceptual thought overlay.

You have to SEE what can be KNOWN WITHOUT THOUGHTS.”

“Can you see the difference?”
“What can be known without thought” – this helps clarify what you mean by looking at your actual experience. A restless mind as such cannot be experienced. All that can be experienced is a rapid or quiet stream of thoughts.
“Even when the sensation is not recognized at first, there is still the knowing of a sensation.” – what do you mean by “even when the sensation is not recognized at first”?
You mean not labelled by thought as a ‘sensation’? Or something else?”
Sorry for the confusion. I was thinking about a situation in which I would not recognize the material being touched. There would still be the experiencing of a sensation in the midst of my confusion (e.g. is it plastic or silicone?)

"We cannot prove that there is a knower. It’s just that in our human languages, we cannot conceive of an action that isn’t performed by someone or something (as you suggested in your previous answer).
“What other proof is needed to say that the knower not just cannot be proved, but there is NONE at all?”
The fact that I cannot identify something in my own experience doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. So far I can only say that I cannot disentangle and experience from the knowing of it. But as far as concluding that there is no experiencer...how could I know that for sure?
“We cannot conceive of an action that isn’t performed by someone or something” – this statement is not true even conventionally speaking. Lots of people are able to conceive the notion of action without a doer. (...) With the language example I just wanted to point out that the belief in the doer comes from the dualistic nature of langue. But I didn’t suggest that it’s not possible to conceive an action without an actor.”
Ok. This makes sense.

Naya

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 3132
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: How do I realize the illusion of the separate self?

Postby Vivien » Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:37 am

Hi Naya,
I think one misunderstanding stems from the fact that I also considered scientific evidence as actual experience.
Please tell me in your own words, what do you mean by actual experience?
There is no evidence – in experience – that thoughts are stored somewhere in the body, or anywhere else for that matter.
And is there any evidence ‘outside of experience’ that thoughts are stored somewhere in the body?
I was speaking from experience and contrasting my actual experience with common assumptions about how the mind works. In truth, I am only experiencing thoughts coming and going but I have no way of knowing where they are coming from.
All right. We have lots of beliefs and assumptions about ourselves. What we are doing here is to check if these thought assumptions are actually in line with experience. Because if they don’t than they are nothing else then imagination.
A restless mind as such cannot be experienced. All that can be experienced is a rapid or quiet stream of thoughts.
Even a ‘rapid or quite stream of thoughts’ is a thought conclusion.

How many thoughts can there be at the same time?

What is the AE of ‘rapid thoughts’? Is it a sound, color, smell, taste, sensation or thought?
What is the AE of ‘quite thoughts?
What is the AE of ‘stream of thoughts’?

Sorry for the confusion. I was thinking about a situation in which I would not recognize the material being touched. There would still be the experiencing of a sensation in the midst of my confusion (e.g. is it plastic or silicone?)
Thanks for the clarification.
The fact that I cannot identify something in my own experience doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. So far I can only say that I cannot disentangle and experience from the knowing of it. But as far as concluding that there is no experiencer...how could I know that for sure?
This question has come up for you because you cannot see clearly (yet) that thoughts are creating the illusion of the self.

So it’s not about that the self is a fact, but we cannot prove or disprove its existence.
It’s about no-self being a fact, and only thoughts suggest otherwise.
And since the contents of thoughts are taken as real – BUMMM! The illusion of the self is created.

Even scientists have discovered that there is no such thing as self, that the self is just an illusion. Certain scientists go that far stating that the self is just a hallucination. There are several experiments done on this topic. Later, I will show you some videos about these experiments. But not yet. I don’t want you to simply believe in the scientific findings. You have to SEE it for yourself.

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
NayaCardena
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:48 am

Re: How do I realize the illusion of the separate self?

Postby NayaCardena » Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:22 am

Hi Vivien,
“Please tell me in your own words, what do you mean by actual experience?”
Based on your previous clarifications, I define actual experience as what I can experience for myself in the present moment without the need to refer to any outside source of knowledge or speculations.

“And is there any evidence ‘outside of experience’ that thoughts are stored somewhere in the body?”
Based on a quick Google search, there is no scientific answer regarding the location of thoughts, only hypotheses.

“Even a ‘rapid or quite stream of thoughts’ is a thought conclusion.”
“How many thoughts can there be at the same time?”
At any given moment, there is the awareness of one thought or of a gap between thoughts.
“What is the AE of ‘rapid thoughts’? Is it a sound, color, smell, taste, sensation or thought?” What is the AE of ‘quite thoughts?
We cannot experience ‘rapid thoughts’. This is an inference that we make when we have the impression that the gap between two thoughts is, on average, short relative to past experiences. The same is true for ‘quite thoughts’. We only infer that thoughts are quite when we have the impression that there are long gaps between thoughts compared to what we are used to.
What is the AE of ‘stream of thoughts’?
In the present moment, there is either the experience of thought or no thought, not of a stream. A stream of thoughts refers to a memory about the past, so it’s just another thought.

Naya

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 3132
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: How do I realize the illusion of the separate self?

Postby Vivien » Mon Jul 22, 2019 11:32 pm

Hi Naya,
Based on your previous clarifications, I define actual experience as what I can experience for myself in the present moment without the need to refer to any outside source of knowledge or speculations.
It is very important to be clear on what is AE, so I ask you more clarifying questions.

Could you please give examples of what is AE and what is not?
V: “How many thoughts can there be at the same time?”
N: At any given moment, there is the awareness of one thought or of a gap between thoughts.
In the present moment, there is either the experience of thought or no thought, not of a stream.
At the beginning I gave you an exercise how to observe gaps between thoughts.
But now we have to go a step further and investigate if there is an AE of a gap between thoughts, or in other words, whether the lack of a thought can actually be experienced. Please look at experience very carefully.

So can the lack of something be experienced?
If yes, how so?
If not, how is it known that the thought is lacking (not present)?

We cannot experience ‘rapid thoughts’. This is an inference that we make when we have the impression that the gap between two thoughts is, on average, short relative to past experiences. The same is true for ‘quite thoughts’. We only infer that thoughts are quite when we have the impression that there are long gaps between thoughts compared to what we are used to.
“when we have the impression that the gap between thoughts are short” – how impression itself is experienced?
What is the AE of ‘shortness’?
Is there really such thing as an impression of being long gaps between thoughts?

What is the AE of a ‘short gap’ and a ‘long gap’? – look very carefully and reply only from looking


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
NayaCardena
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:48 am

Re: How do I realize the illusion of the separate self?

Postby NayaCardena » Tue Jul 23, 2019 5:00 am

Hi Vivien,
“Could you please give examples of what is AE and what is not?”
I am not sure that my examples are correct but I will give it a try.
Actual experience is a simple noticing of what is going on. I can have the actual experience of thinking, seeing, smelling, tasting, and touching. I can experience the texture of my skin, the taste of coffee, I can see people passing by my window, I can see the sun rising.
Beliefs, stories, and judgments (e.g. my skin is dry; the coffee is bitter; my thoughts are stressful; the world is friendly; this person is mean) are not actual experience.

“At the beginning I gave you an exercise how to observe gaps between thoughts.
But now we have to go a step further and investigate if there is an AE of a gap between thoughts, or in other words, whether the lack of a thought can actually be experienced. Please look at experience very carefully.

“So can the lack of something be experienced?
If yes, how so?”
No, the lack of something cannot be experienced. I am either aware of a thought, or of noise in the background.
"If not, how is it known that the thought is lacking (not present)?”
I realize that a thought is lacking when there is awareness of ambient noise.
“when we have the impression that the gap between thoughts are short” – how impression itself is experienced?”
An impression is not an experience. It is a series of thoughts.
“What is the AE of ‘shortness’?”
Shortness cannot be experienced. It is a judgement.
“Is there really such thing as an impression of being long gaps between thoughts?”
There is no experience of impression. An impression is itself a series of thoughts.
"What is the AE of a ‘short gap’ and a ‘long gap’? – look very carefully and reply only from looking."
I experience either thought or ambient noise, not ‘long gap’ or ‘short gap’.

Naya

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 3132
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: How do I realize the illusion of the separate self?

Postby Vivien » Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:30 am

Hi Naya,
Beliefs, stories, and judgments (e.g. my skin is dry; the coffee is bitter; my thoughts are stressful; the world is friendly; this person is mean) are not actual experience.
Yes, these are definitely not AE.
Actual experience is a simple noticing of what is going on. I can have the actual experience of thinking, seeing, smelling, tasting, and touching. I can experience the texture of my skin, the taste of coffee, I can see people passing by my window, I can see the sun rising.
But even these aren’t AE either, although it’s a bit closer to it.

“I can experience the texture of my skin” – this is NOT AE, it’s a thought story about the AE of SENSATION only.
“I can experience the taste of coffee” – this is not AE, it’s a thought story about the AE of TASTE only.
“I can see people passing by my window” – this is not AE, it’s a thought story about the AE of IMAGE/COLOR only.
“ I can see the sun rising” – this is not AE, it’s a thought story about the AE of IMAGE/COLOR only.

There is NO such thing as taste OF SOMETHING.
There is NO such thing as the sensation OF SOMETHING.

The ‘of something’ is NOT experienced.
There only the AE of taste or the AE of sensation.
But not the sensation of something or the taste of something.
The ‘of something’ is just a concept/label/thought.

The taste labelled ‘coffee’ is NOT the AE of coffee, but the AE TASTE only.
The smell labelled ‘coffee’ is NOT the AE of coffee, but the AE of SMELL only.
The image/color labelled as ‘coffee’ is NOT the AE of coffee, but the AE of IMAGE/COLOR only.
The thought label ‘coffee’ is NOT the AE of coffee, but the AE THOUGTH only.
There is ZERO AE of coffee. Since ‘coffee’ is just a conceptual overlay on the AE of taste + smell + color + thought.
What is known is taste + smell + color + label ABOUT the coffee, but the thoughts about the coffee are pointing to further thought, because a coffee is not known.
Is this clear?


The sensation labelled ‘skin’ is NOT the AE of skin, but the AE of SENSATION only.
The thought label ‘skin’ is NOT the AE of skin, but the AE of THOUGHTS only.
Can you see this?

The image/color labelled ‘sun’ is NOT the AE of sun, but the AE of IMAGE/COLOR only.
The thought label ‘sun’ is NOT the AE of sun, but the AE of THOUGHT only.
The sensation labelled as ‘warmth of sun’ is NOT the AE of sun, but the AE of SENSATON only.
Sun as such cannot be experienced. Can you see this?
No, the lack of something cannot be experienced. I am either aware of a thought, or of noise in the background.
There is NO AE of noise. ‘Noise’ is just the thought label on a SOUND.
There is only the AE of sound, not the AE of noise.
Noise as such cannot be experienced. Only a sound can be experienced. Can you see this?
I am either aware of a thought, or of noise in the background.
Are you saying that there cannot be a sound and a thought present at the same time?
Do you say that the either there is the AE of thought, or the AE of sound? Are you sure about this?
I realize that a thought is lacking when there is awareness of ambient noise.
Are you sure about this? So thinking stops as soon as there is a sound present?
So if the fridge turns on, thinking stops?
While driving there are lots of sounds. Does this mean that during driving there are no thoughts present since there are only sounds?
An impression is not an experience. It is a series of thoughts. An impression is itself a series of thoughts.
And what is the AE of ‘series of thoughts’?
Shortness cannot be experienced. It is a judgement.
And what is a judgement?
I experience either thought or ambient noise, not ‘long gap’ or ‘short gap’.
So if the TV is on, or the vacuum cleaner, or the micro, or the radio, or if there is just a car passing by, then there is no experience of thought whatsoever?

This would mean that every time you have disturbing thought, you would be able to turn them off by turning on the radio. But is this 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
NayaCardena
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:48 am

Re: How do I realize the illusion of the separate self?

Postby NayaCardena » Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:44 pm

Hi Vivien,
“The ‘of something’ is NOT experienced.
There only the AE of taste or the AE of sensation.
But not the sensation of something or the taste of something.
The ‘of something’ is just a concept/label/thought.”
Got it.

“There is ZERO AE of coffee. Since ‘coffee’ is just a conceptual overlay on the AE of taste + smell + color + thought.
What is known is taste + smell + color + label ABOUT the coffee, but the thoughts about the coffee are pointing to further thought, because a coffee is not known.
Is this clear?”
Yes, much clearer. Thank you.

“The sensation labelled ‘skin’ is NOT the AE of skin, but the AE of SENSATION only.
The thought label ‘skin’ is NOT the AE of skin, but the AE of THOUGHTS only.”
Can you see this?
Yes. Actual experience is limited to the experience of the 5 senses as well as the awareness of thoughts, an anything beyond that is a story.

“The image/color labelled ‘sun’ is NOT the AE of sun, but the AE of IMAGE/COLOR only.
The thought label ‘sun’ is NOT the AE of sun, but the AE of THOUGHT only.
The sensation labelled as ‘warmth of sun’ is NOT the AE of sun, but the AE of SENSATON only.
Sun as such cannot be experienced. Can you see this?”
Yes. That is clear.

“There is NO AE of noise. ‘Noise’ is just the thought label on a SOUND.
There is only the AE of sound, not the AE of noise.
Noise as such cannot be experienced. Only a sound can be experienced. Can you see this?”
Yes. I am not experiencing noise or a pleasant melody, only sound.

Naya : I am either aware of a thought, or of noise in the background.
“Are you saying that there cannot be a sound and a thought present at the same time?”
“Do you say that the either there is the AE of thought, or the AE of sound? Are you sure about this?”
No, I can experience thought and sound simultaneously.

Naya: I realize that a thought is lacking when there is awareness of ambient noise.
“Are you sure about this? So thinking stops as soon as there is a sound present?
So if the fridge turns on, thinking stops?”
“While driving there are lots of sounds. Does this mean that during driving there are no thoughts present since there are only sounds?”
No. Thoughts can be experienced in the midst of sound. Your original question was “If not, how is it known that the thought is lacking (not present)?”. What I meant to convey – and I am not talking about AE here - is that when there are no thoughts, attention relaxes and there is ‘more awareness’ of noises in the background.
But to answer in terms of my AE, when there are no thoughts, there is just the experience of other sensations (e.g. seeing, hearing, touching) except thoughts. In other words, it is known that thoughts are absent when there is no experience of thoughts.

“Naya : An impression is not an experience. It is a series of thoughts. An impression is itself a series of thoughts.
“And what is the AE of ‘series of thoughts’?”
There is only the AE of thinking.

“Naya : Shortness cannot be experienced. It is a judgement.”
“And what is a judgement?”
A judgment is a thought. So I don’t experience shortness, but thinking.

“Naya : I experience either thought or ambient noise, not ‘long gap’ or ‘short gap’.
So if the TV is on, or the vacuum cleaner, or the micro, or the radio, or if there is just a car passing by, then there is no experience of thought whatsoever?”
No, there can still be the experience of thought when there is a background sound.

“This would mean that every time you have disturbing thought, you would be able to turn them off by turning on the radio. But is this so?”
No. (Unfortunately!)


On a side note, which button do I push to quote a previous comment (in green) and insert it in the middle of another comment (in pink)?

Naya

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 3132
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: How do I realize the illusion of the separate self?

Postby Vivien » Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:15 am

Hi Naya,
On a side note, which button do I push to quote a previous comment (in green) and insert it in the middle of another comment (in pink)?
You mean, how to make colored letters? There is a button called ‘font color’ under the subject line. Press that and there will be a wide range of colors to choose from. But you have to highlight the text first, before pressing the chosen color. If you press the ‘Preview’ button before posting, you can see how your text would look like, and make adjustments if you need to.
Yes. Actual experience is limited to the experience of the 5 senses as well as the awareness of thoughts, an anything beyond that is a story.
Yes.
Yes. I am not experiencing noise or a pleasant melody, only sound.
Yes. Because ‘pleasant melody’ or ‘noise’ is just a thought interpretation overlaying the AE of sound. Is this totally clear?
But to answer in terms of my AE, when there are no thoughts, there is just the experience of other sensations (e.g. seeing, hearing, touching) except thoughts. In other words, it is known that thoughts are absent when there is no experience of thoughts.
But with this statement we are back to the same place, saying that the absence of thought or the absence of something can be experienced. But it can’t.

1. Let’s say there is the AE of thought + sensation + sound + image/color. So experience is made up of 4 ‘element’s.
2. In the next moment there is ‘only’ 3 ‘elements’ there: sensation + sound + color.
3. Then a thought appears again with the content: “here is a gap, there is no thought present’

When there is only 3 elements (#2) there (with no thought), can it be actually known that thought is missing or not there?

Without a thought stating that there is no thought present, can the absence of a thought be known?

But as soon as thought appeared (3) stating that there is no cap, no thought present, in that moment THERE IS a thought present. Can you see this?

So only just retrospect a newly appeared thought can state that there was a gap before with no thoughts. Can you see this?


Let’s go a step further. 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/


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest