No, but there is this difference: the knowing of the sensation and the knowing that “I” know that I heard, felt etc. that sensation. So although the thought with content “I hear” hasn’t arisen, the sensation is already noticed. How could my body otherwise have turned towards the sound? The sound that I was aware of as in the background.How is it known that a sensation was there before noticing it? Just because say so?
No. Not at all. There is a sensation or not. When it is there, it is noticed. When it is not there, it can’t be noticed. There might be something else, or not.Is there a sensation waiting somewhere outside to be noticed?
No. It is a manner of speaking. Just like we were doing with thoughts. The sensation is there, it is noticed. But the thought with content “I sense” hasn’t arisen (yet). So there is knowing, or there is no knowing.Is this really so?
No. Only after the I-thought has arisen, the sensations seem stronger. But in fact it is a new sensation.Is there such thing as ‘faint knowing’ or ‘strong knowing’?
That what is looking is a sensation (not exactly, a sensation can’t do anything). There is a thought with content “I am looking”. There is awareness of that thought (of course). Other sensations arise or not.What is it exactly that is looking for a thought or a taste?
Waiting is a word, a concept. There is nothing doing “waiting”. But there is thoughtawareness with the content “waiting”.What is it exactly that is waiting for a thought or a taste to pop up?
First there is sensation- and thoughtawareness of a sensation in the “hand”. Then there is another event happening and there arises sensationawareness of that event. The sensation labelled “hand on table” is forgotten. So no sensationawareness of “hand” is no sensationawareness of “table”. (This is of course only one sensation).What is it that is resting or not resting its attention on the hand?
Attention is sensationawareness, labelled as “attention”. There is no owner of attention. Nor is there anyone doing attention. Sensations labelled “attention” are experienced, or not.What has/owns and directs attention?
Yes. The awareness-aspect of the thought seems to be a separate event from the thought, but in fact than already another thought has appeared with content “that first thought and the awareness of it are two separate events” (which is not accurate). That distinction (of two different thought(awarenessess) not-seen is creating the illusion. As if the awareness is a continually present event (ha ha) and the thought not.So the knowing of a thought, which is a one unit, thoughtknowing, or thoughtawareing, creates the illusion of a stand-alone, independently existent awareness. Can you see this clearly?
Yes. It only seems that way. “I” have seen this for myself. Awareness is a noun, but that doesn’t mean it is a “thing”. There is only awareness of an experience. Or the co-existence of the experience and the awareness. Or awareness as part of the experience. Or experience-awareness (as one). How can you say this properly?We can fantasize about it, but actually thought or sensation without the knowing element simply doesn’t exist either. Can you see this clearly?
Absolutely. When it seems that way, there is another experience-awareness happening.Is it also totally clear that there is no stand-alone, independent awareness waiting in the background for an object to appear and then latch onto it with its knowing or aware-ing ability?
Yes. They are absolutely unseparable. This illusion of the separation was only believed because sensations are all different and awareness is always awareness, always the same. And “awareness” is almost always “connected” with “I” or “me” being aware. (Or I-thoughtawareness).Since no two separate ‘things’, an awareness and the thought appearing together, but just one ‘thing’ appearing ‘thoughtawareing’ or ‘sensationawareing’. Can you see this clearly?