The real seeing

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
Bella
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: The real seeing

Postby Bella » Fri May 24, 2019 12:52 pm

Hi Vivien,
How is it known that a sensation was there before noticing it? Just because say so?
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.
Is there a sensation waiting somewhere outside to be noticed?
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 this really so? 
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 there such thing as ‘faint knowing’ or ‘strong knowing’?
No. Only after the I-thought has arisen, the sensations seem stronger. But in fact it is a new sensation.
What is it exactly that is looking for a thought or a taste?
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 waiting for a thought or a taste to pop up?
Waiting is a word, a concept. There is nothing doing “waiting”. But there is thoughtawareness with the content “waiting”.
What is it that is resting or not resting its attention on the hand?
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 has/owns and directs attention?
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.
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. 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.
We can fantasize about it, but actually thought or sensation without the knowing element simply doesn’t exist either. 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?
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?
Absolutely. When it seems that way, there is another experience-awareness happening.
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?
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).

Bella

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

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Sat May 25, 2019 12:57 am

Hi Bella,

Great looking!

So let’s look at emotions, what they really are. Bring up an emotion, feel it, and let’s examine what is really going on.
An appearing ‘emotion’ like ‘fear’ or ‘happiness’ has three ‘components’:

(a) a pure bodily sensation, like contraction or relaxation
(b) a mental label stuck to (layered over) the sensation, like “this is fear” or “this is contraction in the stomach” or “unpleasant” or “I am happy”
(c) and simultaneously appearing mental images (pictures) about a certain body parts, like picture about the stomach or the chest

So when an emotion is present, identify these three components, and investigate them:

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘pleasant’ or ‘unpleasant’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’?

Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘pleasant’ or ‘unpleasant’ are just mental labels on the pure sensation?

Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?

Is there REALLY ‘sadness’ or ‘sorrow’ or ‘suffering’, or are there only thoughts about ‘sadness’ or ‘suffering’?

So if you look very closely, you’ll see that there is neither sufferer, nor suffering. There are only thoughts ABOUT a sufferer and suffering. 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
Bella
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: The real seeing

Postby Bella » Sat May 25, 2019 1:59 pm

Hi Vivian,
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘pleasant’ or ‘unpleasant’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’?
No. I often have to think about which label fits. Why is that? Because the emotion may start from an unpleasant feeling, it is quickley followed by more sensations in the body (axis belly heart and later throat). And also by loads of thoughts and certainly proliferation. And that is the worst part. Because the thoughtcontent believed keeps this proces going with more/new feelings/emotions/thoughts/proliferation.
Looking: a feeling noticed in “the belly”. Thoughtlabel: “contraction” and “unpleasant” also arising.
So the pure sensation is only the sensation. In itself this sensation is doing nothing else. Although it seems that the sensation is strong. But that is only more sensations arising and labelling them as strong.
Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘pleasant’ or ‘unpleasant’ are just mental labels on the pure sensation?
That’s right!
Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?
The pure sensation is totally neutral.
Is there REALLY ‘sadness’ or ‘sorrow’ or ‘suffering’, or are there only thoughts about ‘sadness’ or ‘suffering’?
There are a lot of sensations happening. And also a lot of labelling. Sadness, sorrow, suffering are words, concepts, labels. Sensations keep coming, all labelled unpleasant. When the selfingproces is not recognised as such, this can go on a long time. When the selfingproces is recognised, then the sensations can be recognised as sensations, the thoughts can be recognised as thoughts, the labelling can be recognised as labelling and the proliferation as a bundled proces of thinking and talking.
Then it is seen that there are only thoughts about sadness, suffering, anger etc.
So if you look very closely, you’ll see that there is neither sufferer, nor suffering. There are only thoughts ABOUT a sufferer and suffering. Can you see this?
I can notice a strong tendency to proliferation here. But looking closely, there are only sensations and thoughts about them going on. There is nowhere a thing/sensation/person to be found who is doing something. There are only experiences happening. No sufferer (a label, a concept), no suffering (a label, a concept). And habitual ignoring all this (and getting lost in proliferation), until awareness of the knowing “there is no self” arises again.

This ignoring is interesting. Because there is already awareness of the sensations that are ignored. It seems to be a choice to ignore. But as I have seen for myself during this investigation, there is no such thing as choice.
Is there more to investigate into this in this current investigation of no self?

Bella

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

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Sun May 26, 2019 3:45 am

Hi Bella,
This ignoring is interesting. Because there is already awareness of the sensations that are ignored. It seems to be a choice to ignore. But as I have seen for myself during this investigation, there is no such thing as choice.
Is there more to investigate into this in this current investigation of no self?
I’m not sure if I understand what you’re asking. By ignoring you mean that the illusion of self is taken as real temporarily? Not seeing it only as an illusion? Or something else?

What is the AE of ‘ignoring’?

I’ll write a few sentences/statements here. Please go through them one-by-one and look if they are corresponding with the AE.

When there is a seeming ‘suffering’ going on, actually there is only sensations + thought label ‘suffering’. But neither the sensation, nor the label are the suffering itself.

‘Suffering’ as such cannot be found. There is ZERO experience of ‘suffering’. Since the sensation is just a sensation. The sensation is not suffering. The sensation doesn’t not suffer.

Also the thought label ‘suffering’ is not suffer either. So although this label is applied to the sensation, in reality this label doesn’t point to anything.

‘Suffering’ is just a concept, an idea. A word. Concepts cannot be felt. Ideas cannot be felt. Words cannot be felt.

Thoughts cannot be felt. ONLY SENSATIONS can be FELT. But the sensation is just a pure sensation. Nothing else.

There is no suffering or sufferer IN the sensation. It’s just a sensation.

The sensation labelled ‘suffering’ is the SAME sensation which is labelled as ‘me who is suffering’. So the sensation has 2 labels now, ‘suffering’ and ‘me’.

But there is NO me INSIDE that sensation. The label ‘me’ doesn’t magically transforms the sensation into a self.

So there is NOTHING EXPERIENCING the seeming appearance of ‘suffering’. More precisely, there is nothing experiencing the sensations. There are only sensations, without anybody or anything having it.

Sensations don’t happen to anybody or anything.

And there is no such thing as ‘suffering’, other than a word/concept.

Let me know what comes up as you investigate these sentences.

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
Bella
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: The real seeing

Postby Bella » Sun May 26, 2019 7:13 am

Hi Vivien,
By ignoring you mean that the illusion of self is taken as real temporarily? Not seeing it only as an illusion? Or something else?
I mean the first thing you mention. I was going to give an example here, but as you can read below, the answer to my question already became clear to me.
What is the AE of ‘ignoring’?
Ignoring is a label. It is about a thought. Ahhhh. I now see what happens. This ignoring is in fact “forgetting”. What is not there can not be experienced. So when I temporarily forget that there is no self, the old habits happen.
So the AE of ignoring is nothing. The underlying thought is nothing more than a thought, with a memory content.
Another way of looking at this is to believe a proces is reality. But in reality time doesn’t exist. It is concept also. So if it appears that during a certain time something happens, it is not the conclusion of that proces that it is about. In AE there only have been sensations.
Let me know what comes up as you investigate these sentences.
This totally allright. Suffering as such doesn’t exist. There are only sensations. There is no me, so there is no sufferer either.

Bella

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

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Sun May 26, 2019 8:56 am

Hi Bella,
I mean the first thing you mention. I was going to give an example here, but as you can read below, the answer to my question already became clear to me.
Great! :)

Now let’s examine the pure sensations without the labels. In reality, there are only 3 types of sensations. Pleasant, unpleasant and neutral. But usually the neutral ones are ignored, we hardly notice them. All the negative emotions generate unpleasant sensations, and in reality there is no difference in sensation of ‘sadness’, ‘anger’, ‘fear’, etc. There might be differences of the location and the intensity of the sensations, but the ‘feeling’ is the same. All these sensations feel contracted (actually the muscles are contracted). That’s why they are unpleasant.

The pleasant sensations are just the opposite of contraction, they feel open, expanded (because the muscles are relaxed) That’s why they feel pleasant. ‘Love’, ‘peace’, ‘calmness’, ‘gratitude’… these are all expanded sensations. The pure sensations of them are the same. There might be difference in location and intensity, but that’s all.

For the exercise you’ll have to bring up certain emotions, both pleasant and unpleasant ones. You don’t have to dive deeply into the unpleasant ones, you just bring up them lightly, just enough intensity that you can observe the underlying sensations.

So bring up the memory of ‘sadness’. When the sensation is present, don’t pay attention to the thought story, just stay with the pure sensation for a minute.
After about a minute let go of the sensation labelled ‘sadness’, and try to slightly feel ‘fear’ (just gently). Let go all thoughts, and just feel the pure sensation.
Now try to feel the sensation of ‘anger’ for a little while. Then let it go. Let your body calm down.
So, could you see that all the negative emotions felt very similar, contracted and unpleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?

Now bring up the feeling of ‘love’, and pay attention only to the pure sensation. Let it be there for a while.
Then bring up the feeling of ‘peace’, observe the sensation carefully.
Now bring up the feeling of ‘gratitude’, and stay with a sensation as long as you like.
So, could you see that all the positive emotions felt very similar, expanded, pleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?


And now the last step. Bring up just the feeling of an unpleasant sensation. You don’t even have to label it, just feel it. When the sensation is present observe it very carefully.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘unpleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY unpleasant?

Now, bring up a pleasant sensation, stay with it for a while, and observe it carefully.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘pleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY pleasant?


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
Bella
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: The real seeing

Postby Bella » Sun May 26, 2019 6:42 pm

Hi Vivien,
So, could you see that all the negative emotions felt very similar, contracted and unpleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?
Yes. The feelings/sensations were very similar. Contraction in the heartarea, party also the belly. With fear and anger also the throatarea, but always after the sensation in the heartarea.
So, could you see that all the positive emotions felt very similar, expanded, pleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?
All very open. An open heart. Very pleasant. All the same feelings more or less. What was the same was the expanding heart area.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘unpleasant’?
No. It is just a sensation. But the label appears. And then “unpleasantness” is there. But the feeling itself is neutral.
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY unpleasant?
No. Not at all.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘pleasant’?
No. I know it is pleasant. But that is thoughtawareness. The feeling itself is just a feeling.
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY pleasant?
No. It is the thoughtcontent that tells me that it is pleasant. The sensation itself can be overwhelming and in that case it can be labelled painful at the same time it is labelled “love” of “pleasant”. The feeling in itself is always neutral.

Bella

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

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Mon May 27, 2019 1:37 am

Hi Bella,

The illusionary self main concern is the pleasant and unpleasant sensations. It ‘wants’ to avoid all unpleasant/uncomfortable sensations at all cost, and longs for and clings to the pleasant sensations. It ignores the neutral sensations. Almost all thoughts when taken seriously (as reality) accompanied by pleasant or unpleasant sensations, and thus decisions on behalf of the self is based on these sensations, about wanting and not wanting these sensations. The sensations sometimes can be subtle, but even with the subtle ones, thoughts of wanting and not wanting follows them. Although, it might seem that there is a resistance (not wanting) a thought, or an idea, or a situation, but actually the resulting sensation is being resisted, not the thought itself, since the sensation gives the quality of pleasantness or unpleasantness of the situation or other person or thought, etc.

A ‘negative’ thought is not unpleasant by itself. It’s just a thought. Just words. Only the accompanying sensations gives the impression of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the thought, or mental image or even a situation. Can you see this?

Observe this during the day and let me know how it goes.

And when staying with the sensation, it can be seen that they are not as bad as thoughts suggests so. And that in reality there is no ‘wanting’ or ‘not wanting’. There are only thought ABOUT ‘wanting’, but ‘want’ as such cannot be found. Can you see this?

As soon as we ignore the thoughts, labels and mental images, staying only with the sensation, the sensation gradually lessens or even dissipates since it’s no longer fuelled by the thoughts and images. So, if in the future when something triggers a strong reaction, and lots of thought proliferation about ‘me’ occur, you can focus on the pure sensation, so the intensity can lessen, so it will be easier to see that the ‘me’, which the whole story revolves around, is fictionary. That the whole thought-image proliferation is just like a movie. It’s not real. It’s not really there. It’s just empty, transparent images and thoughts, nothing more. Like a hologram. And what they are about are not happening.

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
Bella
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: The real seeing

Postby Bella » Mon May 27, 2019 9:09 pm

Hi Vivien,

All you say makes perfect sense to me. But the “seeing” of it hasn’t happened yet, as you can read in my answers.
If you have more pointers, please let me know. Otherwise I take tomorrow another practice day.

A ‘negative’ thought is not unpleasant by itself. It’s just a thought. Just words. Only the accompanying sensations gives the impression of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the thought, or mental image or even a situation. Can you see this?
This sounds logical. I have seen this in situations were there were no (strong) emotions. But when there are emotions coming up, I haven’t been able to “see” this.
When I start with an unpleasant thought, there not always appears an unpleasant feeling. I know het thoughts and feelings are two different events. But I can’t repeat the seeing.
Observe this during the day and let me know how it goes.
During the day I have noticed a lot of feelings and accompanying thoughts. Noticing them and knowing that they are two different events makes it easy to stop taking them seriously. But I can’t “see” it as two different events. I need more time to practice.

 
There are only thought ABOUT ‘wanting’, but ‘want’ as such cannot be found. Can you see this?
The same as before. It sounds logical. And I have seen in AE that apart from sensations including thoughts there is nothing else present. But I have looked for a self, not for “wanting”.
For this one I also need more time to practice.

Bella

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

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Tue May 28, 2019 2:39 am

Hi Bella,
V: A ‘negative’ thought is not unpleasant by itself. It’s just a thought. Just words. Only the accompanying sensations gives the impression of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the thought, or mental image or even a situation. Can you see this?
B: This sounds logical. I have seen this in situations were there were no (strong) emotions. But when there are emotions coming up, I haven’t been able to “see” this.
When I start with an unpleasant thought, there not always appears an unpleasant feeling. I know het thoughts and feelings are two different events. But I can’t repeat the seeing.

Bring up a negative thought, not a strong one, but one that probably won’t trigger too much sensations or not at all.
Repeat that thought a few times, and see if the thought itself contains with any unpleasantness. Does it?

Now have another thought, which would likely trigger an unpleasant sensation. Repeat it a few times, but just lightly. Do not let the sensation be so strong that it totally overwhelms you. Just enough sensation to be able to observe it.

So there is the thought, and there is the sensation.
The sensation seems to be unpleasant, but if the sensation is ignored, does the thought unpleasant by itself?
Can a though itself be felt?
If not, how could it be unpleasant?
During the day I have noticed a lot of feelings and accompanying thoughts. Noticing them and knowing that they are two different events makes it easy to stop taking them seriously. But I can’t “see” it as two different events. I need more time to practice.
You can practise this by stabilizing the attention only on the sensation, and ignoring the thoughts for a while.
Just staying with the sensation, and investigating if that sensation has any attributes whatosoever.

When it’s clear that the sensation is just a sensation, then you let the attention periodically go to the thought story.
If it seems that the story and the sensation welded together to a bundle again, then go back to the sensation only, and just stay with that for a while. Than try to go back to the story again.
Let me know how it goes.
The same as before. It sounds logical. And I have seen in AE that apart from sensations including thoughts there is nothing else present. But I have looked for a self, not for “wanting”.
How want is experienced?
Can it be experienced at all?


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
Bella
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: The real seeing

Postby Bella » Tue May 28, 2019 8:57 pm

Hi Vivien,

Thanks for the pointers. Really helpful.
Repeat that thought a few times, and see if the thought itself contains with any unpleasantness. Does it?
I have examined the thought in 2 ways. First as the uppopping thought, full content. That thought is in every case only the thougth with its content. Nothing else. The second way is as proliferation. So actually the "talking in the head". There the content can become loud, but that's all also. But that is already a blended experience thought-talking-hearing. So I can't be sure that sensations felt in the body, are also not blended, or when I ignore those, the other blended sensation holds only the thought-element. In other words, I can't say that I really saw what happened in AE in the second case.
But clearly seen: the thought that is noticed as popping up full content, never contains anything else than thoughtcontent (words-images etc). And by itself is doesn't contain a feelingsensation or unpleasantness or the like.
The sensation seems to be unpleasant, but if the sensation is ignored, does the thought unpleasant by itself?
No. It only seems so, as described above when the proliferation is mistakenly taken for a thought.
Can a though itself be felt? 
No, a thought is thought, not felt.
If not, how could it be unpleasant?
The thought itself, (as properly seen as such and not proliferation mistaken for a thought) can't be unpleasant. Only the accompanying bodily sensation can be labelled as such (which is something else).
Let me know how it goes.
There are not many situations coming up strong enough to do this. But one was. See below.
Going back to the thoughtstory, it seems immediately welded again. Stronger than that: thought noticed = stronger feeling. Back to the feeling, thought ignored: feeling is just a feeling, nothing attached. Interesting. I am not sure about the coming and going between the feeling and the thought. What do I need to look for?
How want is experienced?
The thought came up: “there is a strong tendency to push away this feeling”. But were was that tendency? Guess what. It isn’t there. Ha ha.
Want is played out as just another sensation, that somehow gets more attention. So it is a habit to follow it. But when seen/recognised, it dropped away. And the original sensation was the only sensation left. (And the non-existant looker, ha ha).
Can it be experienced at all?
No. When looking for it, it can’t be found. Only the sensation is there.

The above two answers are based on only one seeing. I can’t repeat it if there are no strong reactions going on.How am I doing?

Bella

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

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Wed May 29, 2019 1:36 am

Hi Bella,
I am not sure about the coming and going between the feeling and the thought. What do I need to look for?
You just focus the attention on one or the other. And just observe where the ‘unpleasantness’ is actually coming from. From the thoughts story or from the sensation?

And just see that even the sensation is not that bad at all, if the thoughts are ignored.
So as soon as the thoughts and the sensations are welded together, it seemingly creates a ‘me’ who is having this experience and feeling bad. So this welding into a bundle creates something that is actually not there. Creates the illusion of ‘me’ and suffering. But actually none of them are there.
The thought came up: “there is a strong tendency to push away this feeling”. But were was that tendency? Guess what. It isn’t there. Ha ha.
Want is played out as just another sensation, that somehow gets more attention. So it is a habit to follow it. But when seen/recognised, it dropped away. And the original sensation was the only sensation left. (And the non-existant looker, ha ha).
Great looking!
How am I doing?
I’m giving you these exercises as tools, so whenever a strong sense of self appears you can investigate it. But ultimately, our purpose is not to stop unpleasant emotions to appear, rather just see them for what they are. It’s not about having one experience over the other.

Now, let’s start investigating the notion of time. The general assumption that there is a linear time that started somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time or an event that is moving forward on this linear time, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But what is the experience of the now moving along the line of time?
How fast the present moment is actually moving?
How long does the now last?
Where does it start and where does it end?
When does the now exactly become the past?
What is the past in the actual experience?
How is it known that the now is moving? Or that it lasts?
How is it known exactly that there is such thing as 'now'?
What is the actual experience of 'now' or 'the present moment'?


Let’s investigate another frequently assumed possibility.
Maybe, instead of being 'one single now' moving forward on the line of time, there are infinite number of now-s following each other in a line, like pearls on a necklace.
...now now now now now now now now now now now now now....

Is there a gap between each now-s, like the knots between the pearls?
If yes, how the jump/leap is made from one now to the other?
What is doing the jump?
What is the gap made of? What is in the gap?
How long each now lasts?
Or the now-s are glued tightly together to make the transition between them easier? :)

And what makes the now-s to keep them in place in tidy a line and stop them from spreading to all directions? An invisible (unknown) thread?


Please look carefully with each question.

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
Bella
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: The real seeing

Postby Bella » Wed May 29, 2019 4:27 pm

Hi Vivian,

As time is nonsense, I haven’t been able to look carefully into each question. This has been already very familiar to me.
How am I doing?
I’m giving you these exercises as tools, so whenever a strong sense of self appears you can investigate it. But ultimately, our purpose is not to stop unpleasant emotions to appear, rather just see them for what they are. It’s not about having one experience over the other.
Yes, but doing the excersises from yesterday was very exciting. To see the sense of “urge” drop away.
I will keep looking into this.
But what is the experience of the now moving along the line of time?
It is a manner of speaking. Time is the concept. Reality is only the now. The timeline is created to create a sense of continuity, a sense of me developing/existing. (Why do “I” keep believing in it? Ha ha).
How fast the present moment is actually moving?
It isn’t moving.
How long does the now last?
It doesn’t last. There is no time, so it can’t last. It is a manner of speaking.
Where does it start and where does it end?
Nowhere
When does the now exactly become the past?
Immediately.
What is the past in the actual experience?
The past is a word, a concept. There is only a thoughtcontent, a memory, in the now.
How is it known that the now is moving? Or that it lasts?
Not. There is only the concept as thoughtcontent.
How is it known exactly that there is such thing as 'now'?
There are no things. “Now” is a way to decribe life lifing.
What is the actual experience of 'now' or 'the present moment'?
Everything that is experienced is experienced in the (non-existing) now. The “present moment” is only a concept, an idea. There is nothing there where something like “a present moment” can appear. Sensations are not appearing in or on something. They just happen.
So the AE of now doesn’t exist. Although all experience happens “now”, the “now” as such doesn’t exist.
Is there a gap between each now-s, like the knots between the pearls?
If yes, how the jump/leap is made from one now to the other?
What is doing the jump?
What is the gap made of? What is in the gap?
How long each now lasts?
Or the now-s are glued tightly together to make the transition between them easier? :)
As the now is non-existent, there can’t be a series of nows happening. There are no gaps, no moments etc. Seen within time-thinking this is one fluent movement. And because nothing gets fixed whatsoever or whensoever, there are no things. Because they are not, there is no becoming or ceasing. It only seems that way. Reality just is. It contains everything without it being a container or anything else.
And what makes the now-s to keep them in place in tidy a line and stop them from spreading to all directions? An invisible (unknown) thread?
Nothing.

Bella

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

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Thu May 30, 2019 1:34 am

Hi Bella,
V: When does the now exactly become the past?
B: Immediately.
If there is no ‘now’ than how can it turn to past immediately?
Everything that is experienced is experienced in the (non-existing) now. The “present moment” is only a concept, an idea. There is nothing there where something like “a present moment” can appear. Sensations are not appearing in or on something. They just happen.
Please read you above comment again. You say that ‘sensations are not appearing in or on anything’ but at the same time you also say that “Everything that is experienced in the (non-existing) now.”
So how can everything be experienced in something that is non-existing?
The past is a word, a concept. There is only a thoughtcontent, a memory, in the now.

What is memory exactly? – please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it…
What is the memory ‘made of’?
WHEN does the memory appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?
WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?
Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?


Please spend lot of time :) with EACH question… Look very carefully… Look at what actually going on and not what thoughts say… but what actually is.

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
Bella
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: The real seeing

Postby Bella » Thu May 30, 2019 6:04 pm

Hi Vivien,
If there is no ‘now’ than how can it turn to past immediately?
Immediately is time-thinking. There is no time. So in fact there is no turning either. No past, no now, no future, no turning anything, no becoming.
So how can everything be experienced in something that is non-existing?
Nothing is experienced in something. Something doesn’t exist. So experiencing happens, but it doesn’t happen in anything. And experiencing is also not a good way to talk about it, because that is also time-thinking (as a proces).
Words fail here. There is no difference between experience and now. So now not-existing = experience not-existing. But nevertheless, it is (as non-existing).
What is memory exactly? – please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it… 
A memory is a story or an image, a thoughtcontent. The content of the thought about something that happend in the past. It can be one thought, or a proliferation with more thoughts and sensations blending. The sensations and thoughts each happen now. This is the only way they can happen.
A memory-thought has no felt-content. The sensations appearing with the memory-thought are happening now.
What is the memory ‘made of’?
Thoughts and sensations blended together. It can include the I-thought. Than it appears to be my memory. But not necessarily so. It can also only be one thought. The thought with content is known/seen. The content can refer to all senses. But that is than always a thought about the senses. When there are sensations, they happen now.
WHEN does the memory appear?
I’m not sure what you mean. The memory appears “now”. It can’t be summoned. It comes or not. It can look like the memory is summoned, but in fact is isn’t. Summoning is just another concept/idea.
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
No difference. A thought is a thought (as container). The content is different. It is known and after that it can be interpreted. But that is than already another thought.
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?
It isn’t. Who can predict the content of the next thought? There is no-one there. The idea of referring is another concept. Referring isn’t happening. Only as thoughtcontent believed.
Then, look at a thought about the future. 
What is the future thought ‘made of’?
The same as the past thought. Content differs. A thought about ’someting’. ‘Something’ is the content of the thought. It doesn’t exist. A thought is a thought, nothing else. It isn’t made of something/anything. It is only the content that is about the future.
WHEN does the future thought appear?
Same as the past thought. It appears or not. When it does appear, it is known, full content, without time-delay. It appears “now”. There is no other “time” it can appear.
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
No difference. Only a different content, but a thought is a thought.
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?
It isn’t known. The thoughtcontent is an expectation, a possibillity, a wish. So the future-thought with it’s content about the future, is known. That is the only “thing” happening. There might be referring back to a past experience/memory. But that is part of the thoughtcontent.
Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
Only the content of the thoughts differ. The thoughts themselves don’t. But when the thoughts are seen as welded with sensations, they appear to be different.
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?
No difference.

Bella


Return to “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest