Passing through, carrying on

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
Vivien
Posts: 5158
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Passing through, carrying on

Postby Vivien » Thu May 30, 2019 1:42 am

Hi Sami,

Now, let’s investigate the notion of awareness or consciousness, or in other words the knower.

When it’s seen that a seer, taster, smeller, feeler, thinker, etc. cannot be found, the IDENTIFICATION often GOES to the SEEMING APPEARANCE OF A SELF-EXISTENT, SELF-AWARE AWARENESS, which is the KNOWER OF EVERYTHING THAT APPEARS.
So the identification with the body and the senses (feeler, hearer, thinker, etc) is replaced with a subtle form of identification, “I am that which is aware”…. So there is still some sort of separate entity which is aware and holds and knows all experience (object). And the identification with awareness is an excellent hiding place for the separate self.

Does this belief has come up for you “I = awareness”?
Or the belief that there is a stand-alone independent awareness / consciousness that is aware of what is going on?


I don’t know if you have this assumption that “ I = awareness” or the existence of an independent awareness, but nevertheless, let’s investigate this.

In English, awareness is a noun, not a verb. Nouns imply agencies, or entities.
But can such thing be found as an independently existing awareness?

Stop for a moment now and take a thought. Be aware of the presence of the thought.
Can a thought be separated from the knowing or awareness of it?
Try your best to separate the two from each other. What happens?


Is there a dividing line between the thought and the knowing or awareness of it?
Can you find the line where the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?

Can you find a thought without the knowing of it?
Can you find knower or awareness without any object (like thought, sensation, sight, sound, taste, smell)?

Repeat this exercise many times during the day. Experiment not just only with thoughts, but also with mental images, sounds, taste, etc. Let me know how it went.


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
Thirteen
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed May 08, 2019 1:29 am

Re: Passing through, carrying on

Postby Thirteen » Thu May 30, 2019 9:10 pm

Hi Vivien,
Does this belief has come up for you “I = awareness”?
Or the belief that there is a stand-alone independent awareness / consciousness that is aware of what is going on?
Yes, this has indeed come up as a thought... Especially in the form of ”knowing that there are sounds”, ”knowing that there are colors”, etc.
But can such thing be found as an independently existing awareness?
There is some intellectualization (thoughts) regarding this. One could think that awareness needs something to be aware of. One can be aware of e.g. sounds, or one could be aware of colors - what would stay constant is awareness.
Can a thought be separated from the knowing or awareness of it?
Try your best to separate the two from each other. What happens?
There are thoughts, but awareness cannot be found separately from thoughts. ”Knowing that there are thoughts” is just another thought, although a tough and persistent one. But still it is only a thought. In DE, a thought cannot be separated from the awareness of a thought.
Is there a dividing line between the thought and the knowing or awareness of it?
Can you find the line where the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?

Can you find a thought without the knowing of it?
Can you find knower or awareness without any object (like thought, sensation, sight, sound, taste, smell)?

Repeat this exercise many times during the day. Experiment not just only with thoughts, but also with mental images, sounds, taste, etc. Let me know how it went.
There is coming back to the previous answer. ”Knowing that there is knowing of a thought” is still a thought, and in DE, only thought is found. No separate awareness. No awareness, independent of other sensations or thoughts, can be found.

A thought without awareness cannot be found. Same applies to the other sensations.

Also, this applies to the second answer in this message. There was intellectualization that awareness would stay constant. But no awareness independent of its ”object” can be recognized. ”Being aware of something” seems to be only a thought.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 5158
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Passing through, carrying on

Postby Vivien » Fri May 31, 2019 1:22 am

Hi Sami,
Also, this applies to the second answer in this message. There was intellectualization that awareness would stay constant. But no awareness independent of its ”object” can be recognized. ”Being aware of something” seems to be only a thought.
Let’s dig a bit deeper here, since the seeming appearance of an independently existing awareness is the basis for the illusion of a separate self.

So, although there is no stand-alone awareness, AWARE-ING, or KNOWING IS HAPPENING! It cannot be denied. Just as a thought (the container) and a sensation or a sound is happening.

What is being questioned here, is not whether knowing or aware-ing (as a verb) is going on, but whether there is an independent stand-alone knower or awere-er, aka awareness exists.

Just as there is hearing/sound going on, but is there an independent hearer doing the hearing of a sound?
Sensation/sensing is going on, but is there a feeler doing the feeling of the sensation?
Is there a taster of the taste?
Is there a smeller of a smell?
Is there a thinker of a thought?


What we are investigating whether there is a ‘thing’ called awareness that is DOING the KNOWINIG. A SUBJECT.

The assumption is that there are 3 things present:

1. SUBJECT = AWARENESS that is doing the aware-ing or knowing
2. OBJECT (thought, sound, smell, taste, sensation, image = experience)
3. The act of ‘knowing’ or ‘aware-ing’ that is seemingly linking the two, the subject and the objects

Saying that there is an awareness knowing the experience, is the same as saying that there is a feeler of sensations, smeller of smells, hearer of sounds. But with awareness the experience is not broken down to its parts (to sensations, thoughts, smells, etc), but rather kept as a whole, called experience, and awareness is the doer having or knowing the experience. So it’s believed that awareness is the experiencer of the experience.

In order to say, that there is an independently existing subject and an independently existing object, they have to be there without one other. So there has to be a stand-alone thought or sensation without the knowing or aware-ing of it, and also there has to be an awareness = knower without objects (thought, sensation, etc.).

So we have to have an experiential proof that they exist without each other.

So we have to be able to completely separate the knower (awareness as a subject) from the known or aware-ed (as an object, like thought, sensation).

But now, try to peel off the sound from the knowing of it. Do everything you can to separate the two. Not just think about it, but really try to separate them, to have one at the one side and the other on the other side. So how it goes?

Try to find the sound without the knowing or aware-ing of it. How a sound without knowing looks like?


If you can successfully separate awareness from the sound, then you have awareness at the one side, and sound on the other side, without touching each other. So look to the awareness side. How does the pure awareness looks like? What is there?

I ask you to do this to have an experience of the impossibility of it. To have a hands-on experience so to speak, until no doubt is left that there is either a stand-alone (without the knowing of it), or a stand-alone awareness.

Now, repeat this with a sensation. Try your best to separate them. So?
How does a sensation without aware-ing looks like?
Is there such thing as sensation without the knowing of it? – really look for it, not just think
How does awareness look like when it’s separated from the sensation?

Put some food in front of you. Smell it.
Try to best to separate the smell from the knowing of it.
How does a smell without aware-ing looks like? – try to find it
What is awareness like when it’s separated from the smell?


Now, start to eat and pay attention to the taste.
Again, try to best to separate the smell from the knowing of it.
How does a taste without aware-ing looks like? – try to find it
What is there on the awareness side when it’s separated from the taste?


Now, look at the food. Be aware of the visual sight.
Try to best to separate the sight from the knowing of it.
How does a sight without aware-ing looks like? – try to find it
What is there on the awareness side when it’s separated from the image?


Look at these repeatedly many many times. 10-20 or more. Repeat until it’s utterly clear that there is no doer, knower, experiencer, aware-er… there is only knowing or aware-ing going on… but there is no 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
Thirteen
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed May 08, 2019 1:29 am

Re: Passing through, carrying on

Postby Thirteen » Fri May 31, 2019 8:10 pm

Hi Vivien,
Just as there is hearing/sound going on, but is there an independent hearer doing the hearing of a sound?
Sensation/sensing is going on, but is there a feeler doing the feeling of the sensation?
Is there a taster of the taste?
Is there a smeller of a smell?
Is there a thinker of a thought?
No hearer, senser, taster, smeller, or thinker.
So how it goes?
There are sensations labeled as frustration, as this cannot be done. Sound cannot be differentiated from the knowing of the sound.
Try to find the sound without the knowing or aware-ing of it. How a sound without knowing looks like?
It cannot be described, because sounds in DE are accompanied with knowing.
So look to the awareness side. How does the pure awareness looks like? What is there?
Pure awareness cannot be found, because sound cannot be separated from it.

I will continue the investigation tomorrow to get enough repetitions also.

User avatar
Thirteen
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed May 08, 2019 1:29 am

Re: Passing through, carrying on

Postby Thirteen » Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:15 pm

Now, repeat this with a sensation. Try your best to separate them. So?
How does a sensation without aware-ing looks like?
Is there such thing as sensation without the knowing of it? – really look for it, not just think
How does awareness look like when it’s separated from the sensation?
In DE, sensations don’t exist without knowing them, even if it’s only for a short period of time. Knowing cannot be separated from the sensation.
How does a smell without aware-ing looks like? – try to find it
What is awareness like when it’s separated from the smell?
Same thing with smell.
How does a taste without aware-ing looks like? – try to find it
What is there on the awareness side when it’s separated from the taste?
Again, no way to separate.
How does a sight without aware-ing looks like? – try to find it
What is there on the awareness side when it’s separated from the image?
No way to separate.


”Aware-er” exists only as a thought.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 5158
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Passing through, carrying on

Postby Vivien » Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:45 am

Hi Sami,

You did a great looking!
”Aware-er” exists only as a thought.
Exactly.

Now let's start to investigate the sense of self. Even when the illusion of the self is seen through, the ‘sense of me’ still arises due to a life-time of conditioning.

There are several 'sense of me'-s:

- a sense of me in the chest and stomach area that feels
- a sense of me in the forehead (or somewhere in the skull) that thinks
- a sense of me behind the eyes that sees (both ‘visual sight’ and ‘mental images’)
- a sense of me in the ears that hears (both 'real' and imagined sounds)
- a sense of me in the throat that speaks (even when speaking happens only in thought)
- a sense of me in the hands as a toucher

And probably there are more. But all of these are nothing more than sensations that are mistaken to be ‘me’ and the source of particular perceptions (image, thought, sensation, sound, etc.).

It’s really worth investigating all of these, one-by-one.
Probably the most convincing one are the sense of seer. The sense of seer seemingly resides either in the eyes or behind the eyes. So the so called ‘visual sight’ is observed from this point of view. But what is this point of view exactly?
It's believed that both the 'visual sight' and 'mental images' are coming from the eyes, because when it's investigated the attention automatically goes to the sensation 'of the eyes', and sometimes the image 'of the eyes' also appear with it.

But what are the eyes in the actual experience?
Are there anything to the eyes other than sensations and images (of ‘eyes’)?


Please investigate this in a similar way as you did with the notion of ‘thoughts coming from the head’. Do it with BOTH ‘visual sights’ and ‘mental images’.

When there is either a visual sight or a mental image, immediately try to trace back to the feeling sensation to the ‘eyes’ or ‘behind the eyes’ (or whatever is the most prominent)

You can observe that when the attention is on the sensation of the ‘eyes’, a mental image of eyes might also appears (or not).

(a) While keeping the attention on the felt sensation (of the eyes) ask the question:
Can sight / mental image come from a sensation?

Then stop and just LOOK. Don’t try to analyse it or make logical concussions. Just feel the sensation and look.
And although intellectual it might be clear that of course a sensation cannot see, still do the looking, since the experientially recognition what makes the realization.

(b) While keeping the attention on the felt sensation (of the eyes) ask the question:
Can sight / mental image come from an image (of ‘eyes’)?

(c) While keeping the attention on the felt sensation (of the eyes) ask the question:
Can this sensation see?
Is this sensation doing the seeing of the ‘sight’?
Is this sensation the seer?


Try very hard to experience the act of ‘seeing’.
Where does the act of seeing take place (locally)?

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
Thirteen
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed May 08, 2019 1:29 am

Re: Passing through, carrying on

Postby Thirteen » Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:48 pm

Hi Vivien,
But what are the eyes in the actual experience?
Are there anything to the eyes other than sensations and images (of ‘eyes’)?
No. In DE, eyes and eye movements are associated only with sensations, thoughts (of eyes).
Can sight / mental image come from a sensation?
Seeing of sights/mental images seems to just happen on its own. Sensations fluctuate, but this has no effect on the seeing.
Can sight / mental image come from an image (of ‘eyes’)?
No. Again, the ”image of eyes” or whatever changes without having any effect on the seeing.
Can this sensation see?
Is this sensation doing the seeing of the ‘sight’?
Is this sensation the seer?
The sensation cannot do the seeing and is not the seer. Seeing seems to happen on its own.
Where does the act of seeing take place (locally)?
There is no place of seeing. There is just sight.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 5158
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Passing through, carrying on

Postby Vivien » Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:55 pm

Hi Sami,

Great looking again.

Is there anything you would like to investigate and we haven’t covered or something that is not totally clear?

Now let’s look at 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'?


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
Thirteen
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed May 08, 2019 1:29 am

Re: Passing through, carrying on

Postby Thirteen » Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:21 pm

Hi Vivien,
Is there anything you would like to investigate and we haven’t covered or something that is not totally clear?
In my daily life, ”I keep looking” at whatever we have discussed earlier. At this point, I can’t think of anything in particular. Whenever I feel ”a sense of I”, the thought can be recognized through looking.
But what is the experience of the now moving along the line of time?
The moving of time cannot be really experienced except afterwards, but that is more like a thought (e.g. after a fun event there might be thought ”that went fast”, but the experience itself was experienced only in the now).
How fast the present moment is actually moving?
Can’t really recognize a speed.
How long does the now last?
Can’t say - there is no length for now in DE.
Where does it start and where does it end?
Thought: it seems to start when waking up, but doesn’t really end. During waking time, the now doesn’t really have a start or end.
When does the now exactly become the past?
Cannot find such moment in DE.
What is the past in the actual experience?
Thoughts.
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'?
It is a thought, based on thoughts that have ”the past” as their content.
What is the actual experience of 'now' or 'the present moment'?
There is the knowing of sensations, sounds, colors.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 5158
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Passing through, carrying on

Postby Vivien » Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:23 am

Hi Sami,
V: What is the actual experience of 'now' or 'the present moment'?
S: There is the knowing of sensations, sounds, colors.
The knowing of sensation is NOT the AE of ‘now’, but the AE of sensationknowing.
The knowing if sound is NOT the AE of ‘now’, but the AE of soundknowing.
The knowing of colors is NOT the AE of now’, but the AE of colorknowing.

Actually, there is NO actual experience of ‘now’.
Now as such cannot be experienced.
It’s just a concept. It’s just an idea. The content of a thought.
The word ‘now’ doesn’t point to anything. Is this clear?

Here are some questions to see if is there anything that is not completely clear. Please answer what's true for you right now, rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer.

Has it been seen that there has never been an ‘I’ that could control or own life or anything?
Is there any chooser or decider of any kind?
Is there an ‘experiencer’?
Is there a ‘thinker’?

Is there a ‘doer’ of any kind which performs activities and movements?
Is there an 'I' of any kind whatsoever that could be responsible for anything at all?
Do others have responsibilities?

Is there a 'you' that started this investigation?
Has there ever been a 'you' doing anything?

Any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?


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
Thirteen
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed May 08, 2019 1:29 am

Re: Passing through, carrying on

Postby Thirteen » Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:07 pm

Hi Vivien,
Is this clear?
Yes, that is clear. ”Now” as a knowing of sensations is a thought about the experience.
Has it been seen that there has never been an ‘I’ that could control or own life or anything?
This thought has appeared.
Is there any chooser or decider of any kind?
There still seems to be a belief in this, even though a chooser or a decider cannot be found in DE. There is following happening:
- because chooser cannot be found, there is increased tension in the body (labeled: more effort into looking) after any action is committed in order to find the sensations of a chooser. This increased tension is followed by more contracting sensations (labeled: ”too warm”, ”too tired”), that in turn makes looking harder and attention more labile. Thought: There seems to be ”resistance” into looking.
- thought about this resistance: ”it is impossible to find a chooser, but there is one. Otherwise what would be the point of life? Otherwise why would there be such strong illusion?”
- Now there are some feelings labeled as despair, and ”wishing that the illusion would be seen through completely so the agony would stop”
- Now it is seen again clearly that the chooser is only found in thoughts. Thoughts thoughts thoughts. There are thoughts that have analysing or intellectualization as their content. In DE, there is no separate chooser. Chooser is an idea that is being tried to be forced into actions.
Is there an ‘experiencer’?
Question brings up lot of thought activity. There is trying to chunk experience into parts and giving them labels or names. There are experiences of sensations, sounds, colors but no one thing seperate from them that experiences.

Right now there happened a shift in experience. There is a thought that sensations and thoughts are perceived more separately from each other.
Is there a ‘thinker’?
Experiences are labeled and analyzed but there is no thinker doing the labeling or analyzing. Thoughts are coming automatically.
Is there a ‘doer’ of any kind which performs activities and movements?
Actions are happening on their own. There is not a doer that does them.
Is there an 'I' of any kind whatsoever that could be responsible for anything at all?
Do others have responsibilities?
Thoughts, feelings, reactions are influenced by the past and life circumstances. There is no separate entity that chooses what it does or thinks or feels. Adopting a way of thinking or feeling or acting depends on past and current circumstances. Even ”responsible” way of behaving is shaped by these factors.
Is there a 'you' that started this investigation?
Has there ever been a 'you' doing anything?
This investigation started because the influencing factors were what they were. There was no separate entity choosing to start the investigation, or anything else for that matter.
Any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?
There is recognition that the feelings labeled as agony have subsided.
There are thoughts that doubt whether ”the illusion of self” is seen through. There are also thoughts that question whether there has ever even been such an illusion, or if that is a thought from whatever has been read in the past.
There is recognition of peace and clarity.
There are thoughts wondering whether current way of looking disappears.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 5158
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Passing through, carrying on

Postby Vivien » Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:48 am

Hi Sami,
- thought about this resistance: ”it is impossible to find a chooser, but there is one. Otherwise what would be the point of life? Otherwise why would there be such strong illusion?”
Let’s look at this. Chooser as such, has never ever been there. Not even before starting this investigation. So actually, nothing has changed. The only change is that now it’s seen that there has never been a chooser. Can you see this? Or do you think that there are more consequences to this?
Otherwise what would be the point of life? Otherwise why would there be such strong illusion?”
What is it exactly that wants to get answers to these questions?
Where is the ‘I’ that is concerned with the point of life or the purpose of life?
What is it that has a life?
What is it exactly that is having resistance?

Do you see that all these concerns are about the separate entity who could have or own life?
Right now there happened a shift in experience. There is a thought that sensations and thoughts are perceived more separately from each other.
I’ll ask some questions which intellectual could to be very clear, but nevertheless please really investigate this by looking the experience directly.

Do the sensation know about thoughts?
What does a thought really know about sensation?

Do the thoughts know anything about sensations?
Is there anything linking thoughts to sensation or vice versa?

Does image know more about sound than thought about sensation?

There are thoughts that doubt whether ”the illusion of self” is seen through.
What would need to happen to say without any doubt that the illusion of the self has seen through?

What is missing? Is there anything missing to seeing through the self?
There are also thoughts that question whether there has ever even been such an illusion, or if that is a thought from whatever has been read in the past.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Could you please rephrase it, if it still sound important?
There are thoughts wondering whether current way of looking disappears.
What the current way of looking is like?

Is there a need for the current way of looking to disappear?
If yes, why? What’s the problem with it?


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
Thirteen
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed May 08, 2019 1:29 am

Re: Passing through, carrying on

Postby Thirteen » Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:58 pm

Hi Vivien,
Can you see this? Or do you think that there are more consequences to this?
You’re right about the consequences. There is a thought that ”seeing” this should have a consequence in the form of a bodily effect that clearly separates intellectual understanding (no real bodily effect) from experiential understanding (expected to have strong effect).

”I” think this thought is also what makes answering the other questions hard. Is there a way of differentiating ”clear seeing” from mere surface-level intellectual understanding? In the past, ”insights” have been accompanied by some clear changes in sensations - perhaps these experiences are giving rise to expectations.

On the question: when looking at the past, there keeps coming up the thought (image) of ”Sami” making choices, although no separate chooser is found when looking.

When looking at the last few hours, there is recognition that:
- sometimes a thought about a decision/action has appeared before the decision/action itself
- other times, decisions/actions seem to have happened automatically (= there is no memory of a thought before the decision/action)

There is recognition that the first case is often associated with belief in a chooser. When examining this more closely, it is seen that the thought about decision/action comes from nowhere. Also, it is seen that there can be thoughts about decision/action, but they don’t necessarily lead to decision/action.

There is thought (expectation) that the belief should disappear if one wants to say that ”non-existence of chooser” is clearly seen.
What is it exactly that wants to get answers to these questions?
Cannot find anything else than a content of thoughts.
Where is the ‘I’ that is concerned with the point of life or the purpose of life?
Again, thoughts...
What is it that has a life?
No separate thing. Thoughts about the body decaying and ending of ”knowing” in death. Thoughts that ”I” have a life and ”I” will die, but this ”I” cannot be found elsewhere than in thoughts.
What is it exactly that is having resistance?
DE: There are conflicting thoughts (”I am having resistance”, ”But there is no I ! I is not the sensations, not the knowing, not the thoughts”), sensations of contraction in the body and head area. But nothing separate from these.
Do you see that all these concerns are about the separate entity who could have or own life?
Yes, these thoughts seem to relate to the thought that there is an I that exists.

Thank you for the questions again. I will continue investigating tomorrow. I guess there is still some identification with the thought that I exist, even though where this identification exactly happens is not that clear at least for me.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 5158
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Passing through, carrying on

Postby Vivien » Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:54 am

Hi Sami,

I’ll wait for to finish all questions, then I’ll reply.

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
Thirteen
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed May 08, 2019 1:29 am

Re: Passing through, carrying on

Postby Thirteen » Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:52 am

Hi Vivien,
What does a thought really know about sensation?
Do the thoughts know anything about sensations?
DE: After sensations, sometimes there appear thoughts that contain a label of the sensations. There is thought that this is how sensations are known by thoughts.
Is there anything linking thoughts to sensation or vice versa?
Nothing specific can be detected. Sensations arise, thoughts arise, but both seem to arise independently.
Does image know more about sound than thought about sensation?
An image regarding a source of sound arises quite more confidently than a thought labeling some body sensations. So sometimes, yes.

I notice some difficulty with these does X know Y type of questions, because I’m not sure what is e.g. meant by sensation knowing a thought. There are sensations and there are thoughts. Both appear quite independently. But thought content seems to often contain names for sensations, while sensations are just sensations.
What would need to happen to say without any doubt that the illusion of the self has seen through?
Thought: life should seem as it is happening in autopilot...Everything should feel like ”a flow”...
Thought: there should be no more thoughts about I am/I do...
What is missing? Is there anything missing to seeing through the self?
Thought: a clear, single moment of knowing this to be true... A way to know/”measure” understanding.
What the current way of looking is like?
Is there a need for the current way of looking to disappear?
If yes, why? What’s the problem with it?
There is memory of that moment, when thoughts, sensations etc. seemed to arise and fade way independently from each other on their own. It was a bit like that ”flow” state I wrote about above.


At the moment, there is a thought that there is often a lot of identification with thoughts and their contents, which makes direct looking hard and distorts it. As if there are expectations of how things should be and then perceptions are tried to be fitted to them.


Return to “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest