Grateful for a Guide

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: 2705
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Grateful for a Guide

Postby Vivien » Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:36 am

Hi Molly,

Great looking. Now let’s see how decision making happens.

Please put some chocolate (or something you think you shouldn’t eat or drink) in front of you. Look at it. Inspect it closely. Smell its delicious fragrance. And pay attention to emerging desire to eat it.

When the desire is there, pay close attention to the thought process.
See how thoughts list pros and cons why you should or shouldn’t eat the chocolate.
These opposing thoughts might even try to argue or convince each other what to decide.

What is it that is considering these options?
Is there anything that is listing the pros and cons, or only just thoughts appear about pros and cons? – look very carefully


Now, make a decision, but whatever you decide, don’t eat the chocolate (yet). Rather just pay very close attention when the decision is made. Particularly pay attention to thoughts, as the decision is made.

Let’s say a thought appear: “I decided not to eat the chocolate”
So the thought about the decision just appeared. What made that thought to appear?
Can you find the thing that made that decision, apart from the presence of the thought about the decision?
How exactly the decision is made?


Now, do according to the decision. (Either eat or don’t eat the chocolate.)
What is it that performed the chosen action?

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
Molly13
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:16 am

Re: Grateful for a Guide

Postby Molly13 » Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:33 am

What is it that is considering these options? Is there anything that is listing the pros and cons, or only just thoughts appear about pros and cons? – look very carefully
My AE is that there is no-thing, no-one considering options. There were just thoughts appearing, doing what thoughts do. Thoughts, just thoughts.
So the thought about the decision just appeared. What made that thought to appear?
Can you find the thing that made that decision, apart from the presence of the thought about the decision? How exactly the decision is made? What is it that performed the chosen action?
No. This whole process/experiment is just more thought. Just like all thought, no doer, no decider. And like the hand exercise yesterday there is no one who performs the action of eating the chocolate. It just happens.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2705
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Grateful for a Guide

Postby Vivien » Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:39 am

Hi Molly,
. This whole process/experiment is just more thought. Just like all thought, no doer, no decider. And like the hand exercise yesterday there is no one who performs the action of eating the chocolate. It just happens.
Great :)

Is it totally clear that there is no such thing a chooser?
Is it totally clear that there is no such thing as choice or free will?
If not, please write some examples when it seems to be otherwise.


Let’s start to investigate the body and sensations. The illusion of the self is not just simply coming from thoughts, but also from the belief that “I am the body” or “I have a body” or that this or that sensation is ‘me’ or the location of the ‘me’, or that this or that sensation is happening to ‘me’. So the thought label ‘this is me’ and the appearing sensations are welded together, creating a ‘sense of self’.

Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.
Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

Is there an inside or an outside?
If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?


Look very carefully, especially with the last question. Take your time, don’t rush. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, having a short break from work, walking, etc) before replying.

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

User avatar
Molly13
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:16 am

Re: Grateful for a Guide

Postby Molly13 » Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:02 am

Is it totally clear that there is no such thing a chooser?
Yes.
Is it totally clear that there is no such thing as choice or free will?
Yes.
Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
I did this exercise lying down and was surprised how quickly the AE of the " body" disappeared. Even the point of contact was just sensation and did not inform me of weight, height, shape or form. In fact whole sections of "my body" disappeared altogether.

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?
Is there an inside or an outside?
If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?
No boundaries at all! No inside or outside either!
What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
The word/label for body is just a thought!!! There is no defined body that houses an "I". There is no I, no thinker no body. Hahahah. These AE experiences are great. Even though years of conditioning that has convinced me there is a me, who is unique and real. It's all a mirage despite appearances ...

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2705
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Grateful for a Guide

Postby Vivien » Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:43 am

Hi Molly,
The word/label for body is just a thought!!! There is no defined body that houses an "I". There is no I, no thinker no body. Hahahah. These AE experiences are great. Even though years of conditioning that has convinced me there is a me, who is unique and real. It's all a mirage despite appearances ...
Nice looking!

Here is a little exercise. With eyes closed, put one of the hands on a desk or a table. Pay attention only to the pure sensation.

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that the hand is doing the touching?
Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that there is a hand (subject) that touching the table (object), or is there only the sensation?
When both verbal and visual thoughts are ignored is there a ‘hand’ or a ‘table’ at all, or is there only the pure sensation?

Can an ‘INHERENT FEELER’ be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the ‘feeler’, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?


Let’s see if there is a connection between a visual image and sensations.

Here is an exercise that helps to see how the illusion of the body is ‘created’, so to speak. Normally we believe that sensation is coming from the visual image/color meaning the object seen. In this example, the object being the ‘hand’ (colour labelled as ‘hand’).


1. Close the eyes and hold up one hand. Pay attention only to the felt sensations ‘of the hand’.
2. Open the eyes, and now observe the hand by looking only.
3. While looking at the hand, pay attention to the felt sensations.

Repeat 1 to 3 as many times as needed and investigate…

Normally we believe that the sensation is coming from the image/color, the ‘object’ seen (hand).
But if you look, is there any link between the sensation and the image/color? In other words, is the sensation ‘coming from’ the image/color (labelled as hand) or only thoughts and mental constructs link them?

Can you see that both the image/color and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

So they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?


So you can repeat this with all of the body parts below, one-by-one.
- feet
- legs
- arms
- belly
- chest
- head (looking into the mirror)

What do you find?


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
Molly13
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:16 am

Re: Grateful for a Guide

Postby Molly13 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:51 am

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that the hand is doing the touching?
No.
Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that there is a hand (subject) that touching the table (object), or is there only the sensation?
No, there is only a sensation.
When both verbal and visual thoughts are ignored is there a ‘hand’ or a ‘table’ at all, or is there only the pure sensation?
The sensation has no shape or volume, or is there an experience of separate objects, just one sensation.
Can an ‘INHERENT FEELER’ be found?
No.
Would anything that is suggested as the ‘feeler’, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
It can only be a thought/ concept or idea applied or place on it. The feeler does not exist.
But if you look, is there any link between the sensation and the image/color? In other words, is the sensation ‘coming from’ the image/color (labelled as hand) or only thoughts and mental constructs link them?
With eyes closed I was able to experience just the image and sensation as one, not linked as it were. With eyes open it was more challenging at first. I repeated this exercise many times. My thinking wanted to say that they were connected. After a time however, I was able to ignore the thinking and the habitual "creation of body" by labeling. Labeling the sensation as "coming" from the "hand" despite the fact that my AE was that there was no connection and the hand certainly did not contain the sensation.
Can you see that both the image/color and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?
Yes, this is what I eventually experienced after repeating the exercise.
So they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?
Yes!
What do you find?
I found the same with all body parts after repeating many times. The sensation and image do appear simultaneously, but are not coming from each other. The sensation is not contained by the hand (foot, leg, etc.) and not the other way around either. It was interesting to see how strongly the visual experience wanted to label what was happening.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2705
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Grateful for a Guide

Postby Vivien » Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:34 pm

Hi Molly,
I found the same with all body parts after repeating many times. The sensation and image do appear simultaneously, but are not coming from each other. The sensation is not contained by the hand (foot, leg, etc.) and not the other way around either. It was interesting to see how strongly the visual experience wanted to label what was happening.
You did a great looking again :)

Here is a fascinating experiment showing that correlation between sensations and images is just a fabrication.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dphlhmt ... q0RhEFGLeA

Find somewhere quiet to sit. Rest for a moment and listen to the sounds in the room where you are, or sounds from outside. Whatever it is, I'll just refer to it as 'what can be heard'.

In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'?
Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only 'what can be heard'?
An 'I'? a 'body'? a 'person'? a brain? A pair of ears? Can these be found doing the hearing? Or is there just 'what can be heard'?
What do you find?

Can an INHERENT HEARER be found? Would anything that is suggested as the hearer, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?



Look at whatever is in front of you.
Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes), or is it like a windscreen view?

How is it known that the eyes see?
Focus on the sensation labelled ‘eyes’. Is this sensation doing the seeing?
What is actually known right now about eyes, except thought about them?
Can you find anything behind the eyes that are seeing?

Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen?

Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?


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

User avatar
Molly13
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:16 am

Re: Grateful for a Guide

Postby Molly13 » Fri Jun 28, 2019 6:29 am

Hello Vivien,
Here is a fascinating experiment showing that correlation between sensations and images is just a fabrication.
That is great! Having done the exercises this week, I can almost imagine the sensation he is experiencing!
In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'?
No.
Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only 'what can be heard'?
There is just what is being heard.
An 'I'? a 'body'? a 'person'? a brain? A pair of ears? Can these be found doing the hearing? Or is there just 'what can be heard'?
There is just what is being heard.
What do you find?
the experience is that there is just sound, not far sound, or close sound, it is all just sound heard "here".
Can an INHERENT HEARER be found? Would anything that is suggested as the hearer, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
the idea of a hearer is just another thought/concept.
Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes), or is it like a windscreen view?
the experience of seeing is of one view, not two.
How is it known that the eyes see? Focus on the sensation labelled ‘eyes’. Is this sensation doing the seeing? What is actually known right now about eyes, except thought about them? Can you find anything behind the eyes that are seeing?
The sensation labelled eyes is not the seer. If there is no label, then there can be no way to distinguish "eyes". There is seeing, but unless there is dust or something on the "eyeball", I cannot even feel them. The seeing seems to happen at the location of the eyeballs, but that is also a thought.
Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen?
All I can find is what is seen, not a seer.
Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?
Aftr doing these exercises every evening, I have to say that there is just experience, truly it is all ONE. When the labels and thought is taken away, life just is.

Molly

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2705
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Grateful for a Guide

Postby Vivien » Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:32 am

Hi Molly,
That is great! Having done the exercises this week, I can almost imagine the sensation he is experiencing!
:) how amazing this is… here is a similar experiment just now with the whole body.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rawY2VzN4-c
Aftr doing these exercises every evening, I have to say that there is just experience, truly it is all ONE. When the labels and thought is taken away, life just is.
Yes, but do the labels and thoughts have to be taken away to life (experience) just be?
Do the labels and thoughts have any actual effect on experience?


Since emotions play a big role in the illusion of the self, let’s start to investigate them, and see 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 “uncomfortable” or “I am happy”
(c) and simultaneously appearing visual thoughts 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’, ‘peaceful’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’?
Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, 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
Molly13
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:16 am

Re: Grateful for a Guide

Postby Molly13 » Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:26 pm

Hello Vivien,
Yes, but do the labels and thoughts have to be taken away to life (experience) just be?
No not at all. What I meant was that life just is (with or without thought) but historically, thought has been used to cover that fact up!
Do the labels and thoughts have any actual effect on experience?
No, labels and thoughts do not have an actual effect on experience.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘peaceful’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’? Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, are just mental labels on the pure sensation? Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?
The AE is that there is just sensation. Unless it is labeled. The conditioning (label) is what "appears" to know what the sensation is. The sensation is neutral just like all sensation.
Is there REALLY ‘sadness’ or ‘sorrow’ or ‘suffering’, or are there only thoughts about ‘sadness’ or ‘suffering’?
There are only thoughts of 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?
Yes, absolutely, I cannot find a sufferer or suffering. It is very clear.

:-)

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2705
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Grateful for a Guide

Postby Vivien » Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:24 am

Hi Molly,
Yes, absolutely, I cannot find a sufferer or suffering. It is very clear.
Great!

The illusionary self’s 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 visual thoughts, 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 verbal and visual thougths, 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
Molly13
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:16 am

Re: Grateful for a Guide

Postby Molly13 » Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:33 pm

Hello!
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?
Yes, I can see this. Words, thoughts have no inherent "value", not unless they are given meaning: good, bad, happy, delicious, etc.
Observe this during the day and let me know how it goes.
I was able to find that in fact, when the experience was observed alone it was fleeting. It seemed to be the thought that kept it "active". Without "sad, sad, sad, sad" going through the mind there was just a heavy sensation in my chest, but not in itself "bad". And it came and went, it was not constant.
There are only thought ABOUT ‘wanting’, but ‘want’ as such cannot be found. Can you see this?
Absolutely. "About" is key here. There is no want. How can there be?!

:-)

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2705
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Grateful for a Guide

Postby Vivien » Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:54 am

Hi Molly,
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?
M: Yes, I can see this. Words, thoughts have no inherent "value", not unless they are given meaning: good, bad, happy, delicious, etc.
Yes, but this is not what I meant. Please read my above comment again.

Even if the label ‘bad’ is added to a thought, that thought still won’t be unpleasant.
The content of thoughts cannot be experienced.
Thoughts cannot be felt. Only sensations can be felt.

The reason we try to avoid certain thoughts is not because the thought contains some negative words, but because those thoughts are accompanied with unpleasant sensations. So this unpleasant sensation gives the reality effect to that thought, since the sensation itself is unpleasant. But the thought itself is not unpleasant, since thoughts cannot be felt. Can you see this?

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, color, sound, taste, smell)?
In other words, can there be a knowing without a known?


Repeat this exercise many times during the day. Experiment not just only with verbal thoughts, but also with visual thoughts, 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
Molly13
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:16 am

Re: Grateful for a Guide

Postby Molly13 » Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:52 am

So this unpleasant sensation gives the reality effect to that thought, since the sensation itself is unpleasant. But the thought itself is not unpleasant, since thoughts cannot be felt. Can you see this?
Yes, despite my previous misleading response, I did understand (and agree) with what you wrote. That thoughts themselves cannot be felt, but the sensations associated with the thoughts can be.
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? 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?
I do not associate "I" with awareness. "I" am not aware, there is just awareness. I do not see awareness/consciousness as an separate entity. My experience is more that it is the space that everything appears within, although the things that "appear" within it are not separate. There is just "one" awareness/consciousness.
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?
Thought cannot be separated from awareness. Everything appears within awareness. You cannot separate the wave from the ocean...
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?
I am unable to find a dividing line.
Can you find a thought without the knowing of it? Can you find knower or awareness without any object (like thought, sensation, color, sound, taste, smell)? In other words, can there be a knowing without a known?
I am unable to find a thought without the knowing of it. If I understand what you are writing correctly, I believe this is impossible.
Repeat this exercise many times during the day. Experiment not just only with verbal thoughts, but also with visual thoughts, sounds, taste, etc. Let me know how it went.
Without the knowing of a thought, or the sensation of clothes on the body, the sounds that "appear" at "our" ears, the taste of the bread and butter, there can be no way to know awareness. All these things reflect awareness, but we can not look at awareness directly. Awareness cannot see itself...

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 2705
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Grateful for a Guide

Postby Vivien » Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:56 am

Hi Molly,
I do not associate "I" with awareness. "I" am not aware, there is just awareness. I do not see awareness/consciousness as an separate entity. My experience is more that it is the space that everything appears within, although the things that "appear" within it are not separate.
Without verbal and visual thoughts, what is the AE of the space that everything appears in?

If the things that appear within the space is not separate, then how is known exactly that they appear in anything at all?
Thought cannot be separated from awareness. Everything appears within awareness. You cannot separate the wave from the ocean...
This is an intellectual explanation. Thought content. Check if thoughts are ACTUALLY in correspondence with experience.

What is the AE of ‘everything appears within awareness’?

How is this experienced EXACTLY?

Ignore what thoughts ‘say’ or visual images ‘show’, rather look at experience directly.
Without the knowing of a thought, or the sensation of clothes on the body, the sounds that "appear" at "our" ears, the taste of the bread and butter, there can be no way to know awareness. All these things reflect awareness, but we can not look at awareness directly. Awareness cannot see itself...
This is a compelling thought story, but what is the AE of this story?

Take a cup or any object into your hands. And investigate if the cup can be experience in any other way then with the 5 senses. Can you?

Can anything be experience in any other way than with the 5 senses?
Look carefully. Don’t just think, but really try to experience outside the 5 senses. Can this be done?

If awareness cannot be experienced at all, how is it known EXACTLY that there is such thing as awareness?
Can an actual awareness be found? If yes, how exactly?

Awareness cannot see itself...
If awareness is the one that knows and awareness cannot know itself, then how is it known that awareness as such really exists? Just because thoughts say 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/


Return to “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests