Guide Available

[Josephkoudelka]

So I guess I don't know.

It's a tough one . . .

Look and get back to me.

Joseph ♥︎

[hylas]

I'm having a very hard time separating out what I know from reading. For instance, Spira often calls awareness a "knowning presence." In which case it must know, and knowing must not be an object. It does seem that obects must be objects to something, and therefore, that something knows. But then we're back in the soup: that knowing presence becomes a "subject." I also know that the awareness to which objects arise is supposed to be inert and untouchable. Yet knowlege seems to be a part of the unfolding of things. Which is to say, if I know something (or if knowledge arises) that knowledge can steer what comes next. You ask me if you can borrow a dollar. I "know" I can afford it and have one in my pocket, so then I reach in and give it to you. In this way, knowledge can't be just awareness, and seems an object. Certainly if I try to see if I know anything, what arises is a thought. You could say that "knowing" is the thing that knows whether the thought is true or not . . . but that too seems like a thought.

I'm trying to look squarely at the sense of knowning, but can't get much further at the moment.

[Josephkoudelka]

...knowning...

Look at knowing. Knowing is now.

[hylas]

Ok, I think I see. Ignoring thoughts, I know my surroundings instantaneously. Knowing happens with the very appearance of objects. So, then, knowing is not an object. It sure doesn't feel like one!

Knowing is now.

Meanwhile, I can't help noticing that "now" is found within "knowing." But "no" is found within "now." Yet "O" is found within "no."

[Josephkoudelka]

Knowing happens with the very appearance of objects.

Knowing can never be grasped. Knowing knows no object. It is all an illusion. There is nothing to Know. If it is known, it is not real, Only a concept is real and concepts do not exist in Direct Experience. Experience does not exist in Direct Experience. There is nobody home to have an experience.

Lets go back to the idea that I know an object. The minute you recognize that you know an object, the present moment has been substituted with a thought about the present experience. Now the thought too is immediately present and known as it occurs in the present but through a misperception, the content that the thought describes is taken to be more real than what is seamlessly present itself. In Direct Experience the whole thing is seamlessly streaming with out a self to be found anywhere. It is an energetic multidimensional happening that is always present, aware of nothing but itself, which is only this energetic multidimensional happening NOW. Now is this. Now is pointing to this endless present happening that is happening Now.

Words are so inadequate because they bifurcate Now.

Just notice that everything that is known has no permanence, including the thoughts. If it is impermanent, then I cannot be that impermanent thing. Also notice, no matter how many thoughts stream through, that a perception is never divided. Just because a thought singles out a piece of the present perception, and sez there is a division here, the division is not experientially present. A thought is only one small piece of your entire perceiving happening now. Remember the Attention vs Awareness experiment. Just because a thing is not named yet does not mean we are not aware that it namelessly exists in our present perceiving, indescribably undivided from any other portion of the entire present field of nameless Awareing. How would attention find a place to land?

Either you understand what I am pointing to, or you do not.

Earlier we agreed that any object of experience or object of knowledge could not be what we are. There is nothing that you know objectively, that could be a self. So what are you? Where are you?

Does one thought know another thought? Can you show me any thing that is not a thought?

Can you show me a mind that is not just another thought?

Where do you begin and end?

[Josephkoudelka]

If it is known, it is not real, Only a concept is real and concepts do not exist in Direct Experience.

Should say -

If it is known, it is not real, Only a concept is an object, and concepts are not real, they do not exist in Direct Experience.

Concepts are words. Words are not real. Name and form have no existence outside of thought. Thoughts are not real.
Thought may infuse an experience, and help a fictitious body/mind makes sense of an experience, but even then, they are extremely fallible and often present a misunderstanding or misperception of the moment itself.


Most of the above is for me. If you understand fine, if not ok.

there were questions in the preceding post, focus on those.

[hylas]

I believe I understand what you have written (and very nicely written too). Am focusing on the questions. They are not easy, especially the first one.

[hylas]

How would attention find a place to land?

This really puzzled me at first. Now it seems that "attention" and the naming of things (or at least the "concepting of things") are more or less synonymous. They happen together. Which is to say, attention IS thought interfering with direct experience. Just why attention lands where it does has to do with whatever other objects are pulling at it, or came before it. But I don't think that is what you were getting at.

So what are you? Where are you?

I can't quite answer this clearly. It's much easier to answer what I'm not. I might guess that I'm that ungraspable knowing to which all these objects appear. It's ungraspable (what a relief to see you use that word with knowing) and so I don't expect to grasp it. Where am I? Either exactly where everyhing is not, which is nowhere, or exactly where everything is. Don't mean to sound enigmatic . . . these just seem to be the only options left.

Does one thought know another thought? Can you show me any thing that is not a thought?

One thought does not know another, as a thought can't know anything. Yet it still puzzles me as to how a syllogism works, but I believe that is beside the point here. I cannot show you anything, certainly not any one thing, that is not a thought. The only thing I can think of is "the perceived everything" but this too is a kind of objectification through thought.

Where do you begin and end?

To this I can only say I have no idea. Certainly there is no begining or end known or perceieved RIGHT NOW.

Your clarifying post made total sense . . . was what I thought you meant.

[Josephkoudelka]

Just why attention lands where it does has to do with whatever other objects are pulling at it, or came before it. But I don't think that is what you were getting at.

Attention is just like a thought. we never know where it is going to go next until attention is happening. However,if you remember back when we looked at attention and perception, attention always came after something had already entered our perception. There is much more going on than where our attention is focused. Every bit of every fuzzy(to use your term) thing within the realm of perception, is already present as part of this seamless whole within the present moment of perception. Only then can attention land or go to it. But fundamentally none of this can be grasped, held on to, just like any other thought. The present moment is always ungraspable and for any thing to be known as an object requires a thought labeling a form that has been separated out of the seamless whole of our experience. Once the thought or label occurs it is gone, and requires another thought to come in and claim it as my thought. But this is still only a thought, even if it is a *special* thought we call memory. This is why no matter what we remember, the whole thing is a dream story. None of it has an existence of its own. Fundamentally nothing has ever happened.

I can't quite answer this clearly. It's much easier to answer what I'm not. I might guess that I'm that ungraspable knowing to which all these objects appear. It's ungraspable...

Yes. I have no idea what I am. If I am anything, I am the whole of this entire seamless moment, the very knowing of this now. Perception knowing itself and only itself. No lines, no separation. So to recap, if it is known, it changes, and is unreal. The only real unchangeable quotient in the mix, is the knowing itself. Knowing includes knowing and not knowing. Meaning there are present moments when we know what we don't know. Like what is going on in the other room, we don't know until we arrive there.

It must also be said that fundamentally there is never any there there. There is only what ever is happening NOW. And Now is always ungraspable. Now is always here. Now.

One thought does not know another, as a thought can't know anything. Yet it still puzzles me as to how a syllogism works, but I believe that is beside the point here. I cannot show you anything, certainly not any one thing, that is not a thought. The only thing I can think of is "the perceived everything" but this too is a kind of objectification through thought.

Yes. One thought does not know another thought. However, this, whatever this is knows itself endlessly, eternally. And a syllogism works for this reason alone.

Because there is knowing happening independent of any discrete entity, we know that whatever this is, it is intelligent. Even still, intelligence is only a thought labeling this. Every single though creates a separation that we cannot actually experience, except through another thought. When we look though it is clear that a thought experiences nothing. What is this?! I don't know. How amazing.

To this I can only say I have no idea. Certainly there is no begining or end known or perceieved RIGHT NOW.

Exactly.

Is there such thing as a separate discrete self? Has there ever been?

[hylas]

Is there such thing as a separate discrete self? Has there ever been?

Definitley not. There has never been such a thing a separate anything. All separation is a tool of thought. Even "tool" is too much. It's just what thought does.

Only then can attention land or go to it. But fundamentally none of this can be grasped, held on to, just like any other thought. The present moment is always ungraspable and for any thing to be known as an object requires a thought labeling a form that has been separated out of the seamless whole of our experience. Once the thought or label occurs it is gone, and requires another thought to come in and claim it as my thought.

This is totally clear.

But . . .

Fundamentally nothing has ever happened

Isn't it safer to say that we could never know if anything has happened? Thoughts separating things, memories short or long term filing away false separations, bringing them forward as further separations of separations. Even this, though, is then a separation, an attempt at understanding with thoughts and separations which are also false and unknowable.

I have no idea what I am. If I am anything, I am the whole of this entire seamless moment, the very knowing of this now

Great to hear you put it that way . . . the essential seems unknowable.

Every single though creates a separation that we cannot actually experience, except through another thought. When we look though it is clear that a thought experiences nothing. What is this?! I don't know. How amazing.

Totally understood. But it's also not amazing, because it's just what's happening. But both amazing and not-amazing are just thoughts . . .

[Josephkoudelka]

But . . .

Fundamentally nothing has ever happened

Isn't it safer to say that we could never know if anything has happened? Thoughts separating things, memories short or long term filing away false separations, bringing them forward as further separations of separations. Even this, though, is then a separation, an attempt at understanding with thoughts and separations which are also false and unknowable.

Yes and no. The word fundamental could be absolute. In in direct experience, the whole thing is ungraspablly known. It is only when we stick to the labels that this and that become codified into an artifact that does not actually have any existence of its own. We create beliefs and ideologies, religions, wars, this way. For the most part, the war is within ourself, created under a false pretense of knowing solidified by belief that that which is known, and already passed, is more real than this ungraspable reality that is free of all strife.

Totally understood. But it's also not amazing, because it's just what's happening. But both amazing and not-amazing are just thoughts . . .

Yep.

Do you have any doubts about what is being pointed to here, regarding no discrete self?

[hylas]

Do you have any doubts about what is being pointed to here, regarding no discrete self?

Doubts about what is being pointed here? No, I don't think so, certainly not about a discrete self. I don't "feel" different (and you don't seem to be pointing to anything that would "feel" different) but I understand completely what's been said in the past page or two of guidance.

[Josephkoudelka]

When the “I” has been seen through, fully and completely, what's left?

[hylas]

When the “I” has been seen through, fully and completely, what's left?

The best words I can come up with is "ungraspable knowing." This must be what others mean by "being" and "amness." Maybe it's awareness as perception instead of awareness of perception. All these words and phrases make it seem abstract, and a step a way from the simple experiencing of stuff in this moment.

[Josephkoudelka]

The best words I can come up with is "ungraspable knowing." This must be what others mean by "being" and "amness."

Is there a knower of this "ungraspable knowing?"