Seeking a Guide

[Vivien]

Dear Kevin,

Vivien: If there is only now, and there is no past… then what about the idea of ‘memories are stored in the brain’?

Kevin: It is just an idea, an assumption that cannot be experienced directly.

This answer implicitly imply that although it cannot be experienced directly it might be there or happening.
Although in your later replies you say that there is no such thing as non direct experience, this answer still shows that the belief that something can exist outside of the knowing of it is still intact.

I would like to ask a few things, dear Kevin.
First, I would like to ask you to give longer answers. If you reply only with a few words, I cannot have a clear picture where you are at the moment, so I cannot help you effectively. I can have only assumptions, and my assumptions are quite useless here :)

I find some contradictions in your comments, but it may be due to the short replies.

So now I give you some basic questions, and please answer them in detail, at least in a paragraph or so for each, so I can have a clearer picture where you are at the moment.

Also, please feel free to comment anything I write, you don’t have to limit your answers only to the questions.

So here are some general questions:

Has there been any change since we started this investigation?
What is a thought? What is the ‘content’ of a thought?
What is actual experience and how it differs from the ‘contents’ of thoughts?
What is the body exactly?
What about the scientific brain story? How do you see it know?
What are you?


Love, Vivien

[Myrmidonktm]

Thanks Vivien :)

The brevity of my answers was based on the forum request to keep answers short. I am glad to hear I can include more.

Has there been any change since we started this investigation?

Yes :) My mindfulness of the Now has increased greatly. I am more "Here, Now" than ever before. The discernment between what is thought and what is directly experienced has increased greatly as well. I have paid great attention to every act, every thought. Questioned more of what I "thought was true" as opposed to what I can actually know by direct experience. I have this sense of, awareness "stretching", for lack of a better word, beyond what is thought to be the boundary of the body....this is hard to put to words. I spend less time "thinking" about something other than what I am doing and see objectively rather than with speculation, a sort of "What can be known here" rather than letting thought arise about the situation.

What is a thought? What is the ‘content’ of a thought?

A thought is a spontaneous arising and fading of "thinking" concerning some subject or object and may or may not be based on direct experience. A thought cannot be predicted and has no "solidity" that can be experienced directly. The content of a thought can be comprised of mental images, more thought, or both. The content of a thought is not real and does not exist.

What is actual experience and how it differs from the ‘contents’ of thoughts?

Actual experience is direct involvement, or interaction, with a tangible reality. The content of thought is an idea, opinion, or belief regarding a subject that may or may not be based on direct experience. Direct experience is "hearing" a sound. Thought is "I am hearing the tv in the family room". The experience of hearing is real but the thought is just suggestion thinking about the experience and adding labels to what is heard.

What is the body exactly?

This one still has me stumped as to "what" it is exactly. The body manipulates the environment. This is direct experience. If I want to take a drink, the body lifts the cup. If I need to drive, the body operates the car. Need to cut a watermelon, the body uses the knife. I "know" the body is not me. I do not believe "I" am the body, but cannot answer "What is it".

What about the scientific brain story? How do you see it know?

This was me accepting someone else's story, idea, opinion, belief, and/or label of reality as truth. Being TOLD what is, in and of itself, lies beyond my own direct experience of what is and is not. The only "knowing" that can be had is in MY OWN direct experience. Everything else is speculation...thought on my part. I do not take the ideas of others as "truth", so why take those of science. I was looking for an answer outside of "myself" and thought provided one.

What are you?

I do not know. I hear, feel, taste, see, talk, etc. But beyond this "awareness" I truly have no answer, no direct experience beyond awareness of being, being here, wherever "here" is.

I hope this helps. I have gotten a fantastic experience so far and look forward to moving forward.
Thanks :)
Kevin

[Myrmidonktm]

AHHHH !! Where did the last post go?

[Vivien]

Dear Kevin,

The whole website has been migrated to a new server and some post are lost during the process. But, I write all my replies in a word document first before posting on the forum, so my last post to you is not really lost. So I copy my previous replies above, so you can reply to them. :)

The brevity of my answers was based on the forum request to keep answers short. I am glad to hear I can include more.

And I’m glad you included more :) Thanks.
Now, I’ll go through your reply and comment and/or ask questions on them to get clearer picture and also the help you with further investigation.

My mindfulness of the Now has increased greatly. I am more "Here, Now" than ever before.

Is it possible to not be here and now? – look carefully.
If not here and now then where exactly?
And what is it that could or couldn’t be here and now?

“My mindfulness of the now…” - What it exactly that has a mindfulness?

Vivien: What is the body exactly?

Kevin: This one still has me stumped as to "what" it is exactly. The body manipulates the environment. This is direct experience. If I want to take a drink, the body lifts the cup. If I need to drive, the body operates the car. Need to cut a watermelon, the body uses the knife. I "know" the body is not me. I do not believe "I" am the body, but cannot answer "What is it".

OK. We have to do some investigation on the body.

“The body manipulates the environment. This is direct experience.” – no, this is not a direct experience, it’s a thought story.

Direct experience is hearing, seeing, feeling, tasting, smelling and noticing the appearing thought. No more, that’s all.

Manipulation of the environment is a thought story.
“If I want to take a drink, the body lifts the cup” – this is not DE, this is the story too.

Thoughts ABOUT reality are unreliable, actually thoughts cannot know anything. What I'm going to be asking you to use instead of thought is sensation: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching.
Sensation-prior-to-thought, that is what is sensed BEFORE thoughts jump in to INTERPRET what has been sensed, is the closest we seem to come to an uninterpreted moment. And the uninterpreted moment is WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING.

Our thoughts ABOUT sensation are not what-is-happening — they are thought INTERPRETATION of, a STORY ABOUT, what is actually happening.

For example, you are walking through the bush and you feel a touch on the skin on the outside of the ankle.
What is REALLY happening? A touch.

Someone points out there are snakes around, and suddenly mind creates a story of a snakebite and terrible danger. This can even result in tremendous pain where moments before there was only a touch. And another plausible story/explanation is a twig touched the ankle. Any story we can tell about it is only a story.

I'm not saying snake bites don't happen in the bush. I'm pointing out that what ACTUALLY happened was a touch on the skin on the outside of the ankle; that is what the sensation was. The rest is thought story.

What is happening NOW in your direct, actual experience?

My report in this moment is bright light, colours, shapes, dark squiggles dancing across the field of vision; warm smoothness; scent of citrus; flavour of herbs and lemon; whirring sound.

Now those labels I used in my report are clearly thought, but how else can we report experience? I could say I experience a monitor, keyboard, smell and flavour of lemon sencha tea, and hear the computer's fan. But I'm reducing my report to the sensations themselves: seeing light and colour, shapes and squiggles; hearing whirring. A computer is a THOUGHT EXPLANATION or INTERPETATION for what I'm seeing and hearing and feeling, just as a cup of tea is thought interpretation for the current experience of smell and taste.

So give it a go. What is happening NOW in your direct experience? What sensations are present?

And going back to your statement: “If I want to take a drink, the body lifts the cup”
Please take a cup and lift it. Please describe the ACTUAL experience.

“If I need to drive, the body operates the car.” – Please give a report only from direct experience
.
“Need to cut a watermelon, the body uses the knife.” - Please give a report only from the actual experience.

Furthermore, “If I want to take a drink, the body lifts the cup” – What is it that wants to drink?
Where is this thing exactly?
What does the word ‘I’ point to in this sentence?

“If I need to drive, the body operates the car.” – What is it that needs to drive?
What does the word ‘I’ point to in this sentence?

The only "knowing" that can be had is in MY OWN direct experience.

What is ‘MY OWN’ in this sentence point to?
What is this ‘me’ that has direct experience?

I was looking for an answer outside of "myself" and thought provided one.

What is the word ‘myself’ point to?
Where is this myself exactly that has an inside and outside?
Inside and outside of what exactly?

Please look very carefully.

Vivien: What are you?

Kevin: I do not know. I hear, feel, taste, see, talk, etc.

What is this ‘I’ that hears, feels, tastes, sees, etc?
Where is it exactly? Where is it locally?

What is the ACTUAL experience of a hearer?
What is the ACTUAL experience of a feeler?
What is the ACTUAL experience of a taster?
What is the ACTUAL experience of a smeller?
What is the ACTUAL experience of a seer?
What is the ACTUAL experience of a talk-er?
What is the ACTUAL experience of a walk-er?
What is the ACTUAL experience of a thinker?

Please go through these questions one-by-one, and actually taste something when it’s about tasting; talk, when it’s about talking, etc. Look very carefully. Go only with the actual experience and not what thoughts suggest.

But beyond this "awareness" I truly have no answer, no direct experience beyond awareness of being, being here, wherever "here" is.

What does ‘here’ point to? Here, where exactly?
And what is it exactly that could be here?

How the ‘awareness of being’ is ACTUALLY experienced?

I’ve asked a lot, so please take your time.

Love, Vivien

[Myrmidonktm]

Thanks Vivien :)

If not here and now then where exactly?

and

And what is it that could or couldn’t be here and now?

Of course Here and Now is the only place one can be, it is all there is. "Mindfulness" is just an idea, a concept, used here to describe the presence felt by not being lost in thinking.

“My mindfulness of the now…” - What it exactly that has a mindfulness?

Nothing "has" this mindfulness. There is a greater awareness, direct experience of reality, and less "thought" of that reality, less interpretation, story telling, by thinking.

So give it a go. What is happening NOW in your direct experience? What sensations are present?

Bright light, rumbling sounds, musical sounds, dark squiggles, warmth, citrus taste, humming sound.

Please take a cup and lift it. Please describe the ACTUAL experience.

The cup is lifted and brought to my mouth without thought. Eyes open there is seeing, touching, and tasting. Doing this with eyes closed, there is touching and tasting.

“If I need to drive, the body operates the car.” – Please give a report only from direct experience

There is seeing and touching. The car seems to drive itself without input from thought.

“Need to cut a watermelon, the body uses the knife.” - Please give a report only from the actual experience.

Seeing, touching, fruity smell.

Furthermore, “If I want to take a drink, the body lifts the cup” – What is it that wants to drink?

The sensation of thirst arises and thirst wants a drink.

Where is this thing exactly?

It is only a sensation and thought labels this sensation as thirst.

What does the word ‘I’ point to in this sentence?

Nothing. Just a word.

“If I need to drive, the body operates the car.” – What is it that needs to drive?

A job needs to be done, errands need to be run, and transportation needs to be had for these tasks to be completed.
Driving just needs to happen.

What does the word ‘I’ point to in this sentence?

Just a word, an idea.

What is ‘MY OWN’ in this sentence point to?

Direct experience versus non-direct experience.

What is this ‘me’ that has direct experience?

There is nothing that has the experience. There is only the experience, the awareness itself.

What is the word ‘myself’ point to?

The experience itself. The awareness of the senses that is direct experience.

Where is this myself exactly that has an inside and outside?

and

Inside and outside of what exactly?

There is no inside and outside. In looking, there is no inside and outside, only the awareness of the senses.

What is this ‘I’ that hears, feels, tastes, sees, etc?

There is no I.

Where is it exactly? Where is it locally?

Doesn't exist.

What is the ACTUAL experience of a hearer?

There is only hearing. There is no hearing and one doing the hearing. Just hearing.

What is the ACTUAL experience of a feeler?

There is only feeling. No one "doing" the feeling. No separation between the feeling and what is felt.

What is the ACTUAL experience of a taster?

There is only tasting, not "doing" tasting. There is no separation between what is tasted and the tasting itself.

What is the ACTUAL experience of a smeller?

Smelling, without a "smeller".

What is the ACTUAL experience of a talk-er?

Talking just happens.

What is the ACTUAL experience of a walk-er?

Walking just happens. Steps just happen, running just happens. There is no thought, just walking.

What is the ACTUAL experience of a thinker?

Thinking just happens without a thinker. Thoughts arise and fade away, more thought arises.

What does ‘here’ point to? Here, where exactly?

"Here" is where awareness happens, where experience happens, where life happens.

And what is it exactly that could be here?

Reality. Life itself. Awareness of living.

How the ‘awareness of being’ is ACTUALLY experienced?

Seeing, tasting, touching, hearing, smelling.

Thanks Vivien,
Kevin

[Vivien]

Dear Kevin,

Vivien: And what is it that could or couldn’t be here and now?

Kevin: Of course Here and Now is the only place one can be, it is all there is. "Mindfulness" is just an idea, a concept, used here to describe the presence felt by not being lost in thinking.

You missed the question here.
What is it that could or couldn’t be here and now?

Seeing, touching, fruity smell.

How is it known exactly that the smell is fruity?
Does the smell itself suggest in any way that it’s fruity, or only thoughts say so?

The sensation of thirst arises and thirst wants a drink

Yes, a sensation of thirst arise… although ‘thirst’ is just a mental label on the pure sensation. Can you see it?

But is this really true that the thirst wants to drink?
How could a sensation want anything?
Or is this just another story about the pure sensation?

Vivien: What is ‘MY OWN’ in this sentence point to?

Kevin: Direct experience versus non-direct experience.

So is there direct experience and non-direct experience?
If so, how non-direct experience is experienced?
Where is this non-direct experience exactly?

That which is not known (like non-direct experience) is not knowable. Such a ‘thing’ is just an idea. And what is an idea? The content of an appearing thought.
Can you see this?

There is a greater awareness, direct experience of reality,

Is there such thing as greater or smaller awareness, or only thought stories about it?

You’re comments about awareness implies two things:

• (1) That there is a separation between awareness and the ‘awared’
  (2) Awareness is the property of the body or coming from the body or somehow linked to the body

Furthermore, there is another unexamined assumption here, the belief in an independent reality.

There is nothing that has the experience. There is only the experience, the awareness itself.

This sentence imply that there is a stand alone, independent awareness to witch things appears. It suggests that there is an independent awareness that is separate from everything else. That is aware of the experience. So let’s have a look if this really the case.

Is there a standalone awareness somewhere outside of the actual experience?

Is there a thought without the awareness of it?
Is there awareness without any experience?

If so, where is the dividing line exactly between the thought and the awareness of it?
Where is the dividing line exactly between the experience and the awareness of it?

Where does a sensation end and the awareness of it starts?
Where does a sound end and the awareness of it starts?

Are there two things, ‘the awareness’ and the ‘awared’ (experience), or is there only one seamless experience?

Love, Vivien

[Myrmidonktm]

Hello Vivien :)

What is it that could or couldn’t be here and now?

I would have to say "Presence". There is a sense of abiding presence when not lost in thought, not lost in thinking. In getting lost in thinking it is easy for reality to go unnoticed, unexperienced. The person that walks into a pole or closed door can be said to be "not here".

How is it known exactly that the smell is fruity?
Does the smell itself suggest in any way that it’s fruity, or only thoughts say so?

Thought labels the smell as "fruity". However, some thought description is necessary to communicate the experience. Otherwise the description would just be "smelling".

Yes, a sensation of thirst arise… although ‘thirst’ is just a mental label on the pure sensation. Can you see it?

It is only a sensation and thought labels this sensation as thirst.

But is this really true that the thirst wants to drink?
How could a sensation want anything?
Or is this just another story about the pure sensation?

The sensation causes the thought story to arise "This body is thirsty and needs to drink." Thirst does not "want" a drink, it is only the sensation.

So is there direct experience and non-direct experience?

In this, thought was labeling "belief"(the science/brain thing) as non-direct experience. "Believing someone else's thought as truth" so to speak.

If so, how non-direct experience is experienced?
Where is this non-direct experience exactly?

There is no non-direct experience. There is only direct experience and No experience.

That which is not known (like non-direct experience) is not knowable. Such a ‘thing’ is just an idea. And what is an idea? The content of an appearing thought.
Can you see this?

Absolutely

Is there such thing as greater or smaller awareness, or only thought stories about it?

We can call it "Awareness" or "Mindfulness", but in my experience yes, there is definitely such a thing as greater and lesser degrees of it. Again, a person walking into a pole that was there all along and doesn't move itself into the persons path.

Is there a standalone awareness somewhere outside of the actual experience?

No. Awareness is the experience.

Is there a thought without the awareness of it?

No.

Is there awareness without any experience?

No. Awareness is the experience.

If so, where is the dividing line exactly between the thought and the awareness of it?
Where is the dividing line exactly between the experience and the awareness of it?

There is no division.

Where does a sensation end and the awareness of it starts?

There is no such thing.

Where does a sound end and the awareness of it starts?

Again, no such division between hearing and what is heard.

Are there two things, ‘the awareness’ and the ‘awared’ (experience), or is there only one seamless experience?

It is one seamless experience. There is no division between the senses and the sensation.

Thanks :)
Kevin

[Vivien]

Dear Kevin,

There is a sense of abiding presence

What is the ACTUAL experience of an ABIDING presence? (Especially with the emphasis on the word ‘abiding’)
WHAT is it EXACTLY that could or could not abide in presence?

Is there ANYTHING outside of presence?

Is there anything outside of this moment (either in time or in space)?

There is a sense of abiding presence when not lost in thought, not lost in thinking.

WHAT is it EXACTLY that could be lost in thinking/thoughts? – look very carefully.

getting lost in thinking it is easy for reality to go unnoticed, unexperienced.

There is an assumption here that there is an independent reality out there, somewhere waiting for me to discover it, or to connect to it. But is this really the case?

So let’s talk about ‘reality’ then. We use the word ‘reality’ with direct pointing to distinguish the mental narrative, images and concepts from what is really IS instead of what thoughts suggest what is. However, the word ‘reality’ suggests an objective 'thing' that exists outside of the knowing of it.

So, if we go a step further…
Can we say that there is an objective, independent reality?
What it could be objective and independent from?
If a tree falls in a forest but nobody is around to hear it, is there a sound?
Is there a sound without the knowing of it?
And what about the tree? :) :)

The person that walks into a pole or closed door can be said to be "not here".

I’m not sure that I get this metaphor, so could you please rephrase it with other words?

The sensation causes the thought story to arise "This body is thirsty and needs to drink." Thirst does not "want" a drink, it is only the sensation.

“The sensation causes the thought story to arise” – this cause-effect relation implies time.
Without the concept of time, how is it known that the sensation is the cause of the thought story?

If you go to the ACTUAL experience is there REALLY a connection between the sensation and the story of hunger or only thoughts suggest this?

There is no non-direct experience. There is only direct experience and No experience.

With ‘no experience’ do you refer to a thought story?
If so, the appearing thought itself isn’t directly experienced? Not the ‘content’, what it’s about, but the thought itself?

How ‘no experience’ is experienced?
If you say it cannot be experienced, then how is it known that there is such thing as ‘no experience’?

We can call it "Awareness" or "Mindfulness", but in my experience yes, there is definitely such a thing as greater and lesser degrees of it.

OK. This comment is based on the belief what I posted previously that awareness is the property of the body or coming from the body or somehow linked to the body. We will come back to this later after the previous topics.

Love, Vivien

[Myrmidonktm]

Hey Vivien,

What is the ACTUAL experience of an ABIDING presence? (Especially with the emphasis on the word ‘abiding’)

An absence of thought.

WHAT is it EXACTLY that could or could not abide in presence?

Is there ANYTHING outside of presence?

Is there anything outside of this moment (either in time or in space)?

WHAT is it EXACTLY that could be lost in thinking/thoughts? – look very carefully.

Can we say that there is an objective, independent reality?

and

What it could be objective and independent from?

I'm sorry but I don't know what this might refer to.

If a tree falls in a forest but nobody is around to hear it, is there a sound?

If there is no hearing of it, there is no "heard"...no sound.

Is there a sound without the knowing of it?

No.

And what about the tree? :) :)

No.

The person that walks into a pole or closed door can be said to be "not here".
I’m not sure that I get this metaphor, so could you please rephrase it with other words?

A person lost in thought, distracted, not paying attention to what is around them, walks into an object they failed to see, attempts to sit in a chair that is not there, walks into a door that is not open.

Without the concept of time, how is it known that the sensation is the cause of the thought story?

I am not sure where time comes in.

If you go to the ACTUAL experience is there REALLY a connection between the sensation and the story of hunger or only thoughts suggest this?

Thought suggests the connection.

With ‘no experience’ do you refer to a thought story?

No Experience refers to a thought story. A person that has never climbed a mountain has no experience of climbing a mountain.

If so, the appearing thought itself isn’t directly experienced? Not the ‘content’, what it’s about, but the thought itself?

The thought itself is experienced.

How ‘no experience’ is experienced?

"No experience" is experienced as thought. Such as, "That person doesn't know how to drive because they have never driven."

If you say it cannot be experienced, then how is it known that there is such thing as ‘no experience’?

This is not saying it cannot be experienced, only that something has not been experienced.

Thanks Vivien :)
Kevin

[Myrmidonktm]

Sorry, left some out...

WHAT is it EXACTLY that could or could not abide in presence?

I'm not sure I grasp this question. The sense of presence is not an "it", not a "thing". A thought label would be "life itself" has presence.

Is there ANYTHING outside of presence?

No. There is nothing outside of presence.

Is there anything outside of this moment (either in time or in space)?

No. This moment is all there is.

WHAT is it EXACTLY that could be lost in thinking/thoughts? – look very carefully.

Thought. Thought after thought after thought.

[Vivien]

Dear Kevin,

Vivien: What is the ACTUAL experience of an ABIDING presence? (Especially with the emphasis on the word ‘abiding’)

Kevin: An absence of thought.

I have several comments on this.

1. First, ‘abiding presence’ is just a thought concept, therefore it cannot be experienced. There are only thoughts about it, but ‘abiding presence’ as such cannot be experienced. But you have to see it for yourself.

2. This is still a story about a separate entity (maybe the body) that could abide in presence or anything. So it’s based on the belief that there is a ‘something’ that is after a certain state (absence of thought) and when this happens it can be abide in presence. This is separation.

So there are two separate objects:

• (1) the ‘think’ that could abide
  (2) and the presence in which the ‘thing’ could abide

But actually, none of them exists. Both of them are just concepts and based on separation and the belief in time (constantly trying to achieve something in the future or obtaining continuous state).

3. Furthermore, there is a belief here that liberation is about having no thoughts, or just very little thoughts or just certain type of thoughts. But it doesn’t matter if there are thoughts or not or what kind of thoughts appear at all, if there is not an owner who could claim that “I am abiding in presence” or “I am thinking much less” or whatever.

In later comments you wrote:

The sense of presence is not an "it", not a "thing". A thought label would be "life itself" has presence.

and

There is nothing outside of presence.

Yes, so these statements seem to be contradictory with your first reply. (Actually, in the last few days, I see the same contradiction in all your posts.)

So it seems that it’s clear for you by now that there is no separate entity in the body governing and owning life, but the body itself is not seen through. So the ‘thing’ that might could ‘abide in presence’ is the body.

A person lost in thought, distracted, not paying attention to what is around them, walks into an object they failed to see, attempts to sit in a chair that is not there, walks into a door that is not open.

Thanks for explaining this.

So what the word ‘person’ refer to in this sentence? To the body?

Please read through my comments several times and look where I’m trying to point at. Feel free to comment any parts of it.

Dear Kevin, I’m quite a thorough with inquiries, and I try to help to see through not only the self, but through separation as well. However, it’s totally up to you how deep you would like to go. Please let me know. :)

Love, Vivien

[Myrmidonktm]

Thanks Vivien :)

Please read through my comments several times and look where I’m trying to point at.

Time and Time again...and again. "See'er and Seen are not two".

So what the word ‘person’ refer to in this sentence? To the body?

"Person" would be just a word to convey what is seen.

I’m quite a thorough with inquiries, and I try to help to see through not only the self, but through separation as well.

Let's keep going :)

Thanks so much Vivien !!
Kevin

[Vivien]

Dear Kevin,

Please describe as thoroughly as you can what the body exactly is.

Love, Vivien

[Myrmidonktm]

Thanks Vivien,

Please describe the body

The body sees, hears, smells, tastes, touches. It is the point from which reality is experienced.

Thanks
Kevin

[Vivien]

Dear Kevin,

The body sees, hears, smells, tastes, touches. It is the point from which reality is experienced.

And this is the BASIS of the SENSE of separation…

Ok…. Let’s investigate how the body actually is doing the hearing.

So you say that there is a subject (body or ears) that is doing the hearing of an object (sound). So there is an actor / doer (the body or ears) that are separate from what is heard. But is this REALLY the case? Or only thoughts say so?

So let’s a deep look on this. Please spend as much time as you can on investigating hearing only.

So, how is it known exactly that the body hears?

Pay attention to a sound. And find that which hears. What exactly? The ears?

The attention automatically goes to the sensations that are labelled as ‘ears’.
Also, there is a simultaneously appearing mental image of the ears. Can you see this?

Other then sensations and mental images is there anything to an ear?

What is the ACTUAL experience of an ear? – not what thoughts say, but what is REALLY there.

Love, Vivien