Thread for Michaellt017

[Michaellt017]

Hi Vivien,

Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes. With only the input from the pure sensations, and without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?

no

Does it have a weight or a volume of the body?

no

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

no

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?

no, there is just the experience of 'touch (label)'.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

no, there is just the experience of touch and temperature (this temperature is labelled ‘warm’)

Is there an inside or outside?

no

If there is an inside, inside of exactly what?

no

What outside is outside of?

no

What does the word ‘body’ is ACTUALLY refer to?

The word body points to an assumed body, a fantasy. There is only the direct experience of ‘contact / touch’ between real objects/things which have been labelled ‘chair, body, clothes and temperature’.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

There is no ACTUAL experience of the body, there is just the direct experience of ‘contact (label)’ between real things that have in this exercise been labelled ‘body’, ‘chair’, ‘clothes’ and ‘temperature’.

Interesting exercise...I'll be repeating this one quite often


have a great day Vivien!

Michael

[Vivien]

Dear Michael,

there is just the experience of touch and temperature (this temperature is labelled ‘warm’)

Look at this very closely…

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that “it’s temperature”?
Does the pure sensation have ANY attributes or characteristics?

The word body points to an assumed body, a fantasy. There is only the direct experience of ‘contact / touch’ between real objects/things which have been labelled ‘chair, body, clothes and temperature’.

and

There is no ACTUAL experience of the body, there is just the direct experience of ‘contact (label)’ between real things that have in this exercise been labelled ‘body’, ‘chair’, ‘clothes’ and ‘temperature’.

Please read the two above comments and see how contradictory they are.

At first you say that “the world body points to an ASSUMED body, a FANTASY”. You also say that there is no direct experience of a body…

But on the other hand you write that there is only direct experience of ‘contact/touch’ between real objects/things that are labelled as ‘body’, ‘chair’, etc.

If there is no direct experience of a ‘body’ and the world ‘body’ points to an assumption, then how is it possible that there are a contact between real objects (like body and chair)?

What is the ACTUAL experience of ‘contact’?

What is the ACTUAL experience of ‘objects’?

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that a body (subject) is touching or contacting a ‘chair’ (object)?
Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that a body (subject) is touching or contacting ‘clothing’ (object)?

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that two things are experienced (a body + a chair) that are ‘connected’ through touching, or only thoughts and mental images suggest this?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that two things are experienced (a body + clothing) that are ‘connected’ through touching, or only thoughts and mental images suggest this?

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that there is a body or chair or clothing at all, or is there only one SINGLE sensation without saying or suggesting anything?

Are there two things experienced (body and chair/clothing)?
If no, how is it known EXACTLY that there are two things contacting each other? – (hint: look for images)

Take your time. Look very carefully.

Love, Vivien

[Michaellt017]

Dear Vivien,

Thanks for this...

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that “it’s temperature”?
Does the pure sensation have ANY attributes or characteristics?

No it does not suggest it, I had stopped just looking, words / content arose, first there was just pure sensation (good description), then there were words and content.
Pure sensation is only sensation; attributes and characteristic are thought content

What does the word 'body' is ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
The word body points to an assumed body, a fantasy. There is only the direct experience of ‘contact / touch’ between real objects/things which have been labelled ‘chair, body, clothes and temperature’.

and

There is no ACTUAL experience of the body, there is just the direct experience of ‘contact (label)’ between real things that have in this exercise been labelled ‘body’, ‘chair’, ‘clothes’ and ‘temperature’.

Please read the two above comments and see how contradictory they are.

At first you say that “the world body points to an ASSUMED body, a FANTASY”. You also say that there is no direct experience of a body…

But on the other hand you write that there is only direct experience of ‘contact/touch’ between real objects/things that are labelled as ‘body’, ‘chair’, etc.

If there is no direct experience of a ‘body’ and the world ‘body’ points to an assumption, then how is it possible that there are a contact between real objects (like body and chair)?

Heavy stuff Vivien :)

Lot of words here.....
1. My eyes are closed and you’ve told me this body is sitting and covered.
I cannot see to confirm any part of the body (whole or part), chair or clothes visually, there are no thoughts arising as a result of seeing.
There is a sensation, thought arises, (contact between a part of the body (legs and buttocks) and a chair, and a part of the body (arms) and clothes).
There is no sensation of for example the back of my hands, and many other areas.
The word body arises to label what is experienced as body. The word can only label what is experienced, everything else arises as either content of thought or it does not exist, non-existence is also content of thought.

2.
Yes I get it,... there is the direct experience of sensation. Contents of thought label the sensation as part of the body touching an object.
With eyes closed content of thought “will just guess”, sitting on a box, a park bench etc. or I am wearing a T-shirt, a vest.
If the eyes are opened there is the direct experience of seeing, words arise to label what is seen, chair, shirt, legs, arms.
With eyes closed the actually direct experience is sensation, there is no object.

What is the ACTUAL experience of ‘contact’?

pure sensation, (much better pointing word than contact)

What is the ACTUAL experience of ‘objects’?

There isn’t, there is just pure sensation

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that a body (subject) is touching or contacting a ‘chair’ (object)?

No, only pure sensation

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that a body (subject) is touching or contacting ‘clothing’ (object)?

No, only pure sensation

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that two things are experienced (a body + a chair) that are ‘connected’ through touching, or only thoughts and mental images suggest this?

No, only pure sensation

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that two things are experienced (a body + clothing) that are ‘connected’ through touching, or only thoughts and mental images suggest this?

No, only pure sensation

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that there is a body or chair or clothing at all, or is there only one SINGLE sensation without saying or suggesting anything?

Nice...., there is only one single sensation that does not suggest anything.

Are there two things experienced (body and chair/clothing)?

No, only pure sensation

If no, how is it known EXACTLY that there are two things contacting each other? – (hint: look for images)

In direct experience it can’t be known, there is only pure sensation.

If there is thought, and the contents of this thought says there are two things touching each other, this is just content arising and is not the object(s).

If the eyes are opened, there is the seeing that something (part of the body seen) is "sitting (label)" on something (part of the chair seen). Without that label (sitting / contacting) there is no separation between "objects (label).

Seeing sees just "what is", no seeing just sees, NO there is just seeing, "what is" and "sees" is content of thought.

I noticed you used the word contacting, whereas earlier you used the word connected, was that intentional?

Lots of thoughts, esp...

– (hint: look for images)

so the thought doubt arises,

there is only the direct experience of sensation, this is all that is "EXACT (label)" :)


Looking forward to your feedback on this one…

warm regards

Michael

[Vivien]

Dear Michael,

Very nice looking on the body :)

Pure sensation is only sensation; attributes and characteristic are thought content

Yes

If the eyes are opened, there is the seeing that something (part of the body seen) is "sitting (label)" on something (part of the chair seen). Without that label (sitting / contacting) there is no separation between "objects (label).

Nice looking :)

You say: “without that label (sitting / contacting) there is no separation between objects (label).” – and with labels are there REALLY separation, or it just SEEMS to be?

Can a label/thought make separation happen?
Can a label/thought do anything?

What is the ACTUAL experience of separation? – look very carefully.

I noticed you used the word contacting, whereas earlier you used the word connected, was that intentional?

No, it wasn’t. It doesn’t matter what label we use.

Here is an interesting exercise. I show you this because you have an interest in seeing what the body really is. :)

• 1. Close the eyes and hold up one of the hands. 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 sight, the ‘object’ seen (hand).

But actually, is there any link between the sensation and the sight, meaning that the sensation is ‘coming from’ the sight (labelled as hand) or only thoughts and mental constructs link them?

Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ 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?


Love, Vivien

[Michaellt017]

Dear Vivien,

Great stuff Vivien!

You say: “without that label (sitting / contacting) there is no separation between objects (label).” – and with labels are there REALLY separation, or it just SEEMS to be?

Yes, saw it after it was published; a label it just a label, the word “separation” is a label, the word “seems” is just a label. Thought content tells a story of separation, in direct experience there is just sensing (I was going to say of oneness, but that’s word content), ah-ha, sensing implies (as a label/story) there is something sensing… direct experience is the sensation…

Can a label/thought make separation happen?

no

Can a label/thought do anything?

no

What is the ACTUAL experience of separation? – look very carefully.

There is actually no experience of separation, there is however the experience of the word / content / label “separation”

Here is an interesting exercise. I show you this because you have an interest in seeing what the body really is. :)
1. Close the eyes and hold up one of the hands. 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 sight, the ‘object’ seen (hand).

Glad you mentioned this, it explains something often observed, for example, if there is the seeing of seagulls wheeling and soaring in the sky there is a sense of their movement, often though, it seems be “in my chest”, sometimes elsewhere. If I close my eyes this sensation stops.
Not sure what this “in my chest” thing is, or other sensations that words and content cannot label.
It seems less important now… Thanks for that Vivien.

But actually, is there any link between the sensation and the sight, meaning that the sensation is ‘coming from’ the sight (labelled as hand) or only thoughts and mental constructs link them?

No, there is no link between sensation and sight in this exercise, there are thoughts about it

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

Yes, I can see this

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

Yes, I can see this.


That was great Vivien, thanks.

Warm regards

Michael

[Vivien]

Dear Michael,

There is actually no experience of separation, there is however the experience of the word / content / label “separation”

OK, just to clarify this. So… there is an actual experience of an appearing thought (label)… but separation as such cannot be experienced. There are only THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘separation’, but separation as such cannot be found.
Is this clearly seen?

No, there is no link between sensation and sight in this exercise, there are thoughts about it

You can ‘expand’ this exercise to the ‘whole body’. Actually, I rather don’t call it as an exercise, because it’s not something to see once and then go to the next exercise and forget about it. I’d rather call it as an investigation to look this again and again and again… eventually it becomes a habit.

So you can repeat this with all of the body parts bellow, one-by-one. Spend a considerable amount of time (haha :) on each of them:

- feet
- legs
- arms
- belly
- chest
- head (looking into the mirror)

Please tell me how it goes. Have fun :) :)

Is there anything regarding the body you would like to explore?

Love, Vivien

[Michaellt017]

Dear Vivien,

A “strange” day today…, loads of thoughts arising….couldn’t see the forest for the trees, or is it the other way around… always lose it before a full moon…DE full moon…

OK, just to clarify this. So… there is an actual experience of an appearing thought (label)… but separation as such cannot be experienced. There are only THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘separation’, but separation as such cannot be found.
Is this clearly seen?

Yes this is seen…clearly?

You can ‘expand’ this exercise to the ‘whole body’. Actually, I rather don’t call it as an exercise, because it’s not something to see once and then go to the next exercise and forget about it. I’d rather call it as an investigation to look this again and again and again… eventually it becomes a habit.

So you can repeat this with all of the body parts bellow, one-by-one. Spend a considerable amount of time (haha :) on each of them:

- feet
- legs
- arms
- belly
- chest
- head (looking into the mirror)

I did these investigations “a considerable number of times”, and as easy as it seems to be, perhaps something...but I struggled with it. I am not sure if it was DE or thought content but the idea that there is “sight” and “sensation” seems dual arose. The DE, or was it thought arose that that this all happens as singular awareness, within awareness…

Anyway I gave it up…sat for a long time looking out the window…clouds, birds, trees, could "feel" it all. Seemed more that everything is awareness…couldn’t focus though and left it.

Went to the shops, everything seemed so “unreal” or “plastic”, had to get out of the shop.
Unsubscribed from a number of email subscriptions, deleted my Facebook account...so much clutter (and content).
Sat with a friend, had a few beers, all that repetitive meaningless babble (even my own responses seemed like a worn out parrot, but “I” could see that it was so).
Went for a cycle ride, looked at the trees, (in) the (eyes of) people, strange that feeling of symbiosis with them, as if it’s a symbiosis with myself...
Myself? it's more that there is looking into the eyes of the same life / awareness. uhh...In "standard daily view" I can look into the mirror and see my eyes looking back...but this is more looking into the awareness that encompasses everything...uhh...give me a few days on this one.
Loads more stuff, just don't want to go into it right now...
conceptually there is this “everything is awareness” and “I” was in it, but that’s ridiculous…there is no I…but "I" am a part of “life / awareness” seems too much to fathom today.

Sorry, not clear today…as "thought content" there is a full moon thing for the coming two days...


Is there anything regarding the body you would like to explore?

Can’t help recall your comments from day one, “the more you put in the more your get of it”. So yes..
Although I said earlier I had no interest I want to investigate the physical sensation of apparent external phenomena (full moon, rain, sunset, movement, people) and also physical experience of emotion…

Love, Michael

[Vivien]

Dear Michael,

Myself? it's more that there is looking into the eyes of the same life / awareness. uhh...In "standard daily view" I can look into the mirror and see my eyes looking back...but this is more looking into the awareness that encompasses everything...uhh...give me a few days on this one.

How is it known exactly that the eyes in the mirror are looking back?
How is it known at all that those eyes in the mirror can see?

It’s generally believed that awareness is contained in the body, or coming from the body, so somehow linked to the body. So, in this case there would be two things:

• (1) a body which
  (2) awareness is originate from.

But is this really the case? Are there really two? Let’s investigate this a bit. First you have to be able to clearly see that what the body really is.

So close the eyes and scan through the body for several minutes.
Is there anything else present than (1) sensations and (2) mental images (about the body or certain body parts)?

Then open the eyes and look at the body (like hands).
Is there anything else present than (1) sensations and (2) a visual image (perception of seeing)?

Can you see that the body is nothing else than a bunch of sensation + some images + a word label ‘body’?

So tell me, how could a sensation be aware or own awareness?
How could a mental image be aware or own awareness?
How could a visual sight be aware or own awareness?
How could a word label be aware or own awareness?

Sensations, images and sight (the perception of seeing) are ALL experienced. They don’t own experiencing or do experiencing… And the body is nothing more than sensations, images and the perception of seeing (sight). So….?


It is also implied that there is an independent awareness that is separate from everything else. That is aware of the experience. LOOK closely… We are interested only in ACTUAL EXPERIENTIAL evidence.

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?

Vivien: Is there anything regarding the body you would like to explore?

Michael: Can’t help recall your comments from day one, “the more you put in the more your get of it”. So yes..
Although I said earlier I had no interest I want to investigate the physical sensation of apparent external phenomena (full moon, rain, sunset, movement, people) and also physical experience of emotion…

All right. Just get through this awareness thing first.

Please take your time. Investigate this in the next few days as often as you can. Don't rush with replying.

Love, Vivien

[Michaellt017]

Dear Vivien,

Myself? It’s more that there is looking into the eyes of the same life / awareness. uhh...In "standard daily view" I can look into the mirror and see my eyes looking back...but this is more looking into the awareness that encompasses everything...uhh...give me a few days on this one.


How is it known exactly that the eyes in the mirror are looking back?
How is it known at all that those eyes in the mirror can see?

I have to be careful with my figure of speech! It is quite a stupid thing to say though…
It can’t be known that the eyes are looking back or can see, in fact there are no eyes there all, just an image labelled eyes…

It’s generally believed that awareness is contained in the body, or coming from the body, so somehow linked to the body. So, in this case there would be two things:
(1) a body which
(2) awareness is originate from.

But is this really the case? Are there really two? Let’s investigate this a bit. First you have to be able to clearly see that what the body really is.

a body which…?

So close the eyes and scan through the body for several minutes.
Is there anything else present than (1) sensations and (2) mental images (about the body or certain body parts)?

No

Then open the eyes and look at the body (like hands).
Is there anything else present than (1) sensations and (2) a visual image (perception of seeing)?

No

Can you see that the body is nothing else than a bunch of sensation + some images + a word label ‘body’?

Yes

So tell me, how could a sensation be aware or own awareness?

It can't

How could a mental image be aware or own awareness?

It can't

How could a visual sight be aware or own awareness?

It can't

How could a word label be aware or own awareness?

It can't

What i was trying to say is that sensation is within awareness.
Awareness of sensation doesn't seem correct, then there is separation…direct experience is awareness…this "feels odd" too, but that is because of the labels and conceptualising that are arising that suggest awareness is in head space.

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

no

Is there a thought without the awareness of it?

no

Is there awareness without any experience?

no

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

there isn’t

Where is the dividing line exactly between the experience and the awareness of it?

there isn’t

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

There is no end or start, they are one

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

There is no end or start, they are one

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

there isn’t, seeing and the seen are one and the same, awareness and the experienced are not separate from each other, there is only awareness…

That last investigation
- feet
- legs
- arms
- belly
- chest
- head (looking into the mirror)

There is only awareness “a la” seeing (sight)and sensation,
- feet, leg, arms, belly, chest, head (looking into the mirror)are labels

Vivien: Is there anything regarding the body you would like to explore?

Michael: Can’t help recall your comments from day one, “the more you put in the more your get of it”. So yes..
Although I said earlier I had no interest I want to investigate the physical sensation of apparent external phenomena (full moon, rain, sunset, movement, people) and also physical experience of emotion…

All right. Just get through this awareness thing first.

Is this necessary..., labelling the "unlabelled" just creates new stories...
Then again if you think it would be helpful examining this to move forward, I am all for it

warm regards

Michael

[Vivien]

Dear Michael,

there isn’t, seeing and the seen are one and the same, awareness and the experienced are not separate from each other, there is only awareness…

If there is no separation between awareness and experience, and they are actually the one and the same, then how is it possible that there is only awareness?

Isn’t this just a logical (thought) conclusion?

What is the ACTUAL experience that there is only awareness? – look very-very carefully.

There is only awareness “a la” seeing (sight)and sensation,
- feet, leg, arms, belly, chest, head (looking into the mirror)are labels

This sentence assumes that there is only awareness (subject) which sight and sensation (objects) appear IN. So there are two:

• (1) awareness (subject)
  (2) sight, sensation (objects)

But is this really the actual experience?

What is the ACTUAL experience of ‘objects appearing IN awareness’?

Vivien: It’s generally believed that awareness is contained in the body, or coming from the body, so somehow linked to the body. So, in this case there would be two things:
(1) a body which
(2) awareness is originate from.
But is this really the case? Are there really two? Let’s investigate this a bit. First you have to be able to clearly see that what the body really is.

Michael: a body which…?

and

What i was trying to say is that sensation is within awareness.
Awareness of sensation doesn't seem correct, then there is separation…direct experience is awareness…this "feels odd" too, but that is because of the labels and conceptualising that are arising that suggest awareness is in head space.

Please describe what ‘head space’ refer to…

And also… what is the ACTUAL experience of ‘head space’?

“labels and conceptualising that are arising that suggest awareness is in head space.” – this is exactly I tried to point out it the above comment.

This suggests that there are two (a body + awareness)… that the awareness is coming FROM or contained IN, or somehow linked to the body. But is this REALLY the case?

There is no separation between the so called subject and the object. All seeming separation created by thinking.

Saying that thoughts appear in awareness is separation. So thoughts can be observed from the distance (from the point of view of awareness). But there is no distance.

There is zero distance between the appearing thought and the awareness of it. The thought itself is the awareness of it. There is no sensation without the awareness of it, and there is no awareness without the sensation. None of them can stand alone. Actually, there are no two. They are one. They are the same. There is no subject-object relation at all.

Experience is NOT divided into a perceiving subject (awareness) and a perceived object which are connected through an act of perceiving. There is only perception.

The body doesn’t have awareness. Quite the opposite. The body is being ‘awared’ / experienced.
Can you see this?

But even this is not quite right, because it suggest an independent awareness that is aware of an independent body. But actually, there is no separation between awareness and the body (which is nothing more than sensation + image + word ‘body’).

The awareness of the sensation and the sensation ‘itself’ are ONE and the same.
The awareness of the image and the image ‘itself’ are ONE and the same.
The awareness of the word label ‘body’ and the label ‘itself’ are ONE and the same.

Can you see this?

Love, Vivien

[Michaellt017]

Dear Vivien,

there isn’t, seeing and the seen are one and the same, awareness and the experienced are not separate from each other, there is only awareness…

If there is no separation between awareness and experience, and they are actually the one and the same, then how is it possible that there is only awareness?

What I meant is, “what is considered awareness and experience in the daily thought / label / story orientated world as two separate things or one within the other” is actually only one thing, awareness (verb).

Isn’t this just a logical (thought) conclusion?

Could be, the more thoughts that arise (after questions) the more logical it becomes...
Investigation can’t identify awareness and experience as separate…there is just (in the case of visual awareness) seeing. But is the description “seeing and the seen are only one thing” the same as “awareness and the experienced are only one thing”

There is also awareness of words…
Words arise just as sensations do (no choice, decision) the implication (logic) is that words and awareness are only one thing.

What is the ACTUAL experience that there is only awareness? – look very-very carefully.

I don’t know…., all experience is unified?

There is only awareness “a la” seeing (sight) and sensation,
- feet, leg, arms, belly, chest, head (looking into the mirror) are labels

This sentence assumes that there is only awareness (subject) which sight and sensation (objects) appear IN. So there are two:
(1) awareness (subject)
(2) sight, sensation (objects)

No…I didn’t mean that. There is only awareness, and by “a la” it was meant to communicate the idea that “awareness” is via “what in the daily thought / label / story orientated world” is regarded as sight.

But is this really the actual experience?

There is nothing to confirm the separation of awareness and experience. “It's all unified”

What is the ACTUAL experience of ‘objects appearing IN awareness’?

There is no experience of an object in awareness, only the awareness of/as image or sensation.

Vivien: It’s generally believed that awareness is contained in the body, or coming from the body, so somehow linked to the body. So, in this case there would be two things:
(1) a body which
(2) awareness is originate from.
But is this really the case? Are there really two? Let’s investigate this a bit. First you have to be able to clearly see that what the body really is.

Michael: a body which…?

and

What i was trying to say is that sensation is within awareness.
Awareness of sensation doesn't seem correct, then there is separation…direct experience is awareness…this "feels odd" too, but that is because of the labels and conceptualising that are arising that suggest awareness is in head space.

Please describe what ‘head space’ refer to…
And also… what is the ACTUAL experience of ‘head space’?

Head space seems to be where thoughts and thinking arise (this is not even a “where / place”), thoughts sugges this does not happen in my big toe, it "seems" to occur in what is labelled “head”. With eyes closed there is a “visual” experience of the back of my eye lids, (back of, inside of give the illusion of inside…space) this is also a story.
Head space is the sum of direct experience, + the thought and labels that tell the story that large presence of experience is sensed via the head (seeing, smelling, tasting, hearing, and thinking.)

“labels and conceptualising that are arising that suggest awareness is in head space.” – this is exactly I tried to point out it the above comment.

This suggests that there are two (a body + awareness)… that the awareness is coming FROM or contained IN, or somehow linked to the body. But is this REALLY the case?

I get the body and awareness is one,… just the thoughts arising create "duality".

If there are thoughts "about" something, thoughts about duality arise.
Thought does not have the "same quality" as sensation.

There is no separation between the so called subject and the object. All seeming separation created by thinking.

Saying that thoughts appear in awareness is separation. So thoughts can be observed from the distance (from the point of view of awareness). But there is no distance.

There is zero distance between the appearing thought and the awareness of it.
The thought itself is the awareness of it.
There is no sensation without the awareness of it, and there is no awareness without the sensation.
None of them can stand alone.
Actually, there are no two. They are one. They are the same.
There is no subject-object relation at all.

The thought itself is the awareness of it.

Nice…

Experience is NOT divided into a perceiving subject (awareness) and a perceived object which are connected through an act of perceiving. There is only perception.

The body doesn’t have awareness. Quite the opposite. The body is being ‘awared’ / experienced.
Can you see this?

yes

But even this is not quite right, because it suggest an independent awareness that is aware of an independent body. But actually, there is no separation between awareness and the body (which is nothing more than sensation + image + word ‘body’).

The awareness of the sensation and the sensation ‘itself’ are ONE and the same.
The awareness of the image and the image ‘itself’ are ONE and the same.
The awareness of the word label ‘body’ and the label ‘itself’ are ONE and the same.

Can you see this? .

I see this…
This is what I was trying to say in my last forum comment, “seeing and the seen are one and the same”. But your sentence “The awareness of the sensation and the sensation ‘itself’ are ONE and the same.”…just with that word “of” confused thoughts arise …
Is “awareness” the whole thing? “The awareness is the sensation and the sensation ‘itself’” … is ONE and the same”

Struggle with, “The awareness of the word label ‘body’ and the label ‘itself’ are ONE and the same”, because there are words being used to describe “The awareness of the word label ‘body’ and the label ‘itself’ are ONE and the same”…
Just the words “awareness of” suggest duality.
“Awareness is the word/thought and the word/thought ‘itself’” is a real "perception of self" destroyer.


Do you have any investigation methods for “thought, thinking and awareness as one and the same”.

You’ve used the words perceiving, awareness. Are you using these the same way?
Perceiving implies mental construct, awareness just witnessing (without a witnesser) (these are just stories...).
Are then awaring, witnessing, perceiving … as verbs (WITHOUT a source) synonymous.

Way too many words today…not good at all

Warm regards
Michael

[Vivien]

Dear Michael,

This is what I was trying to say in my last forum comment, “seeing and the seen are one and the same”. But your sentence “The awareness of the sensation and the sensation ‘itself’ are ONE and the same.”…just with that word “of” confused thoughts arise …
Is “awareness” the whole thing? “The awareness is the sensation and the sensation ‘itself’” … is ONE and the same”
Struggle with, “The awareness of the word label ‘body’ and the label ‘itself’ are ONE and the same”, because there are words being used to describe “The awareness of the word label ‘body’ and the label ‘itself’ are ONE and the same”…
Just the words “awareness of” suggest duality.
“Awareness is the word/thought and the word/thought ‘itself’” is a real "perception of self" destroyer.

Yes, I agree with you. These words suggest duality. Putting these into words without implying duality is quite difficult, because subject-object relation is ‘built in’ language.

Do you have any investigation methods for “thought, thinking and awareness as one and the same”.

Our investigation currently is well beyond the general no-separate-self inquiry. :) Whet it is cleary seen that there has never been a separate self, as a next step, there are further six questions to ask as part of this guiding process. The response is then shared with other guides. They may or may not have further questions.

Once it is confirmed by other guides that seeing through the illusion of the self has happened, our conversation in this thread will come to an end, however we can open a new thread in another part of the forum for further investigation. There is a whole community of others on FB (exclusive LU community), who have also seen through the ‘separate-self’.

Has it been clearly 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 '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?

You’ve used the words perceiving, awareness. Are you using these the same way?

No. I use synonymously the words ‘awareness’ and ‘experience’, but not ‘perceiving’.

‘Perceiving’ is the present participle of the verb ‘perceive’. A verb implies not just a doer, but an action. A verb is an action, a doing. In order to an action take place not just a doer (in case of seeing the doer might be the eyes or the body) is needed, but time in which the action (the perception of seeing) unfolds.

So the word ‘perceiving’ assumes :

• 1. a perceiver, a doer (who / what performs the ‘act’ of perceiving)
  2. the ‘act’ of perceiving (as an action)
  3. time in which the ‘act’ of perceiving unfolds

What we haven’t investigated so far from this list is time, but we can do that later with the further investigation.

So are you ready for the six questions?

Love, Vivien

[Michaellt017]

Dear Vivien,

Has it been clearly seen that there has never been an ‘I’ that could control or own life or anything?

Yes, it has been clearly seen that I (me and mine) are a thought, and cannot control or own anything

Is there any chooser or decider of any kind?

No

Is there an 'I' of any kind whatsoever that could be responsible for anything at all?

No

Do others have responsibilities?

No

Is there a 'you' that started this investigation?

No

Has there ever been a 'you' doing anything?

No

You’ve used the words perceiving, awareness. Are you using these the same way?

No. I use synonymously the words ‘awareness’ and ‘experience’, but not ‘perceiving’.

‘Perceiving’ is the present participle of the verb ‘perceive’. A verb implies not just a doer, but an action. A verb is an action, a doing. In order to an action take place not just a doer (in case of seeing the doer might be the eyes or the body) is needed, but time in which the action (the perception of seeing) unfolds.

So the word ‘perceiving’ assumes :
1. a perceiver, a doer (who / what performs the ‘act’ of perceiving)
2. the ‘act’ of perceiving (as an action)
3. time in which the ‘act’ of perceiving unfolds

Yes I get all that. Words and language are though a real mine field. An “apparent” spelling mistake can change “daily meaning” dramatically. Language is a weak communication device that requires constant deciphering or assumption…
I did mean “Are then awaring, witnessing, perceiving (and experiencing) … as verbs (without I AM / source) synonymous”. In “daily meaning”...stop Michael stop...I get your comment Vivien, thanks!!

What we haven’t investigated so far from this list is time, but we can do that later with the further investigation.

So are you ready for the six questions?

Yes

warm regards

Michael

[Vivien]

Dear Michael,

So here are the six questions. Please answer as clearly as possible and with as much detail as needed. Don’t forget to add everyday examples from your experience for question 5.


1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

6) Anything to add?

Love, Vivien

[Michaellt017]

Dear Vivien,

So here are the six questions. Please answer as clearly as possible and with as much detail as needed. Don’t forget to add everyday examples from your experience for question 5.

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

There is no separate, independent, decision making, controlling I to be found, and never has been.

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

The illusion is that “I” as an arising thought that has been assumed to be independent, decision making, controlling…. It is a thought only.
How it starts… a mother saying Michael, you are such a beautiful baby, look daddy how sweet he is; here drink from your bottle. I love you. Lay in your bed and sleep, see you in the morning.
Gradually “separation” becomes securely placed enough (with the help of family and friends), that arising thoughts, labels and stories continue to propagate separateness.
“Education” develops the fine of art of words, language, labelling and stories. “Society” propagates the separate “I” through advertising the “must haves and/to be someone” to ensure “I” (the thought!) owns, controls, decides, compares etc. etc. enough to ensure “I” remains separate without looking for an “I”…really smart...where did it start

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

The were always thoughts about this (parents told this, friends told that) that confirmed it all..., but expereincing it as a lie is something else. The only thing that is true is direct experience...
Difference, everything “in the world” has remained the same, however (no adjective really points to it) there is a “peace”, “calmness”, “lightness”, not sure what this is yet, less thought, no…it’s more that thoughts fall away quicker or that less “thought dialogue” follows a “primary thought”.

Yesterday “I” was cycling through a park, there was an experience of two women cycling past, one said to the other “yesterday I was really bad, but today I feel great”…there was a sort of “shock” realising / experiencing that sentence as an arising thought, and not as a word uttered by “another”.

I was in the supermarket wandering around, the thought arose that I passed a shelf before, it was clearly seen that this was just a thought, there was no before, there was a direct experience of now (shame the word now infers time).

There is the idea (thought) arising that the senses “overlap”. While listening to someone talking (in front of me), there is the direct experience of the “voice sound” vibrating in the body…yes just sensation / experience, but this has never been experienced before, or is it that there was no awareness of it…

Lots more…uncomfortably writing it down, words just seem meaningless and don’t adequately communicate experience (it that even possible)…

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

It was looking at thoughts, labels and stories. Always watched “things”, never occurred that the language used to philosophise and search for “truth” was the block…

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

Decision, intention, free will, choice and control are thoughts / stories, there is no “I” to “do” any of these things, there is only direct experience...
What makes things happen and how does it work would be a story, EVERYTHING just happens, unfolds.
There is no “I” to be responsible, there is no responsibility, or decision, intention, free will, choice or control. “Everything” just is…

6) Anything to add?

Thanks and much appreciation for your patience and timely (…haha :)) “investigation stimulating” questions.

Warm regards Michael