Dreambus Driver

[Devissimus]

Hi Tao,

How do you know it is Vienna you are speaking to/calling? Just because thought says it is? Is there any other way to know 'Vienna' except as a thought?

My mind spins on this.

Afterward thoughts:
----------
So the point is not in "is there Vienna OUT there or not" but "does Vienna exist at all"?
So the existence of anything is questionable?
No Vienna...
How do we ascribe reality to anything?
----------

Where does the object end, and the knowing of it begin?
What EXACTLY is it, in DE, that tells you it is an object being received by eyes and perceived by mind?

It seems they are inseparable.

Some thoughts, a mindstream I scribbled down after the exercise:
----------
Katie's "perceiving without naming" now seems impossible. It would be like saying "I perceive a table but I'm not calling it a table".
The "fact of a perception" seems to be fake itself. Perception IS description IS the mind (whatever that is).
How could there be "perceiving without perceiver"? Perceiving is done by and for perceiver. Perceiving is the affirmation of perceiver.
Out of the present moment I pick out one thing, my dog picks up something else, and a spider something third. We have different conditioning.
We perceive our expectations and also that which is different from our expectations. Other things we do not perceive at all.
We scan with criteria: if what is seen matches the criteria it "passes" and is counted as something; a "+". If the seen does not match the criteria, it don't passes and is also counted but as "-"; as "not matching".
"She was nice" fits the criteria and is counted as "+"; "she was not nice" does not fits the criteria and is counted as "-". Both counts and both are used to validate and affirm the downloaded criteria, the institution it imposed them (parents, school etc.) and the person, the "owner" those.
A dog also scans with its criteria, diffent from ours. A smell we don't consider at all could trigger its search mode.
This means we perceive only what we are programmed to perceive, what we have downloaded and implemented as criteria, as "important".
But is there a dog? Aa spider? A Vienna? To whom? Or are there only criteria, empty programs running themselves???
----------

Dev

[Tao]

Hi Dev

So the point is not in "is there Vienna OUT there or not" but "does Vienna exist at all"?
So the existence of anything is questionable?
No Vienna...
How do we ascribe reality to anything?

Exactly. Does any 'thing' exist, except as a thought? Aren't 'thing' and 'existing' just ideas?

Reality is just this, which is not a thing.
----------

Where does the object end, and the knowing of it begin?
What EXACTLY is it, in DE, that tells you it is an object being received by eyes and perceived by mind?
It seems they are inseparable.

Yes exactly.

thoughts, a mindstream I scribbled down after the exercise:
----------
Katie's "perceiving without naming" now seems impossible. It would be like saying "I perceive a table but I'm not calling it a table".
The "fact of a perception" seems to be fake itself. Perception IS description IS the mind (whatever that is).
How could there be "perceiving without perceiver"? Perceiving is done by and for perceiver. Perceiving is the affirmation of perceiver.

Yes poor choice of words from Katie. So lets look at this subject-object assumption,.

Subject - let's call it awareness
Object - let's call it experience

In DE
Where does experience end, and the knowing of it begin?
Is awareness separate from experience, or does thought just say it is?

Can you find the dividing line between awareness and experience? Is there one?

of the present moment I pick out one thing, my dog picks up something else, and a spider something third. We have different conditioning.
We perceive our expectations and also that which is different from our expectations. Other things we do not perceive at all.

These are assumptions that can't be validated in DE. 'Conditioning' suggests something happened in the past to make this appear a certain way, but isn't that just part of the appearance?

Is there a real past?

Tao

[Devissimus]

Hi Tao,

Does any 'thing' exist, except as a thought? Aren't 'thing' and 'existing' just ideas?

Thinking, thinging and existing seems to be synonyms for mental activity.

Reality is just this, which is not a thing.

This I get.
In an on-and-off way, though.
Isn't it even prior to calling it "just this"?

It's about seeing thoughts as thoughts, and not as reality; a kind of seeing through them... in the sense that thoughts might be regarded as real but the world they propose is not -- isn't it?

In DE: Where does experience end, and the knowing of it begin?

Can't separate them.

Are there experiences at all? The mind -- the thought -- presents them as such.

I heard Tony Parsons said: "There are experiences but there is noone who experience them".
That was puzzling to me. Is that so? Witout a labeler, could the form of "just this" be labeled as "experiences happening" at all? As things?

Is awareness separate from experience, or does thought just say it is?

I cannot find the difference. A thought comes afterwards and start to explain "some thing" to "some one" i.e. to a supposed "me".
Still, all of the above seeing happens within the framework of the exercise. Out of it, it seems that the habit of interpreting (something-is-happening-to-someone) is quite ruted.
Does this ever falls off, or wears down, or is seen through?

Can you find the dividing line between awareness and experience? Is there one?

Can't find any division in DE.

Is there a real past?

I see the effect of the past in shaping patterns of thoughts arising now. No Santa is considered real or important anymore but some other things are pronounced real. In this way I see the effect of past, not as a real presence, I'd say... A past is just a thought about the past arising now.

Thnx,

Dev

[Tao]

Hi Dev

This I get.
In an on-and-off way, though.
Isn't it even prior to calling it "just this"?

Is there a prior, or just this?
It is true that you don't need words for this to be.

about seeing thoughts as thoughts, and not as reality; a kind of seeing through them... in the sense that thoughts might be regarded as real but the world they propose is not -- isn't it?

Yes well expressed. When you look, you see this as it is, rather than how this 'appears' to be right?

What can you trust to be 'real'?
This?
Or how this appears to be?

In DE: Where does experience end, and the knowing of it begin?
Can't separate them.

Are there experiences at all? The mind -- the thought -- presents them as such.

I heard Tony Parsons said: "There are experiences but there is noone who experience them".
That was puzzling to me. Is that so? Witout a labeler, could the form of "just this" be labeled as "experiences happening" at all? As things?

Exactly. Are there experiences? Or just experience, just this?

Tony parsons isn't always the clearest.

Is awareness separate from experience, or does thought just say it is?
I cannot find the difference. A thought comes afterwards and start to explain "some thing" to "some one" i.e. to a supposed "me".
Still, all of the above seeing happens within the framework of the exercise. Out of it, it seems that the habit of interpreting (something-is-happening-to-someone) is quite ruted.
Does this ever falls off, or wears down, or is seen through?

Well it is seen through now isn't it?
Things get clearer for sure.
Perhaps the me story continues
But it is known to be a dream

Can you find the dividing line between awareness and experience? Is there one?
Can't find any division in DE.

Is there a real past?

I see the effect of the past in shaping patterns of thoughts arising now. No Santa is considered real or important anymore but some other things are pronounced real. In this way I see the effect of past, not as a real presence, I'd say... A past is just a thought about the past arising now.

Good stuff.
So what is real?
This?
Or what thoughts say about this?

Tao

[Devissimus]

Hi Tao

Is there a prior, or just this?

I have a sense that there is prior to expressing / conceiving this as this, and that is "to where" the poiners point.

When you look, you see this as it is, rather than how this 'appears' to be right?

I can't really say it's about "seeing this as it is". I guess I (we?) always see it as it appears to be. Even to name it "this" is an interpretation, the way it is presented as an appearance (to a "me").
That "prior" (from the above) points to a "place" or "state" prior to it-ing this, prior to extracting anything.
Ah, language sucks.

What can you trust to be 'real'? This? Or how this appears to be?

Buh! Can anything be trusted to be real? Even "trusting" is trusting into something, an idea, an interpretation, a thought. I guess it's just another attempt to be seduced to look at the map, not the territory.
If there is a territory...
The catch is, it seems, that the territory cannot be seen at all. Looks like there's nothing to see, or that all seeings are just mind's play.

Are there experiences? Or just experience, just this?

You mean: no plural, just singular?
Singular to whom?
Isn't even that a trick?

Well it is seen through now, isn't it? Things get clearer for sure.
Perhaps the me story continues but it is known to be a dream.

Clearer? ”Clearer” is still on the map and of the map.
And yes, the "me" story still lingers.
And sometimes it is seen through, and sometimes it is regarded as real.

So what is real? This? Or what thoughts say about this?

Any THIS we can talk about is only what thoughts say about this, a mind's this, conceived this.
As well as the idea that there is some real "this" beside mind's story.

How can "me" be unreal and anything else be real? To whom?
How can a subject be seen as unreal and the objects remain as real?
Only no-thing-ness might be real; all else is just fancy, altogether with this idea too.
Everything is as real as the one it is all presented to. If one goes, the other goes with it too. How can anything be real at all?

But beware -- as a kind of disclaimer -- to you (as my guide) I'm saying: this is a hard-grinding deduction, not experience. It's a most clever map that says "there's no map".

Although it's more clear now that there cannot really be an experience of THIS. So called "an experience of this" is rather a "non-experience" or disregard of the entire mind's play. What a no-thing-ness might be but a disregard of mind's thinging; it's presentation of everything in terms of "things".

Dev

[Tao]

Hi Dev

Is there a prior, or just this?
I have a sense that there is prior to expressing / conceiving this as this, and that is "to where" the poiners point.

What is that sense in DE? A thought story? Expression, silence, language whatever is, is just this.

Are you aware of these words?
Please answer from DE, not from what thoughts say.

I can't really say it's about "seeing this as it is". I guess I (we?) always see it as it appears to be. Even to name it "this" is an interpretation

It is a pointer that reflects experience, rather than thought. The point of this discussion is to enquire into the nature of DE, so it's really just a way of saying answer from direct experience, rather than analysing.

"prior" (from the above) points to a "place" or "state" prior to it-ing this, prior to extracting anything.
Ah, language sucks.

This is a sticking point. It implies that there is a place or state that someone or something can reach. Here you are answering from thought, not DE.

Can anything be trusted to be real? Even "trusting" is trusting into something, an idea, an interpretation, a thought. I guess it's just another attempt to be seduced to look at the map, not the territory.
If there is a territory...
The catch is, it seems, that the territory cannot be seen at all. Looks like there's nothing to see, or that all seeings are just mind's play.

Good yes.
My question from this however:
What is it that could actually be seduced?
Forget the seeming contradictions in language and simply look at what that is

Are there experiences? Or just experience, just this?
You mean: no plural, just singular?
Singular to whom?
Isn't even that a trick?

Experiences would imply something is experiencing, something has experiences. That's all I'm saying here.

Can you find that something?

And sometimes it is seen through, and sometimes it is regarded as real.

What is it that regards it as real?

Any THIS we can talk about is only what thoughts say about this, a mind's this, conceived this.
As well as the idea that there is some real "this" beside mind's story.

This is a common belief. Of course language is absolutely incapable of describing this, but remarkably, it can point to and reflect 'this'.

Are you aware right now?
Are you aware AS something?

Please read or refamiliarise yourself with this article:

http://liberationunleashed.com/articles ... xperience/

Tao

[Devissimus]

Hi Tao,

I just read the article about DE. Didn' read much of LU stuff before. I somehow wanted to come fresh to the process, without pre-knowing much or having any sort of a map.

I'll take a time (a day, I guess) to sink into those questions in DE, and let you know.

Thnx,

Dev

[Devissimus]

Hi Tao,

Somehow it seems to me we spin in terminology.
If you don't mind, I'd like to say how I understand certain terms we talk about (bold in text below). Maybe that would help and also answer some (or most) of your questions from previous post.

Experiences, experiencer, experiencing. [...] Or just experience, just this.

When you say "just experience, just this", in my understanding you reffer to EXPERIEN-CING.
ExperienCE and experienCER both arise together, as one inseparable nexus, "experienCE-for-experienCER". If I talk about experience, in my terms that experience always arises for someone, for experiencer.

I say they arise IN experienCING. For me, DE itself equals experienCING. When I say IN IT, I use this IN in the same way we say "IN DE".

ExperienCING is constant. ExperienCE-for-experienCER, while they arise together as nexus, they switch on and off (like when you take a nap). I guess they are effects of polarizing interpretation by a language-structured subject-object thought, but let's leave that speculation aside for now.

So, IN DE/experienCING, experienCES-for-experienCER seemingly happen, or are being reported or presented as such by thought, presented as (a) happening.

Another way of saying the same: IN direct experience happens proposal for indirect experiences.
DE, in that sense, is PRIOR to indirect experiences.

Indirect experience would be experience through or by a thought -- an interpreted, second-hand experience. PRIOR reffers to DE, as IN DE arises that apple of thought which, when bitten, presents itself as a thought-interpreted world.

In "experienCE-for-experienCER" nexus, such a thought is taken as a fact, but in DE it is revealed as just a proposal or an option, and it is totally un-obligatory. Sometime we bite into it by default, sometime we don't.

In DE, I exist(s) as an I-proposing thought. It is an object, as well as anything else. It is just mistaken for a subject (by default), which it is not.
There is no real subject (unless we declare DE as one... but DE might be, at best, regarded as subjectivity -- the potential to conceive oneself as a subject -- but not as the real subject).

DE is kind of abiding in (or as) a dream potential (which could loosely be regarded as "reality" or "what is" or "just this"), while all else could be regarded as dreaming or dream happening.

Dev

[Devissimus]

Hi Tao,

DE stuff:

D: I have a sense that there is prior to expressing / conceiving this as this, and that is "to where" the poiners point.
T: What is that sense in DE? A thought story? Expression, silence, language whatever is, is just this.
Are you aware of these words? (Please answer from DE, not from what thoughts say.)

Hum... Bit confused weather with "Are you aware of these words?" you just want to emphasise your last sentence ("Expression, silence, language whatever is, is just this"?) or you want to know am I aware of the words I read on the screen? Maybe I'm a bit dull today...
Anyhow, assuming the latter, in DE, there is awareness of the patterns of dots in front of me. When there is focusing to get the meaning of the pixels, a kind of polarization arises and there is a sense of me and the words. And memory springs in and language and deciphering of meaning etc.

Not quite sure weather this is what you wanted me to check; sorry... :-/

If your question points to the same direction as your last question from your post, the answer is down.

D: I guess it's just another attempt to be seduced to look at the map, not the territory.
T: What is it that could actually be seduced? Forget the seeming contradictions in language and simply look at what that is.

I can't really find out what it is. I'm tempted to say it's sense of being, but.. not really... It is nothing specific. I can't give some proper answer.

T: Experiences would imply something is experiencing, something has experiences. That's all I'm saying here.
Can you find that something?
In DE: No. Except when I specifically focus on experience, them I have a feeling of being a receiver of that specific experience.

This I tried to explain in previous post.

D: Sometimes it is seen through, and sometimes it is regarded as real.
T: What is it that regards it as real?

Again, in DE: I cannot find it. And again I'm tempted to say: a sense of presence", but I cannot really say that.

T: Are you aware right now? Are you aware AS something?

If the emphasis in your first question is on "you" (Are YOU aware right now?), than I cannot find that "you".
If the emphasis in your question is on "aware" (Are you AWARE right now?), than I can say there is awareness present.
There is awareness present, that's the best I can say. I cannot even pinpoint where; cannot even say "here". I could interpret it that way.
Sometimes there pops in the idea that I am aware. Sometime there is just awareness.
I noticed that when awareness focuses on "something", that selective picking out of "something" from unfocused, unbiased awareness, as if casts a shadow of a me who is aware of something.

This also I tried to explain in previous post.


Thank you for your patience,

Dev

[Tao]

Hi Dev,
That's a big help, thanks.
Will post soon
Tao

[Tao]

Hi Dev,

You answered my questions perfectly, thank you

I can't really find out what it is. I'm tempted to say it's sense of being, but.. not really... It is nothing specific. I can't give some proper answer.

T: Experiences would imply something is experiencing, something has experiences. That's all I'm saying here.
Can you find that something?
In DE: No. Except when I specifically focus on experience, them I have a feeling of being a receiver of that specific experience.

Yes I see what you are saying, but when this 'focusing', or polarization happens, is there anything actually focusing? Is any'thing' being polarized? Or is it just that this experiencing appears divided when no actual division takes place?

In a previous post you said awareness and experience (experiencing) were not separate. During focus/polarization, do they actually separate from each other.

Watch this focus happening and see if there is actually a divide, or just the appearance of such.

D: Sometimes it is seen through, and sometimes it is regarded as real.

So if you can't find that which regards it as real, is the above sentence actually true?

What does 'regarding this as real' entail in DE? Can you find anything other than a thought that declares itself to be real? What is believing that thought?

: Are you aware right now? Are you aware AS something?

If the emphasis in your first question is on "you" (Are YOU aware right now?), than I cannot find that "you".
If the emphasis in your question is on "aware" (Are you AWARE right now?), than I can say there is awareness present.
There is awareness present, that's the best I can say. I cannot even pinpoint where; cannot even say "here". I could interpret it that way.

Good this answers my question thanks.

Sometimes there pops in the idea that I am aware. Sometime there is just awareness.
I noticed that when awareness focuses on "something", that selective picking out of "something" from unfocused, unbiased awareness, as if casts a shadow of a me who is aware of something.

So in a similar vain to the last questions,

Is there a something other than awareness that awareness can focus on? Or is the polarization simply an appearance in and AS awareness?

Is there anything outside of awareness/experiencing?

Tao

[Devissimus]

Wah!

Tao, you pulled out the heaviest guns that point to the direction that's nibbling me already a long time...

I'll took a little time with this and let you know.

Thnx,

Dev

[Tao]

Wah!

Tao, you pulled out the heaviest guns that point to the direction that's nibbling me already a long time...

I'll took a little time with this and let you know.

Good stuff :)

[Devissimus]

Hi Tao,

Just scrathed the surface a bit.
It's a damn rabbit-hole.

Here is my post-DE thought-stream:

It means existance is a lie. The concreteness of existance is a mirage. It have no being, no reality, no essence; just a play of hollow pictures. Nothing is true. No "thing" is true. Only nothing might be called true. And it's not a thing we can point to, so it's of no avail either.
All this network of separated things is a big lie; a dream, being played within what's real, what's always here.

Is there anything else beside everything altogether? Which is not-a-thing, inseparable, individual, atom, atma? It can be separated to smaller chunks that can relate to each other only seemingly, only in a dream. And that dream-relation expresses itself as time and space and path and effort and direction and meaning etc.

AwareNESS itself is the ability to be aware, which is exited for a-you-becoming-aware-of-something. Awareness is exited into existence. Into a dream.

It is like being a body. And the body have the ability to think by its head about its foot, and to regard them as separate an in relation. And it is all the same body.

It is like focus-ness, the ability to focus, which then makes up the experience of "something" it focuses on, for "someone" that it is focusing. Through focusing, both focuser and focused are created. Polarizing happens: in-focus and out-of-focus happen. The game of exclusivity begins.

What I am is potential for all dreams. But no dream is mine. No dream is true. Even to say this is a dream-talk.
This dream potential is source of all dreams: all dreams are actualization of it. And all existence is but a dream.
Paradoxically, this dream potential is also the death of all dreams. Staying in/as that dream potential is what's meant by being awake: staying prior to dreams and/or throughout them. Staying dream-potential.

There is reluctancy to fall into it. There's WARNING written all over it.
What is this fear about?
In memory comes a paragraph from McKenna's Spiritual Warfere, when they discuss about why death sucks, and finally come to futility:

Futility. No belief is true, life has no meaning, nothing we do matters. All is vanity and a striving after wind. 'We're going to die and it will be as if we never lived. Everything we think is true is false, all our beliefs are delusions and everything we know is a lie. There is no such thing as success, nothing we do can make any possible difference, no matter how fast we go or how far ahead we are, we are not going anywhere. The best and the brightest are in a dead-tie with the worst and the dimmest. These are the facts of life, simple, obvious, plain to behold, yet universally unrecognized and unacknowledged. This is what it means to see what's not and not see what is, to be in denial, to be asleep within the dream, to reside in the womb of the unborn. We are madly, desperately, insanely afraid of the truth, and it is that fear that walls us off from our unbounded nature. It is the emotional energy of fear that erects and maintains the egoic shell.

But what I am IS death. Not just my death. Everyone's death. Death of everything.
It is that no-thing from which all the things pretend they are; the no-thing that only is.
It's the Spirit from which everything is made. But none of this everything have any substance. That Spirit is the dream potential.

What we don't realize when we want the awakened state is that all our cherished dreams will be lost.
It's like formatting the hard-drive: "Warning! Awakened state. All your data -- all your dreams -- will be lost. Are you sure you want to continue?"

I was here before.
And ran away.

Oddly enough, I have revival of some old body aches. Like it all screams NO!

Let's go into it.

Dev

[Tao]

Hi dev,

It means existance is a lie. The concreteness of existance is a mirage. It have no being, no reality, no essence; just a play of hollow pictures. Nothing is true. No "thing" is true. Only nothing might be called true. And it's not a thing we can point to, so it's of no avail either. All this network of separated things is a big lie; a dream, being played within what's real, what's always here.

Yes, beautiful

.

is there anything else beside everything altogether?

Can you find anything else?

Which is not-a-thing, inseparable, individual, atom, atma? It can be separated to smaller chunks that can relate to each other only seemingly, only in a dream. And that dream-relation expresses itself as time and space and path and effort and direction and meaning etc. AwareNESS itself is the ability to be aware, which is exited for a-you-becoming-aware-of-something. Awareness is exited into existence. Into a dream.

Yes it appears that way. Some questions to look at:

Is awareness an ability? Does it require conditions (able-ness) in order to be?
Is awareness/experiencing ever exited? Or is the appearance of separation still just 'experiencing', in its wholeness?
Can awareness actually become smaller chunks of itself? Or is it always 'full' of itself, despite the appearances?

it is like focus-ness, the ability to focus, which then makes up the experience of "something" it focuses on, for "someone" that it is focusing. Through focusing, both focuser and focused are created. Polarizing happens: in-focus and out-of-focus happen. The game of exclusivity begins.

Yes. Is anything actually doing this focusing? Is it an ability something has?

I am is potential for all dreams. But no dream is mine. No dream is true. Even to say this is a dream-talk. This dream potential is source of all dreams: all dreams are actualization of it. And all existence is but a dream. Paradoxically, this dream potential is also the death of all dreams. Staying in/as that dream potential is what's meant by being awake: staying prior to dreams and/or throughout them. Staying dream-potential.

I see what you are saying.
Can dreams die? Or is death just part of the dream?
Does awareness ever go anywhere?
Are you ever unaware, or is that just a thought?

But what I am IS death. Not just my death. Everyone's death. Death of everything. It is that no-thing from which all the things pretend they are; the no-thing that only is. It's the Spirit from which everything is made. But none of this everything have any substance. That Spirit is the dream potential. What we don't realize when we want the awakened state is that all our cherished dreams will be lost. It's like formatting the hard-drive: "Warning! Awakened state. All your data -- all your dreams -- will be lost. Are you sure you want to continue?"I was here before. And ran away. Oddly enough, I have revival of some old body aches. Like it all screams NO! Let's go into it. Dev

Good.
So if there are no 'things', can anything actually die?
Can you find a beginning and an end to 'experiencing?

Tao