Dreambus Driver

[Devissimus]

Hi Tao,

I need a little time-out due to technical reasons. We are renovating a floor in the house and all the stuff is out of the house and soon we will go also. Just for a few days.

Thank you for your patience,

Dev

[Devissimus]

Hi Tao,

Still in the midst of work. Just a quick copy-paste reply to an unanswered question from your previous post.

@ attention -- registering everything, but not being involved.
T: Is anything ever 'involved'?
> That's a big one. Will return to this.

At first I misread your question as "WHAT is it that is involved" and in reply I wrote the following:

The default answer would be attention or consciousness or awareness.
Still, in DE such a thing cannot be found, i.e. it is recognized as a label too.
Next assumption is that it's what's doing the looking. But that's also an idea.
The real answer -- if there is a such -- would be "nothing". We just ascribe words like attention or awareness or consciousness on nothing.

Later I reread the question and saw that you actually asked "Is anything ever 'involved'"?

So, is attention (consciousness, awareness, nothing) ever involved?
At first it seems so.
But more and more I see that attention (consciousness etc.) is really a different animal. It's not-a-thing. No-thing.
No-thing never actually becomes some-thing. It only seems so.
Like a mirage: it only seems that there's water out there. It only seems there is a snake out there and not a rope. It is a projection, an imagination.
Awareness, the no-thing, through human mind conceives itself a human and through grasshopper's mind conceives itself a grasshopper (that's why awareness, consciousness etc. is sometimes called 'universal').
And through a human mind it seems that certain qualities are more valuable or spiritual than others.
But awareness (consciousness etc.) itself have nothing to do with human existance at all. It is still no-thing, only seemingly thinging, seemingly being someone.

It's crazy.

Usually we think we are someone. And as that someone we are affraid of the prospect of disappearing, of someday becoming noone, nothing. But actually the opposite is the case. We ARE that nothing, that which is not-a-thing. What we ARE does not exist. Only what we SEEMS TO exist. Existence (ex-ist = ex-is) literary means stepping out of what is. Steping out in la-la land.

What-we-are is (that) into which what-we-think-we-are dies or dissolves.

Not-a-thing = not-a-thought.

But nevertheless, yesterday I had an argument with my wife. And it was a heated one. And it was amazing. As I stood there alone after the situation I still could not find the one to whom it is all happening. The stories swirled wildly in the head. But for whom? "Like a tale told by an idiot, full of rage and fury, and signifying nothing." 

Oddly enough it seems that agitation grows with going into all this stuff (LU etc.).

Sorry to post like this, but I hope situation will soon settle.

Thank you for your patience,

Dev

[Devissimus]

T: So what causes an experience to 'become known'?

A thought claims the appropriation of the experience. 

T: Is the 'becoming known' the concept itself, implying an 'event'?

The way it is presented by thoughts is that we are conscious of our surroundings ("the world" of "events"), and we are conscious of ourself. But both are just mind's descriptions. 
 

T: Without 'becoming known', there is experiencing. Does anything 'know' experiencing? Or is experiencing simply the knowing of itself? 

No. Experiences are known from and for experiencer and both are happenings, both are experiences. Or they are the two facets of any experience. 
Experiencing itself cannot be known. What we are cannot be known. What we seems to be can be and is known. 
What is known, what we are conscious of -- both "we" and "the world" -- just appear "in" what we are. 
Although, saying this above, I can come to that events appear "in" experiencing; I still cannot "get to" that events appear AS experiencing.
Also, there is a feeling of that-happening-to-this.
Conceptually, it is clear.
In DE, beside thoughts there is nothing. Blank.
All this what I write is somehow a post DE interpretation... for the lack of a better word...

T: What is it that says there is a you and me speaking? A thought? These are words appearing in/as experiencing itself. Do they have an author? 

That nothing --- is that experiencing? It must be so, as all the other "things" are experiences.

D: Who should do it? Do we have any choice or control over what appears to be? Puzzling
T: That is for you to answer. Is there an author or creator of these words? Is there a chooser or controller of these words? When you appear to be typing, is there any choice over what words appear? What is it that is choosing? 

>>> I have to work on that.
Sometimes, even when the things seems clear, you happen to point in some direction that dislocates the mind, and I get a feeling that it's worth digging deeper on that spot.

D: It is totally irrelevant weather mode of awareness is attached or detached.
T: ... Fear holds the self in place. Some people it seems are never ready to let that final assumption go. But even that is just an appearance. 

That stroke me. Maybe I'm such a case. But good God, it is again still just a f****** thought!  

While dreaming, we put different values on the contents, on what we are conscious of --i.e. thoughts -- while for the consciousness those are totally irrelevant. Consciousness does not take anything personal; it is itself devoid of all personal stuff, it is entirely impersonal; that's why it is called 'universal'.  

Mind creates an avatar, a concept, a representation of oneself. 
The realization is that it is a misconception, a misrepresentation. A mirage.

The only religion there is -- the universal religion -- is the belief in personal self. And all religions cater to that core belief. And that belief is a superstition. A mirage.

T: There is only ever one 'thing' that can ever wake up to itself. And it is not a thing, not a person. And when it 'wakes up to itself' it is seen that it never really was unawake! 

That it never ever was a person. It never existed!  That's the full size of "you are not who you think you are". It nuke's the whole existence! And it is never the person that wakes up. "Waking up" is waking up FROM the person. I heard that before, but it's beginning to dawn on me.

T: Can totality ever become detached from totality?

 
>>> I have to work on that some more.

[Tao]

Hi Dev, great stuff.

But nevertheless, yesterday I had an argument with my wife. And it was a heated one. And it was amazing. As I stood there alone after the situation I still could not find the one to whom it is all happening. The stories swirled wildly in the head. But for whom? "Like a tale told by an idiot, full of rage and fury, and signifying nothing."

Oddly enough it seems that agitation grows with going into all this stuff (LU etc.).

Yes beautiful.

The only religion there is -- the universal religion -- is the belief in personal self. And all religions cater to that core belief. And that belief is a superstition. A mirage

Yes indeed, nicely said.

>> I have to work on that.
Sometimes, even when the things seems clear, you happen to point in some direction that dislocates the mind, and I get a feeling that it's worth digging deeper on that spot

Although, saying this above, I can come to that events appear "in" experiencing; I still cannot "get to" that events appear AS experiencing.

Experiencing itself cannot be known. What we are cannot be known. What we seems to be can be and is known

It is clear that you see the lack of self but there are still areas that need working on.
As these areas get looked into, the sense of things happening 'in' experience should begin to dissolve.
Keep digging into those areas.

Experiencing cannot be known, because it is the knowing of itself. It is self-knowing. It is simply 'knowing/being'

What seems to be is never actually known by anything, it is an appearance, and that appearance simply is knowing/being,

Experiencing is no-thing, but it isn't nothing,
It is THIS
Ungraspable, inexplicable, indefinable THIS

Keep chipping

Tao

[Devissimus]

Hi Tao,

Still in the midst of work on the floor, just a quick reply:

It is clear that you see the lack of self but there are still areas that need working on.

I must say that I somehow KNOW more about the lack of self than to feel it.
I notice a hidden expectation here.
As Tony Parsons would say, speaking about enlightenment: "It is not about intellectual understanding. It is energetical. It is a "BANG" -- an explosion from contracted state to boundlessness; from "being in here" to being nowhere/everywhere.
"No "bang" happened here, says the sad child with big eyes...

Here it is understood that within enlightenment (whatever it is) arises the idea about enlightenment for the unenlightened one. In experiencing arises the idea that proclaim an experience for an experiencer. And only enlightenment, only experiencing is; ewvrything else is just a mind stuff. And when those ideas are given attention, it is hard to see the forest beyond all this trees as every tree shouts "I'm the forest".

As these areas get looked into, the sense of things happening 'in' experience should begin to dissolve. Keep digging into those areas.

OK, will do.

Experiencing cannot be known, because it is the knowing of itself. It is self-knowing. It is simply 'knowing/being'

This is clear, at least as a concept.

What seems to be is never actually known by anything, it is an appearance, and that appearance simply is knowing/being,

This still escapes me. Still I see it as something-in-something-else.

Experiencing is no-thing, but it isn't nothing, it is THIS. Ungraspable, inexplicable, indefinable THIS.

Got that. Again, more as a concept.
It looks like the the mind -- the thought -- still preceedes everything. Even the no-though-state. The commentary is still there. The regent still runs the kingdom.
So often I forget to disbelieve it.

Keep chipping

Definitely.

Thanks,

Dev

Tao

[Devissimus]

Hi Tao,

Are you on vacation, or you are considering me "done" or you are giving up on me? Or the move is on me?

:-)

Thank you,
Dev

[Tao]

Hi Dev,

Apologies for lateness. Has work died down at your end? Be good to get the daily thing going again.

I must say that I somehow KNOW more about the lack of self than to feel it.
I notice a hidden expectation here.
As Tony Parsons would say, speaking about enlightenment: "It is not about intellectual understanding. It is energetical. It is a "BANG" -- an explosion from contracted state to boundlessness; from "being in here" to being nowhere/everywhere.
"No "bang" happened here, says the sad child with big eyes...

Haha exactly, you've noticed the expectation here.

You're far more likely, I'd say, to experience small 'pops', as the 'seeing' clears out beliefs. Even this is an idea though. It is clear at this end that your seeing is not purely intellectual.

Thought doubts seeing, says there is still something to get. Just allow DE to confirm or disprove any thought.

Here it is understood that within enlightenment (whatever it is) arises the idea about enlightenment for the unenlightened one. In experiencing arises the idea that proclaim an experience for an experiencer. And only enlightenment, only experiencing is; ewvrything else is just a mind stuff. And when those ideas are given attention, it is hard to see the forest beyond all this trees as every tree shouts "I'm the forest".

Yes exactly. Thought will always say there is more. Thought imagines an 'outcome'. That is the very nature of thought. If there is an unenlightened one, where is it? What does it look like?

What is unenlightened?

Experiencing cannot be known, because it is the knowing of itself. It is self-knowing. It is simply 'knowing/being'

This is clear, at least as a concept.

Are awareness and experiencing two different things? If not, what is aware of experiencing?

What seems to be is never actually known by anything, it is an appearance, and that appearance simply is knowing/being,

This still escapes me. Still I see it as something-in-something-else.

Can you pin point that which knows experiencing? Is it something other than experiencing?

Experiencing is no-thing, but it isn't nothing, it is THIS. Ungraspable, inexplicable, indefinable THIS.

Got that. Again, more as a concept.
It looks like the the mind -- the thought -- still preceedes everything. Even the no-though-state. The commentary is still there. The regent still runs the kingdom.
So often I forget to disbelieve it.

Here the expectation is that thought should disappear, and that you can make it happen.

Here's an exercise.
Look at experiencing. What can you say with absolute certainty about experiencing?

Note everything you can say for sure about experiencing. Answer from direct experience. Let experiencing be the proof of what you say.

Tao

[Devissimus]

Hi Tao,

No, the work is still in full swing.

Haha exactly, you've noticed the expectation here.

Yes. And I also saw Nathan Gill's clip "Awareness does not need an 'energetic shift'" on YT.

Thought doubts seeing, says there is still something to get.

That's quite good way to put it, yes.

What is unenlightened?

Touché!

Are awareness and experiencing two different things? If not, what is aware of experiencing?

Yes, I understand that. Those terms are synonyms.

Can you pin point that which knows experiencing? Is it something other than experiencing?

There is nothing that knows experiencing. A "knower" is another proposal of thought to establish new phantom and declare it to be real.

Here the expectation is that thought should disappear, and that you can make it happen.

Ummm... Yes.

+ + +

I'll spend some more time with exercise.

Thank you,

Dev

[Tao]

Hi dev,

No, the work is still in full swing.

No prob,
While you are working, keep looking to see if there is a do-er at all.

Are you ever actually 'doing' the work? Or is it just happening of its own accord?

Yes. And I also saw Nathan Gill's clip "Awareness does not need an 'energetic shift'" on YT.

Quite. Energetic shift would just be an appearance in/as awareness. Awareness itself always unchanging.

Thought doubts seeing, says there is still something to get.
That's quite good way to put it, yes.

This goes on. Just have to look directly to see that you already are.

What is unenlightened?
Touché!

Yes what would that unenlightened thing be?
Isn't awareness already 'enlightenment'?

Can you pin point that which knows experiencing? Is it something other than experiencing?
There is nothing that knows experiencing. A "knower" is another proposal of thought to establish new phantom and declare it to be real.

Yes

Here the expectation is that thought should disappear, and that you can make it happen.
Ummm... Yes.

So can you make thought disappear?
+ + +

Tao

[Devissimus]

Hi Tao,

While you are working, keep looking to see if there is a do-er at all. Are you ever actually 'doing' the work? Or is it just happening of its own accord?

No. Doing happens. Making plans happens. Being angry when plans crashes happens. Cursing happens too.

Energetic shift would just be an appearance in/as awareness.

Yes, that is understood.

What would that unenlightened thing be? Isn't awareness already 'enlightenment'?

That is somehow becoming clear.

Can you make thought disappear?

Mmmmmm. No. They seems to come and go of their own accord.
I did notice that when I observe the thoughts they kind of slow down, like becoming cautious. Then when I take the focus completely off them and let the thoughts be and what they like, then a kind of shift happens.


FROM YOUR PREVIOUS POST

Look at experiencing. What can you say with absolute certainty about experiencing? Note everything you can say for sure about experiencing. Answer from direct experience. Let experiencing be the proof of what you say.

There is a hidden agenda that experiencing is some kind of a goal. That concept - if bought -- becomes a perfect carrot on the stick: awareness (aka experiencing) itself become substituted by a concept named "awareness" that is presented as a goal for someone who could get it, and it is all just a play in awareness. (Here again I say IN awareness. Still can't get that it is play OF awareness. [and also, I know that it cannot be got; although thoughts tries to present it that way])
In Heaven itself arises the thought about a Heaven that should be achieved. And if believed, here we go. Biblical "fall of man" actually happens live, right now, thought by thought.

There is also "trying to make it" policy present. Mental activity tries to fake awareness to avoid awareness. Instead of tasting real water, a thought says "OK, that's water; let's go home."

Experiencing is space in which experiences happen. Or: Awareness is space in which contents of awareness happens. (< here again: "IN").

All of the above I wrote trying to supress (the learned concept) that nothing actually can be said about experiencing that is not an experience... And as I said above, there is a constant mental activity engaged in selling experiencE as experincING, presenting mental bubble as "real stuff".

Thank you,

Dev

[Devissimus]

Tao,

What is with sense of locality? I see the sense of locality as the anchor point of personality: the sense of being localy (in) here, "behind" the specific point of view... or just to have a specific point of view. 

Do you feel yourself being nowhere/everywhere? Do you feel "yourself" as not being specifically someplace? Or you just KNOW that you are nowhere/everywhere? And you perceive locality as a thought? And have to disprove it to yourself? 

I caught the expectation behind this: to be free of sense of being local. Wouldn't that be a legitimate expectation... I mean, speaking about liberation being unleashed? The best and truest unleashing I can imagine would be from sense of being local... which with it unleashes the whole bundle of being born etc...?

Dev

[Tao]

Hi Dev, apologies for lateness again, the days are flying by ATM!

No. Doing happens. Making plans happens. Being angry when plans crashes happens. Cursing happens too.

Good im glad this is seen.

Energetic shift would just be an appearance in/as awareness.
Yes, that is understood.

Good, so considering that any kind of shift would be just another appearance, is there anything that still needs to happen? Anything that can 'enlighten' awareness?

What would that unenlightened thing be? Isn't awareness already 'enlightenment'?
That is somehow becoming clear.

Awareness is self luminous, self knowing. This is so obvious and simple that it dumbfounds thought. Has awareness ever been more of itself than it is now?

Can you make thought disappear?
Mmmmmm. No. They seems to come and go of their own accord.
I did notice that when I observe the thoughts they kind of slow down, like becoming cautious. Then when I take the focus completely off them and let the thoughts be and what they like, then a kind of shift happens.

Do you at any point choose to observe the thoughts? Or does 'observing' happen of its own accord?

Whatever happens with thought, it is still an appearance in/of/as awareness.

There is a hidden agenda that experiencing is some kind of a goal. That concept - if bought -- becomes a perfect carrot on the stick: awareness (aka experiencing) itself become substituted by a concept named "awareness" that is presented as a goal for someone who could get it, and it is all just a play in awareness. (Here again I say IN awareness. Still can't get that it is play OF awareness. [and also, I know that it cannot be got; although thoughts tries to present it that way])
In Heaven itself arises the thought about a Heaven that should be achieved. And if believed, here we go. Biblical "fall of man" actually happens live, right now, thought by thought.

Yes great. The 'fall' is not an event in history, but a real-time illusion, thought by thought. Just like anything else. There is no history, just a dream happening right now. A dream of two things, an awareness, and experience(ing)
A dream that awareness can be 'more' of itself. Which of course is impossible, awareness is already whole and complete.

There is also "trying to make it" policy present. Mental activity tries to fake awareness to avoid awareness. Instead of tasting real water, a thought says "OK, that's water; let's go home."

Experiencing is space in which experiences happen. Or: Awareness is space in which contents of awareness happens. (< here again: "IN").

Yes thought substitutes the 'real thing' for a concept. Awareness can only be tasted directly, so to speak. But even when thought appears, awareness does not go anywhere. It remains whole, undivided. Yet somehow it appears divided. What a miracle :D

'Experience is a space' is still thought trying to understand experience. It is how it presents it as a concept. And while it may be relatively true, space itself is just a concept. Experience is timeless, spaceless.

Tao

[Tao]

What is with sense of locality? I see the sense of locality as the anchor point of personality: the sense of being localy (in) here, "behind" the specific point of view... or just to have a specific point of view. 

Do you feel yourself being nowhere/everywhere? Do you feel "yourself" as not being specifically someplace? Or you just KNOW that you are nowhere/everywhere? And you perceive locality as a thought? And have to disprove it to yourself? 

I caught the expectation behind this: to be free of sense of being local. Wouldn't that be a legitimate expectation... I mean, speaking about liberation being unleashed? The best and truest unleashing I can imagine would be from sense of being local... which with it unleashes the whole bundle of being born etc...?

Awareness simply returns to itself and spacelessness, timelessness becomes directly apparent, liberating, pacifying, dumbfounding, for nothing whatsoever. There is no-one here.

This 'seems to' have deepened with understanding, and with returning again and again. The stories mean nothing, have no importance whatsoever. Its all meaningless data.

Sense of locality still happens of course, but nothing is bound by it. It is a dream of limitation, yet all there is, is limitless being. What would need to be free, when freedom never dissapears?

Can you actually find the experience of being local? Where is it? What is it?

TAO

[Devissimus]

Hi Tao,

Now it's my turn to be late. And it's OK with me if you take your time to answer, so no rush...

In reply to your question from a post before:

Look at experiencing (or awareness). What can you say with absolute certainty about experiencing? Note everything you can say for sure about experiencing.

... here are some notes I jotted down:

> Awareness and contents of awareness are the same thing??? Awareness IS it's contents?
So what's the problem with being identified with the content of awareness instead of being awareness itself? If they are the same thing?

> There is a continuous effort of trying to become aware of awareness. That's the "spiritual loop".

> Wait, wait, wait! Contents of awareness and awareness are the same because thoughts presents awareness as its contets??? Thoughts just proposes objectiveness that have no being? Thoughts try to sell, to disguise awareness (that is) as its contents (that isn't)?
Like, it takes CEO and persuades him he is the janitor in that same company and then sells him stories of "climbing up the ladders of success" and promises that one day he might become the CEO of the company while all the time he already IS the CEO???
OK, agree, stupid example, but that's what just came to mind...

> You mean: awareness only IS and the contents of awareness are just proposals i.e. they isn't? They are just thoughts play in awareness (< again: "in") that only is? Like a thought my proclaim my hand as "not-me"... and proclaim a relation when there is none?

> So the thought amuses ourself with this game of many and hide and seek?

> There are no differences between awareness and its contents as all differences are just proposed by thoughts.
But what are the thoughts then? In what regard do THEY differ from awareness?

> So, what I-think-I-am and what I-think-I-am-not (others, experiences, events) are both play in what solely is, what only is and what only I/you/everything could be: being.

> Thoughts project isness that is not; the false isness. That false isness is projected onto what solely is. So it is both: truth and lie in the same time.

Dev

[Tao]

Hi Dev

> Awareness and contents of awareness are the same thing??? Awareness IS it's contents?
So what's the problem with being identified with the content of awareness instead of being awareness itself? If they are the same thing?

Pretty much yeah. Could the 'contents' be anything other than awareness?

There is a continuous effort of trying to become aware of awareness. That's the "spiritual loop

What is it that is making this effort?

> Wait, wait, wait! Contents of awareness and awareness are the same because thoughts presents awareness as its contets??? Thoughts just proposes objectiveness that have no being? Thoughts try to sell, to disguise awareness (that is) as its contents (that isn't)?

Yes exactly. It's an illusion.

Thoughts don't actually try to do anything though, they have no intention and there is no-one to trick.
Thoughts of course are still just awareness. Crazy huh?

> You mean: awareness only IS and the contents of awareness are just proposals i.e. they isn't? They are just thoughts play in awareness (< again: "in") that only is? Like a thought my proclaim my hand as "not-me"... and proclaim a relation when there is none?

Yes exactly. Thoughts are just awareness. The contents of thoughts, i.e what thought proposes, is illusory .

So the thought amuses ourself with this game of many and hide and seek?

It may seem that way, but where is the one that is amused? Isn't that just more content?

Can you find any reason or meaning for what is?

> There are no differences between awareness and its contents as all differences are just proposed by thoughts.
But what are the thoughts then? In what regard do THEY differ from awareness?

> So, what I-think-I-am and what I-think-I-am-not (others, experiences, events) are both play in what solely is, what only is and what only I/you/everything could be: being.

> Thoughts project isness that is not; the false isness. That false isness is projected onto what solely is. So it is both: truth and lie in the same time.

Thoughts don't differ from awareness. There is no figuring out what the hell is going on. Awareness is some crazy trip.

Yes, the false isness is still just isness, but it is false in the sense that the content is just 'dreamworld', and not DE.

Keep looking at what you can say for certainty about DE. When a thought answers, question with more looking.

This is a sure way to smash the doors wide open, so to speak.

Tao