Truth through experience

[Bananafish]

Right now I look at the iPad in my hands. It is seen.

Where is the "I" that is looking at the iPad?
Can you point at it?
Where did you point at?

The world feels like it's out there. Thoughts and feelings feel like they are in here.

Let's examine the boundary between what is "out there" and "in here."
First of all, where does the boundary exist? Can you tell the location?

how can I walk home without awareness?

This is a good question to take a look at.

When you are walking down the road, are you always
"aware" that you are walking?

Take a little walk for ten minutes and try to be aware (that you're walking)
all the time while you're walking.

What happened?

There is nothing special called awareness present while examining an object. There is just the object. Seems quite obvious at the moment. Still unclear on the implications of this realization.

There is nothing hidden for reality. No implications to what IS.
The belief that there should be some implications hinders the
understanding of what is, as it is.

Look again at an object.
Is there any room for further addition?

Object.

What else? Is there an "I" there?
Is there anything hidden?

When faced with something like a change in employer, as is presently the case, the illusion of choice is still alive and well. In this situation there are several options available and much time and effort goes into comparing them all before deciding who my new employer will be. In this situation, having much time to consider all options and thinking at length about each, choice is much harder to deny. Still, even now, I realize that the job I "decide" to take is due to aversions and desires that already exist and over which I have no control. The employer that is chosen was chosen because of the circumstances that existed before the options were ever even considered. Still the feeling of choice being real persists to some extent.

Choice is made at the moment it is made.
Comparing is another thing.

Recall a scene from the memory in which you are making a
choice after careful considerations.

What was it that made a decision at the very moment decision was made?
Can you even pinpoint the moment it was made?

The only thoughts that can be heard/felt are the ones associated with me. I can't feel /hear anyone else's thoughts. I can not even say for 100 percent sure that any thoughts, besides the ones directly experienced, even exist. I can not say where thoughts exist but it feels like their in my head. Where exactly? I have no idea. It is agreed that only the thoughts I am aware of will be of consideration from now on.

Fabulous LOOKing, Starr!

[Starr]

Where is the "I" that is looking at the iPad?
Can you point at it?
Where did you point at?

The only thing looking is the eyes themselves. Looking needs eyes not an 'I". This much seems clear. Without eyes nothing is seen. Looking does not require these specific eyes though. If they were switched with other eyes, like a transplant, looking would still take place. Looking doesn't require 2 eyes either. With only one eye looking still occurs. So where do I point? I point to the sense organ called eye. Right now I am pointing to the eye residing here in front of the screen. Although this specific eye is not required for looking, it is the one that is looking right now.

Let's examine the boundary between what is "out there" and "in here."
First of all, where does the boundary exist? Can you tell the location?

The skin seems a good place to define a boundary. Of course it is not an actual boundary, it absorbs and secretes yet still, it seems like the boundary of feelings even if it is not a boundary for physical substances.

If my toe, the one down there, attached to this body, is stubbed then OUCH! There is pain experienced. It is felt, a lot. If the toe connected to the girl next to me is stubbed there certainly appears to be pain as evidenced by her cry of OUCH! And yet no pain is experienced. Having done this several times myself the pain that she must fell can be understood, even imagined, but it can not be experienced directly. Unless the injury occurs inside the boundary of my skin it can not be felt. This observation seems to clearly separate my feelings from those of everything else "out there". This of course assumes that the feelings of others, which I can never directly experience, do in fact exist.

Thoughts also appear to happen "in here". The boundary for thoughts is a little trickier to nail down. Thoughts do not happen in my feet, hands, ears, etc... So the skin is not a suitable boundary for thoughts. Thoughts feel like they happen / exist behind the eyes and between the ears, in this specific spot. This feels like the place that all sensory input coalesces and can then be worked over endlessly by thought. This seems so juvenile but it is what it is. This is a very strong and solidified life long feeling. Very sticky. Little to no wiggle room. I will refrain from discussing an example of my thoughts vs. others. I agreed to only look at my thoughts.

This is a good question to take a look at.

When you are walking down the road, are you always
"aware" that you are walking?

Take a little walk for ten minutes and try to be aware (that you're walking)
all the time while you're walking.

What happened?

Awareness is clearly not needed to walk. It seems that 99% of the time there is no awareness of walking and yet it still happens perfectly fine. The same is true when riding a bike, doing dishes, folding clothes, and frighteningly enough, even while driving.

When first learning to do any of these activities awareness is definitely required. If I had never driven a car before I certainly could not drive without being extremely aware. Even with total awareness I may still wreck the car if I had never driven before.

So awareness is not always required once a skill has been thoroughly learned. Now back to the original question...

Navigating the walk home in a drunken black out does not imply awareness. If awareness is not needed to walk, bike, drive, etc... then it certainly would not be needed during sleep. It still feels like awareness is present in a lucid dream though.

There is nothing hidden for reality. No implications to what IS.
The belief that there should be some implications hinders the
understanding of what is, as it is.

Look again at an object.
Is there any room for further addition?

Object.

What else? Is there an "I" there?
Is there anything hidden?

For most objects the answer is an obvious no. There is the object. Nothing else. No "I". Simple. Easy.

For some objects this is not the case. If the object is a picture of a recently departed loved one for example. Then there are strong feelings and many thoughts that coincide with the object. There is the object, a picture. There is sadness. There is the thought "she will be missed'. This is not hidden nor does this imply an "I". This just means there is object + feelings + thoughts.

Choice is made at the moment it is made.
Comparing is another thing.

Recall a scene from the memory in which you are making a
choice after careful considerations.

What was it that made a decision at the very moment decision was made?

Memory is not a friend in this instance because memory report the same thing every time. Memory always says, without fail, that "I" made the decision.

Several years ago I was looking at buying a several different businesses. Only one was purchased. The process took a couple months and during this time the comparing never stopped. A decision was never really made though. The business bought was purchased due to feeling it was the best choice at the time. It appears that feelings determined the purchase but feelings are always changing so that something with total finality, like a decision, could not result from feelings.


Can you even pinpoint the moment it was made?[/quote]

No. I can tell you today that I have decided to attend a meeting in the morning. Tomorrow comes and I no longer feel like going to the meeting so I don't. But yesterday it was already decided, right? Obviously not. Well then the decision could be said to have been made in the morning when I no longer felt like going. "This morning I decided not to go to the meeting". But then, on the way to breakfast, I start to feel differently and decide that going to the meeting is actually a good idea. So I turn my car towards the office intending to attend the meeting. But the decision was made this morning not to attend right? Obviously not. And then in the parking lot I can again feel differently and decide to go straight to my office and thus not attend the meeting. And on and on. No decision is ever seen here. The only thing seen is shifting feelings. A decision implies finality. If something is always subject to change then nothing is ever final about it.

In the above example, when the meeting is over surely then it can not be attended. It is over. That is final. The ending of the meeting ends the possibility of attending. No decision was ever made and now none is possible. Whatever happened happened.


So that is it for today. Thank you, as always, from the bottom of my heart.

[Starr]

Just wanted to expand a little further on awareness. So awareness is not needed for most things. It felt otherwise while observing life around me come and go and that observation prompted this line of questioning. However, even though I walk without awareness of walking, while walking I am aware of something. Usually thoughts or my surroundings. So awareness is still ever present its just that it's focus shifts. That is while waking. During deep sleep I can't say with certainty if awareness is present or not.

[Bananafish]

The only thing looking is the eyes themselves. Looking needs eyes not an 'I". This much seems clear. Without eyes nothing is seen. Looking does not require these specific eyes though. If they were switched with other eyes, like a transplant, looking would still take place. Looking doesn't require 2 eyes either. With only one eye looking still occurs. So where do I point? I point to the sense organ called eye. Right now I am pointing to the eye residing here in front of the screen. Although this specific eye is not required for looking, it is the one that is looking right now.

Are you aware of the eyes when seeing a beautiful flower?

Which sentence is closer to the actual experience of seeing a flower?

1. Flower.

2. The eyes are seeing a flower.

This of course assumes that the feelings of others, which I can never directly experience, do in fact exist.

That's right. We are exclusively investigating direct experience and
you're back to speculation and 'others.' Watch out, Starr!

Thoughts also appear to happen "in here". The boundary for thoughts is a little trickier to nail down. Thoughts do not happen in my feet, hands, ears, etc... So the skin is not a suitable boundary for thoughts. Thoughts feel like they happen / exist behind the eyes and between the ears, in this specific spot. This feels like the place that all sensory input coalesces and can then be worked over endlessly by thought. This seems so juvenile but it is what it is. This is a very strong and solidified life long feeling. Very sticky. Little to no wiggle room.

Keep feeling that feeling again and again, and see it clearly.
Do thoughts have any location?

Navigating the walk home in a drunken black out does not imply awareness. If awareness is not needed to walk, bike, drive, etc... then it certainly would not be needed during sleep. It still feels like awareness is present in a lucid dream though.

When you are aware, you are just aware; later, you recall that you were aware.
Isn't it just a memory, though?

Where, and when is awareness?
Where and when is the world? Isn't everything like a dream?

For some objects this is not the case. If the object is a picture of a recently departed loved one for example. Then there are strong feelings and many thoughts that coincide with the object. There is the object, a picture. There is sadness. There is the thought "she will be missed'. This is not hidden nor does this imply an "I". This just means there is object + feelings + thoughts.

When sadness is felt, do a certain thought appear
at the same time, or is there a certain (however short it is) time lag?

Isn't it like the below?

1. object → 2. feeling → 3. thought

No decision was ever made and now none is possible. Whatever happened happened.

What can "you" do?

[Starr]

Are you aware of the eyes when seeing a beautiful flower?

For the most part no. If my eyes are irritated, dry, and itchy it is difficult to look at anything with out being aware of them. Or at least the pain/discomfort associated with them if not the actual eyes themselves. Of course the discomfort feels like it exists in the eyes themselves.

Which sentence is closer to the actual experience of seeing a flower?

1. Flower.

2. The eyes are seeing a flower.

Number 1., the flower. The experience of seeing a flower is just that, seeing the flower. That the eyes are seeing the flower is a thought about seeing the flower not the experience of seeing the flower.

That's right. We are exclusively investigating direct experience and
you're back to speculation and 'others.' Watch out, Starr!

This rebuttal was expected, however, it does little to address the underling issue that the skin seems to be the boundary for experiences of the senses. The boundary that defines "in here" and "out there".

So here is an example of personal experience that should highlight the same issue. I grew up near a golf course. So observing people golf was an everyday experience. When watching someone tee off from a couple hundred yards away, down the fairway, an interesting thing occurs. The golfer is seen hitting the ball. The ball is seen starting to fly. Then, after the ball is already well on its way, the sound of the club hitting the ball is finally heard. The reason for this is of course that light travels way way way faster than sound. Travels faster where? Well to "in here" of course. So, even though the sound actually occurs at the same instant the club hits the ball, the experience of hearing the shot can not occur until the sound reaches the ears. The event, ball hit by club, is a singular event that happens in an instant. The fact that it is seen and then heard separately, appearing as two events, seems to indicate that the experience of seeing and hearing happens "in here". If the experience was not required to happen "in here" then there appears to be no way to account for the difference time between seeing and hearing that occurs proportional to ones distance from shot. All of this has been personally verified. The closer my body is to the golfer, the shorter the time between seeing the shot and hearing the shot becomes. This seems to strongly suggest that the experience of hearing happens "in here" because nothing can be heard until it reaches "in here".

Keep feeling that feeling again and again, and see it clearly.
Do thoughts have any location?

This one is difficult but here's what is observed. Thought is always portrayed and talked about as happening in the head. So that, until now, seriously never once until now, has this idea really been questioned. Thought seems to take the form of images (often images of words) and sounds (often the sound of words being spoken).

The images have always seemed to be held in the head. I close my eyes and can see the image of an apple. I can picture the apple clearly, yet when I open my eyes and look around "out there", the apple is no where to be seen. Or is it? Just now, with little effort, the mental image of the apple is projected against the wall in front of me. It can be projected anywhere "out there" just as easily as it is projected against a surface in my head. So the images produced by thought appear to be unrestricted in such a way as too make a boundary for these images impossible to define.

The sounds associated with thought are trickier still. Once again, it is a life long, constantly reinforced idea, that thought is heard as the voice in my head. The voice which can be just as clearly heard in my head, as the image of an apple could be seen in my head. But seen and heard really aren't the right words to use here. Ears and eyes are not involved in the seeing and hearing of thought. I can easily hear, in thought, the word hello. This can be easily heard inside my head. However, just like with the image of the apple, the sound of hello can be projected "out there" as well. It can be heard coming from any direction imagined. So the sounds produced by thought appear to be unrestricted in such a way as too make any boundary impossible to define.

For some reason thoughts seem to only be experienced as images and sounds. A flower can be easily seen. The sound of sniffing a flower can be easily heard. However, the actual specific smell of a flower does not seem to be accessible, through thought, in the same way.

When you are aware, you are just aware; later, you recall that you were aware.
Isn't it just a memory, though?

Of course it is. What does this imply?

When you are unaware, you are just unaware; later you realize that there is nothing to recall. Hence you deduce that you were not aware. But without memory how can you know for sure if you were actually unaware as opposed to just having poor memory? The original issue was in regard to whether awareness comes and goes or whether awareness is constant despite the fact the memory of events is not. Still seems unclear.

Where, and when is awareness?

Here and now. Always here and now. Even memories of being aware yesterday are experienced in the awareness that is here and now.

Where and when is the world?

The world is here and now. Always here and now. Memories of the world are always here and now. Memories formed 10 years ago are still only experienced here and now.

Isn't everything like a dream?

This is what we're trying to see. A dream is almost always taken as reality while occurring. No awareness of the illusion. When, and this happens sometimes, a dream as seen for what it is, while still dreaming, then truth of the situation is seen and freedom from the illusion is immediate. No more fear, anxiety, or stress can be caused by the dream once it has been seen through. Life is like a dream for sure. It is taken to be real so that much so in fact, that fear, anxiety, and stress constantly result. Now how to see the truth of this situation and be free the illusion if in fact such a thing is possible?

When sadness is felt, do a certain thought appear
at the same time, or is there a certain (however short it is) time lag?

Isn't it like the below?

1. object → 2. feeling → 3. thought

In this example it is clear that the object set off a feeling and the feeling sets off a thought. In a sequence, not happening simultaneously. However, once the sequence is complete, it seems like the object and the feeling and the thought are all present at the same time. The object starts the feeling of sadness but the object does not go away to make room for the feeling. The feeling of sadness starts the thought "she will be missed" but the feeling does not go away to make room for the thought.

The order does not have to always be this way. For instance, at the end of the day, while mentally reviewing things, it is remembered that an important paper was not mailed as it should have been. This starts a feeling of anxiety and dread. Then the letter (object) is deposited in the mail box. They still happen in a sequence but this time as thought - feeling - object.

What can "you" do?

It seems that I can do nothing. Thought compares options, feeling determine which is chosen. What am I missing here?

This dialogue is so greatly enjoyed. Thank you as always.

Starr

[Bananafish]

If my eyes are irritated, dry, and itchy it is difficult to look at anything with out being aware of them. Or at least the pain/discomfort associated with them if not the actual eyes themselves. Of course the discomfort feels like it exists in the eyes themselves.

The next time a part your body feels itchy, try to see if
that part is feeling itchy, or it is like this:




ITCHY.

Number 1., the flower. The experience of seeing a flower is just that, seeing the flower. That the eyes are seeing the flower is a thought about seeing the flower not the experience of seeing the flower.

Nice LOOKing!
See if this is the same for the "I."

Look at something around you.
Do "you" see that something?

This seems to strongly suggest that the experience of hearing happens "in here" because nothing can be heard until it reaches "in here".

Can you point at "in here?"
Where is it?

Thought seems to take the form of images (often images of words) and sounds (often the sound of words being spoken).

Yes.

It can be projected anywhere "out there" just as easily as it is projected against a surface in my head. So the images produced by thought appear to be unrestricted in such a way as too make a boundary for these images impossible to define.

Do thoughts have a fixed location?

the sounds produced by thought appear to be unrestricted in such a way as too make any boundary impossible to define.

What about the five senses?
Try feeling them one by one, and see the above also applies to
the five senses.

The original issue was in regard to whether awareness comes and goes or whether awareness is constant despite the fact the memory of events is not. Still seems unclear.

I feel we have gone astray from our original focus.

If the above is unclear, please restate the question in regards to
seeing that there is no separate, concrete "I."

Please tell how the question about constantness relates to
the above issue.

a dream as seen for what it is, while still dreaming, then truth of the situation is seen and freedom from the illusion is immediate. No more fear, anxiety, or stress can be caused by the dream once it has been seen through. Life is like a dream for sure. It is taken to be real so that much so in fact, that fear, anxiety, and stress constantly result. Now how to see the truth of this situation and be free the illusion if in fact such a thing is possible?

I'm afraid that is a sheer imagination, Starr.

I saw through the illusion, but anxiety and stress come anyway.
The difference is now I can see clearly that they don't
come to "me." And that is liberating.

I don't liberate,
but reality liberates itself through self understanding.


Again, problems, anxiety, stress, etc, come after seeing through the
illusion. This is a very important point to be understood.

You can't falsify reality. That's the source of suffering.


If you have the expectation that everything will be
fine and your life will be devoid of any problems, you have
to throw it away.

That is a barrier that hinders the true understanding of reality.

once the sequence is complete, it seems like the object and the feeling and the thought are all present at the same time. The object starts the feeling of sadness but the object does not go away to make room for the feeling. The feeling of sadness starts the thought "she will be missed" but the feeling does not go away to make room for the thought.

That's perfectly OK, although you are talking about the
memory of your experience; and that won't help a lot to what we're trying to
see here.


For the time being, please focus on what is felt here and now.

Feel what is felt now.
Is there an "I" there?

This dialogue is so greatly enjoyed. Thank you as always.

Thank you, Starr. :)

[Starr]

The next time a part your body feels itchy, try to see if
that part is feeling itchy, or it is like this:




ITCHY.

The feeling is indeed just ITCHY. But it is difficult to separate the feeling from the fact that the location of the cause of the feeling is known. The feeling ITCHY is not in in specific place, however, it is known, not as a thought, just known, that the cause of ITCHY is located in a specific spot. No?

Even emotional feelings can have a specific location associated with them. Anxiety for example. The feeling of anxiety has no location, that is seen clearly, however, it is usually accompanied by a tightness in the chest. This makes separating feelings and physical locations somewhat difficult.

Nice LOOKing!
See if this is the same for the "I."

Look at something around you.
Do "you" see that something?

This is clearly seen. The experience of looking is the looking itself. That the eyes, rods and cones, the frontal cortex, and, of course, "I" are/am seeing is a thought about the experience happening after the experience. So "I" see nothing. Looking is seeing. What is looking? It feels like awareness. More on that bellow.

Also, characteristics like color seem to be know by the looking. Things like "who is looking" can not be known, however it seems that in the looking itself what is seen is known. It needs no thought, other than the label of color, to know the ceiling is white. Is this off base?

Can you point at "in here?"
Where is it?

I'm tempted to say "in here" is inside the ear, at the eardrum itself. But of course, the eardrum is a specific location and experience can have no location as noticed above in regards to seeing. The experience of hearing is the hearing itself. That the hearing happens "in here" or at the eardrum is/are thoughts that occur after the experience. This seems very clear when intensely observed yet the life long feeling of "in here" can come marching back in when focus lessens and mind wanders. Just the feeling though, it is known to be false and therefore not able to do much. Still seems it should evaporate completely. Also, the thoughts that "hearing happens in the eardrum" seem to help bolster the "in here" feeling. Realization of the above does not totally remove the incorrect thoughts.

Also, characteristics like volume seem to be know by the hearing. Things like "who is hearing" can not be known, however it seems that in the hearing itself what is heard is known. It needs no thought, other than the label of high pitch, to know the sound is high pitch. Is this off base?

Do thoughts have a fixed location?

Thoughts are also experienced and experience has no location as already observed above. That thoughts occur in a specific place is just a thought about the experience not the experience itself. But in this case the experience is, by definition, a thought. So how is the thought experienced any more valid than the thought about the experience which is itself another experience? Isn't thought about thought just as valid as the original thought itself? Something seems to be wrong with this. It is confusing. Does this make any sense?

What about the five senses?
Try feeling them one by one, and see the above also applies to
the five senses.

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and sort of. For four out of five of the senses it is very clear that to declare the location they occur is a thought about the experience after the experience. So hearing doesn't happen anywhere, however, sounds can be heard as coming above, bellow, etc... This seems an important distinction. Hearing has no location but sounds do. Seeing has no location but objects seen do. Is this off base?

Also, when it comes to physically feeling the body, as mentioned above, separating the feeling and the location is much more difficult. If the inside of the nose is tickled then a sneeze follows. The sensation of tickle is clearly felt/experienced. Saying that it is not located/felt in the nose seems difficult. Looking doesn't feel like it happens in the eyes, hearing doesn't feel like it happens in the ears, but the experience of sneezing feels like it happens in the nose.

I feel we have gone astray from our original focus.

If the above is unclear, please restate the question in regards to
seeing that there is no separate, concrete "I."

Please tell how the question about constantness relates to
the above issue.

The central issue was/is that awareness seems constant, and anything that feels constant is highly susceptible to being labeled and felt as "I". It is clearly seen that everything in life (thoughts, feelings, aversions, desires, physical objects, etc.)
are always in flux. Nothing concrete about any of it. No "I" can be found. That is, except for awareness. Awareness appears to always be flowing and shifting from one thing to another. From surroundings and tasks to thoughts and feelings. It always on the move but it always is, as it is, in its totality. It seems divided up between everything observed, in an always changing ratio, but the sum total of awareness seems constant. 25% on thoughts 25% on feelings 50% on surroundings. Then, and most of the time is seems more like this, 95% thoughts 4% feelings 1% surroundings. The ratio of the three numbers is always changing but the sum total seems to be a constant that does not come and go. Just shits.

So here is how it feels right now. Awareness = the ability to experience, or just experience. This awareness appears to not only be constant but also to have continuity. The continuity of awareness wants to be labeled as "I". Not a personal "I". Not an "I" that has any characteristics, thoughts, feelings, etc.. Just a neutral "I" that is existence itself. It feels like "I" can be defined as a unit of awareness that accounts for the ability to experience. Is this off base?

I'm afraid that is a sheer imagination, Starr.

I saw through the illusion, but anxiety and stress come anyway.
The difference is now I can see clearly that they don't
come to "me." And that is liberating.

I don't liberate,
but reality liberates itself through self understanding.


Again, problems, anxiety, stress, etc, come after seeing through the
illusion. This is a very important point to be understood.

You can't falsify reality. That's the source of suffering.


If you have the expectation that everything will be
fine and your life will be devoid of any problems, you have
to throw it away.

That is a barrier that hinders the true understanding of reality.

The "what liberation is NOT" was read several times before starting. The whole dream/waking thing seemed an apt analogy, or at least an interesting one, at the time, however, rest assured, life is not expected to be free of problems/stress as a result of this work.

That's perfectly OK, although you are talking about the
memory of your experience; and that won't help a lot to what we're trying to
see here.

This is not clear. In the example of object - feeling - thought it seems that certainly the all 3 exist together even though the came to be one at a time. The object is seen throughout this example, not as a memory at anytime. The feeling of sadness does not occur for only an instant. It persists for quite some time once started. Or is feeling instantaneous and from that moment on only continued to be felt through memory of the instant?

For the time being, please focus on what is felt here and now.

Feel what is felt now.
Is there an "I" there?

Many things are felt. "I" claims it is the ability to feel but not any particular set of feelings. Neutral but still hanging on.
As stated above, "I", as a last ditch effort, wants to attach the fact that experience is happening.


So many things are gong on in life right now, things that should and normally would grab the majority of my attention. All good things, new and exciting things. Things that desire has demanded for quite some time. However, this "work" that we are doing greatly overshadows all that in such a rewarding way.

Just a complicated way of saying thank you.

Starr

[Bananafish]

The feeling is indeed just ITCHY. But it is difficult to separate the feeling from the fact that the location of the cause of the feeling is known. The feeling ITCHY is not in in specific place, however, it is known, not as a thought, just known, that the cause of ITCHY is located in a specific spot. No?

To know the cause and the effect is the realm of intellectual knowledge.
It is good to examine an issue carefully when it involves time.
Direct experience, the experience without thoughts, "I,"
doesn't involve time.


You can't FEEL the cause, or the effect. Can you?


Try to feel the cause and effect of a feeling,
and describe how it is felt.

Even emotional feelings can have a specific location associated with them. Anxiety for example. The feeling of anxiety has no location, that is seen clearly, however, it is usually accompanied by a tightness in the chest. This makes separating feelings and physical locations somewhat difficult.

LOOK carefully at the very moment (the moment there is no thought "I" or
any thought), anxiety felt.

Try to really feel anxiety. Be one with it. Feel it again and again, and examine.
In that very moment of anxiety, are you aware of its location?
Or do you notice the location afterwards?

This is clearly seen. The experience of looking is the looking itself. That the eyes, rods and cones, the frontal cortex, and, of course, "I" are/am seeing is a thought about the experience happening after the experience. So "I" see nothing. Looking is seeing. What is looking? It feels like awareness. More on that bellow.

Also, characteristics like color seem to be know by the looking. Things like "who is looking" can not be known, however it seems that in the looking itself what is seen is known. It needs no thought, other than the label of color, to know the ceiling is white. Is this off base?

Great! What about the "cause" of a feeling?
What divides feeling into cause and location, and feeling?
Isn't is just feeling?

Be careful when there is division.
Division involves thought.
See how thought divides feeling into location, cause, and feeling.

in the hearing itself what is heard is known.

This is a beautiful description of reality ... :)

Isn't thought about thought just as valid as the original thought itself? Something seems to be wrong with this. It is confusing.

Thought is thought, whatever kind of thought it is.
Why complicate it?

What about the five senses?
Try feeling them one by one, and see the above also applies to
the five senses.

Also, when it comes to physically feeling the body, as mentioned above, separating the feeling and the location is much more difficult. If the inside of the nose is tickled then a sneeze follows. The sensation of tickle is clearly felt/experienced. Saying that it is not located/felt in the nose seems difficult. Looking doesn't feel like it happens in the eyes, hearing doesn't feel like it happens in the ears, but the experience of sneezing feels like it happens in the nose.

Close your eyes and touch your nose.

Please report what you found out.

So here is how it feels right now. Awareness = the ability to experience, or just experience. This awareness appears to not only be constant but also to have continuity. The continuity of awareness wants to be labeled as "I". Not a personal "I". Not an "I" that has any characteristics, thoughts, feelings, etc.. Just a neutral "I" that is existence itself. It feels like "I" can be defined as a unit of awareness that accounts for the ability to experience.

Can you be far, far simpler?
What is awareness in other words?

Can you say it in just a single word?

This is not clear. In the example of object - feeling - thought it seems that certainly the all 3 exist together even though the came to be one at a time. The object is seen throughout this example, not as a memory at anytime. The feeling of sadness does not occur for only an instant. It persists for quite some time once started. Or is feeling instantaneous and from that moment on only continued to be felt through memory of the instant?

Let's do an experiment here.
When you are angry (or sad ... any other emotion will do), try to keep being angry for as long as you can,
without even a second of forgetting that you're angry (literally, even a single second).

What happens? Please report.

Many things are felt. "I" claims it is the ability to feel but not any particular set of feelings. Neutral but still hanging on.
As stated above, "I", as a last ditch effort, wants to attach the fact that experience is happening.

I thought you clearly saw that "I" is a thought and a thought can't "want" or "do" anything.
Can they? Can the thought "I move my hand" move the hands?

So many things are gong on in life right now, things that should and normally would grab the majority of my attention. All good things, new and exciting things. Things that desire has demanded for quite some time. However, this "work" that we are doing greatly overshadows all that in such a rewarding way.

Just a complicated way of saying thank you.

Keep up the good work, Starr. I still feel you're being too intellectual,
but we're on the right track anyway!

[Starr]

To know the cause and the effect is the realm of intellectual knowledge.
It is good to examine an issue carefully when it involves time.
Direct experience, the experience without thoughts, "I,"
doesn't involve time.


You can't FEEL the cause, or the effect. Can you?


Try to feel the cause and effect of a feeling,
and describe how it is felt.

No. The cause and effects of feelings are thoughts. Right now there is a dull ache type pain. The cause is probably a life time of poor posture. The effects may include many types of long term back problems. Neither of these can be felt though, instead, they are thought. All that is felt is a dull pain. Really all that is felt is whatever is felt.

LOOK carefully at the very moment (the moment there is no thought "I" or
any thought), anxiety felt.

Try to really feel anxiety. Be one with it. Feel it again and again, and examine.
In that very moment of anxiety, are you aware of its location?
Or do you notice the location afterwards?

It seems that the location is determined, by thought, afterwards. As has already been examined, that seeing, hearing, smelling, and tasting happen at the eyes, ears, nose, and tongue is a thought about the experience not part of the experience itself. The sense of touch is harder to separate from location.

Many times throughout the day, physical sensations resulting from touch have been examined. Thought grabs hold of touch so fast its hard to tell its happening. The instant any physical stimulation is felt, thought assigns it a fixed position. It happens so fast that it has been hard to observe. When sensation is felt thought frantically and with urgency, locates it. However, it was observed, that there is a separation between feeling and thought assigning the location. This still needs further observation. Any pointers?

Great! What about the "cause" of a feeling?
What divides feeling into cause and location, and feeling?
Isn't is just feeling?

Be careful when there is division.
Division involves thought.
See how thought divides feeling into location, cause, and feeling.

It is indeed just feeling. Thought divides it into location, cause, etc...

This is a beautiful description of reality ... :)

Encouragement is always appreciated :)

Thought is thought, whatever kind of thought it is.
Why complicate it?

Keep it simple, maybe simpler at least. All sensory experience seems to define reality. Thought can be of anything. It is not restricted to the reality experienced by the senses. Thought is reality though. There is thinking. The content of thoughts, however, is another matter. Perhaps there is some confusion regarding thought vs the content of thought. But content of thought is just another thought. I know, I know, not keeping it simple anymore. So there is thinking, the experience, and there are thoughts. Does this make any sense?

The central issue was whether or not thoughts have a location. It is seen clearly now that thoughts can have no location. They do not happen anywhere. There is thought. Anything tacked on to that statement is just thought about the experience of thinking, not the experience itself.

Close your eyes and touch your nose.

Please report what you found out.

With the eyes closed it is very hard not to have a mental image seen of the hand reaching up to the nose. In this way, at the moment the nose is touched, there is the mental image of hand touching the nose. If instead the hand is held right next to nose for awhile and then the nose is just barely touched, There is the feeling of touch experienced and then thought is observed quickly and almost desperately struggling to assign a location. This is hard to notice as it happens fast and thought seems hell bent on assigning location immediately to all physical sensation. Physical sensation is experienced. That it is happening at a specific spot, involving specific nerves, is a thought about the experience.

Can you be far, far simpler?
What is awareness in other words?

Can you say it in just a single word?

Awareness is awareness. Just like sadness is sadness. Awareness can be felt. It is a feeling. The feeling of paying attention. This seems right. Still somewhat unsure about awareness. There are a lot of prior ideas about awareness (its such a buzz word these days) and they are no doubt only confusing and making this harder.

Let's do an experiment here.
When you are angry (or sad ... any other emotion will do), try to keep being angry for as long as you can,
without even a second of forgetting that you're angry (literally, even a single second).

What happens? Please report.

This may take awhile. Strong emotions are rarely experienced, thank god. With mild irritation it seemed that it could be continued to some extent but still not clear. Its like this, irritation pops up instantaneously. This feels like a small and unpleasant, electrical shook. In order to lengthen the duration of irritation, thought concerning the irritant is required. It all happens very fast and the inclination is to quickly label the irritation as being caused by something. Then thought goes on for some time about how annoying or unfair or inconvenient that something is. This process appears to lengthen the feeling of irritation.

I thought you clearly saw that "I" is a thought and a thought can't "want" or "do" anything.
Can they? Can the thought "I move my hand" move the hands?

Of course not. Thoughts can not move the hands at all but at least the thought 'hands moved' is correct. The thought "I moved my hands" is totally unable to do anything and incorrect.

on the right track

Right track? I thought we were already in the station! Just Kidding. This is very nice to hear.
Thank you. Thank you. And thank you.

Starr

[Bananafish]

Really all that is felt is whatever is felt.

And a name for a specific feeling is just a label.
Isn't it?

However, it was observed, that there is a separation between feeling and thought assigning the location. This still needs further observation. Any pointers?

Of course, they are two different aspects of reality,
although being different donesn't mean being separate.

Look at two different objects and try to find the boundary
between them. Where's the boundary?
Observe carefully and report what you found out.

It is indeed just feeling. Thought divides it into location, cause, etc...

Thought doesn't divide.

Location, cause, etc are thoughts, but do they divide anything?

So there is thinking, the experience, and there are thoughts. Does this make any sense?

Yes. makes perfect sense.
Are thinker, thought, and thinking separate?

The central issue was whether or not thoughts have a location. It is seen clearly now that thoughts can have no location. They do not happen anywhere. There is thought. Anything tacked on to that statement is just thought about the experience of thinking, not the experience itself.

Fabulous! :)
How do you feel to find it out?

In this way, at the moment the nose is touched, there is the mental image of hand touching the nose.

Stay with that image and see if there is a moment of gap when that
image isn't any more.

Examine the touch at that very moment.
Whet is found out?

Awareness is awareness. Just like sadness is sadness. Awareness can be felt. It is a feeling. The feeling of paying attention. This seems right. Still somewhat unsure about awareness.

When you are aware of a car,
Are "you," "car," and "awareness" different?

Which one describes reality more precisely?

1. I am aware of the car.

2. Car.

In order to lengthen the duration of irritation, thought concerning the irritant is required.

Can anything control its duration?
Try doing it. Try to think about the irritant, and
make it last for one week, without any interval.
Can you, or anything do it?

Of course not. Thoughts can not move the hands at all but at least the thought 'hands moved' is correct. The thought "I moved my hands" is totally unable to do anything and incorrect.

That's it! :)

Right track? I thought we were already in the station! Just Kidding. This is very nice to hear.
Thank you. Thank you. And thank you.

Thanks, Starr. :)

[Starr]

And a name for a specific feeling is just a label.
Isn't it?

Yes of course. It is a label. A label that points to something that exists though. Unlike "I" Many other abstract concepts exist and it is not always clear which point to something and which don't.

Of course, they are two different aspects of reality,
although being different donesn't mean being separate.

Look at two different objects and try to find the boundary
between them. Where's the boundary?
Observe carefully and report what you found out.

None can be found. It seems clear, even though its probably wrong, that the objects themselves are separate. However, saying the boundary between them is in a specific spot seems completely arbitrary and therefore impossible to nail down. Of course the lack of ability to define a boundary seems to imply that one does not exist. This is intellectual though. When two objects are viewed they still seem to be separated even though no boundary can be defined.

Said another way, no specific boundary between objects can be defined, but, and you won't like this, there appears to be a boundary between the object and everything else. It seems to be the same "in here" vs "out there" type situation except form the objects point of view. This has already been observed to be a false perception, however, the feeling resurfaces in this example. Ugh. In the case of an apple and orange side by side no boundary between them can be found, however, a boundary that separates the orange from everything else seems to exist at the outer skin of the orange. Like an imaginary line drawn round the surface. Yes, it was just said, imaginary. That this is wrong may be true but it remains in the realm of intellectual understanding and deduction. The apple and orange still seem clearly to be separated. Stuck?

Highway traffic under ideal conditions includes a separation that exists between the vehicles. This separation is what defines the two objects. Car A and Car B. When the separation is removed an auto accident occurs. At the moment of the accident the two vehicles become one object, Car C. Now no separation exists between Car A and Car B. How to see this otherwise?

Thought doesn't divide.

Location, cause, etc are thoughts, but do they divide anything?

This part of the conversation was in regard to feelings be separated into feeling, location, cause, and so on. It was said this was done by thought. This is/was incorrect. It is clear that thought does not divide feelings. Instead it appears that thought tacks all these things on to the feeling. There is feeling and there are thoughts about location, cause, etc.. They are separate, the feeling and the thoughts, or are they? As stated above the whole issue of separation is far from resolved.

Yes. makes perfect sense.
Are thinker, thought, and thinking separate?

Thinker and thinking are the same. There is no thinker, just thinking. Now thought seems it could point to a specific instance of thinking. Not the general experience of thinking but one particular thought. So there is thinker/thinking and there is the specific thought "this is way to much thinking!". The two appear separate. Once again separation seems an issue. This is becoming quite a trend today.

Fabulous! :)
How do you feel to find it out?

It feels like progress. Thoughts can have no location. This has been seen very, very, very clearly. However, (always a however isn't there?) the feeling of mentally hearing the voice of thought is still deceptive. It can still feel like the voice in my head. Perhaps with time this will fade?

Stay with that image and see if there is a moment of gap when that
image isn't any more.

Examine the touch at that very moment.
Whet is found out?

This is hard. The moment the touch is examined seems to be the same moment that a label of location is assigned. Looking can be examined without a label of location (such as "looking is happening in the eyes") being assigned much easier than touch can be examined without a label of location ("touching is happening on the nose") being assigned. It really feels like the location of the sensation of touch is known, like no thought or label is required. Like a red ant bite for example. An fire ant bits the ankle. The hand comes down to swat the offending party immediately. It happens as a reaction so fast that no thought can observed happening. How is this if the location of the feeling is not known in the feeling?

When you are aware of a car,
Are "you," "car," and "awareness" different?

Which one describes reality more precisely?

1. I am aware of the car.

2. Car.

2. Car. That I am aware of the car is a thought added to the experience of car being seen. As was seen much earlier on, intense thinking has a different feel than mind wandering. This is not an indication of "I" (as in "I" directed my thinking") just a difference in feeling. Awareness seems the same right now. To be extremely aware of something as opposed to only half noticing something. These situations certainly feel different. It seems awareness is not just a thought but that it has feeling associated with it in a way that that the thought "the eyes see the car" does not. Does this make any sense?

Can anything control its duration?
Try doing it. Try to think about the irritant, and
make it last for one week, without any interval.
Can you, or anything do it?

No. This is very clear. However, the duration of irritation seems to change from instance to instance. The duration of irritation always appears to be longer than an instant as well. It can be a weak and quickly dissolved feeling and other times it can be strong and lingering. Certainly "I" can't control the duration and if nothing. Perhaps nothing can control the duration of a feeling but it appears feelings do have different duration's at different times. Although this may be wrong, this is how it feels as of now.




Plenty of fodder for the fire today. Lots of progress yet to make. Very satisfying and appreciated.

Starr

[Bananafish]

Unlike "I" Many other abstract concepts exist and it is not always clear which point to something and which don't.

Right.

The apple and orange still seem clearly to be separated.

Look at an orange and apple at the same time.
Keep looking, without trying to look. Dont watch nor stare.

Look at them just like when you hear sounds.
Hearlook them.


Did you find anything new?

When the separation is removed an auto accident occurs.

When you drive a car, do you constantly think about the
separation between your car and other cars?

If not, do you often get into an accident?

Next time you drive it, see if you think about other
cars while driving.

As stated above the whole issue of separation is far from resolved.

It helps to rest in the gap between thoughts.
Take some time for the above kind of rest,
then look at the objects that you "think" are separate.

Persevere and keep LOOKing ... see what comes up.

the feeling of mentally hearing the voice of thought is still deceptive. It can still feel like the voice in my head. Perhaps with time this will fade?

Why does it have to fade?
As you observed, thoughts are felt to be a kind of voice.

What is the problem?
Do you expect thoughts to be terminated after some
kind of special experience?

It really feels like the location of the sensation of touch is known, like no thought or label is required. Like a red ant bite for example. An fire ant bits the ankle. The hand comes down to swat the offending party immediately. It happens as a reaction so fast that no thought can observed happening. How is this if the location of the feeling is not known in the feeling?

At that very moment, do you think of the hand?

Where is the room for "location," "ankle," or "knowing"
to come?

Isn't it far more precise to describe this as

"Ouch!!!" ?

It seems awareness is not just a thought but that it has feeling associated with it in a way that that the thought "the eyes see the car" does not. Does this make any sense?

Umm, it's hard to correctly understand what you mean.


Let me pose you two questions:


Is awareness separate from everything else?

What does the word "awareness" point at?

it appears feelings do have different duration's at different times.

Right. Is there any problem in it?
Do you have the desire to eliminate the feelings you don't want to arise?

[Starr]

Look at an orange and apple at the same time.
Keep looking, without trying to look. Dont watch nor stare.

Look at them just like when you hear sounds.
Hearlook them.


Did you find anything new?

There is the apple a space and the orange. Apple and orange are just labels of course that seem to define separate objects. If the labels are dropped and only what is actually observed is reported it can be said there is red, a space, and then orange. The names of colors are also labels, however, they point to something directly observable instead of a concept like apple and without reporting the changing color nothing at all could be reported.

Now then, about that space between them, the real source of misunderstanding it seems. The two items are sitting on a brown counter top with a black wall behind them. So it really goes like: red, black/brown, orange. This seems to be the most fundamental observation possible without any thoughts/ideas/concepts butting in. Looked at in this manner it appears that the supposed space of separation is equal, in terms of substance, as that of the objects themselves. (all 3 three are just color) If the sequence of red to black/brown to orange is further simplified it could be written as color1 to color2 to color3. In fact the whole field of vision could be expressed, in its simplest terms, as shifting color. Now it is clear that the area representing separation (color2) is just that, color2. Separation is word applied to a color just as red is applied to color1 and orange is applied to color3. There is nothing inherently special/different about color2 (vs color1 or color3) although the word applied, separation, seems to indicate otherwise. The way it is viewed once thought hits the scene is that their is an apple, an orange (both with innumerable qualities (ripe, sweet, healthy, etc..)) and there is the space between and it is that space that defines them. But if the space between them is not space at all but is merely more content then the idea of separation starts to fall apart.

When looking there is content. Always content. There is never "a space" anywhere. Just a continuum of content. It seems a true space could only exist it there was a literal whole in content. What that would look like conjures up all sorts of science fiction (a rip in space/time?) but that is imagination. Such a space has never been observed.

This is still somewhat in the realm of deduction and therefore intellect. Can anything helpful, in terms of pointers, be gleamed from the above?

When you drive a car, do you constantly think about the
separation between your car and other cars?

If not, do you often get into an accident?

Next time you drive it, see if you think about other
cars while driving.

The other cars are not generally thought about or even really noticed. Driving, like most things, seems to happen all on its own and requires no thought at all. My driving record reflects that accidents do not result from not thinking about other cars. The separation between cars is not noticed either. The only thing that would definitely get noticed is if the separation between 2 cars becomes zero. That tends to grab attention! In this situation, if separation is not true, if its just a useful concept, then what is true. There is clearly an event occurring on impact that requires two things to come into direct contact with each other. So if they were not previously separated then why are they not always in contact? Or if they are always in contact, as the above observation regarding apple and orange seems to indicate, then how to account for the distinct event "crash"?

It helps to rest in the gap between thoughts.
Take some time for the above kind of rest,
then look at the objects that you "think" are separate.

Persevere and keep LOOKing ... see what comes up.

All observations about this example were already covered. The whole rest in the gap thing is tricky. The moment the gap is realized is the same moment the gap disappears. It like trying to grab hold of a greased up pig. The moment between thoughts can be observed rather easily, however, resting there for more than an instant is harder.

Why does it have to fade?
As you observed, thoughts are felt to be a kind of voice.

What is the problem?
Do you expect thoughts to be terminated after some
kind of special experience?

No. Thoughts were not now or ever expected to terminate or in fact change at all. Its the feeling that the voice of thought is still heard in a specific place, in the cranium, that is troubling. It has been seen clearly that thoughts have no location yet they seem to be heard in between the ears anyway.

At that very moment, do you think of the hand?

Where is the room for "location," "ankle," or "knowing"
to come?

Isn't it far more precise to describe this as

"Ouch!!!" ?

Yes. To just describe the fundamental experience, OUCH! is the most accurate. The rest is just thought, even if the thought is correct. The ant did bite the ankle after all. The problem was dealt with appropriately by first swatting at the ankle rather than the knee or somewhere else. However, it is seen that anything other than the experience itself, in this case OUCH!, which is a feeling, is not the experience itself. Such as location. OUCH! the feeling has nothing to do with location.

Umm, it's hard to correctly understand what you mean.


Let me pose you two questions:


Is awareness separate from everything else?

What does the word "awareness" point at?

Awareness is certainly not separate from everything else.

It seems like awareness points to a feeling in the same way excited or irritated do. There is feeling very aware so awareness must be a feeling. No?

Right. Is there any problem in it?
Do you have the desire to eliminate the feelings you don't want to arise?

While it would be nice to eliminate unpleasant feelings it is not in the least bit expected or even sought after through the work we are doing. Just to be clear, there is no expectation to control, change, eliminate, or alter thoughts or feelings in any way.

Currently its seen like this. Feelings come and go according to nothing that can be identified until after the feeling is already there. Thought finds cause and effect for feelings but the feeling begins before thought can do this. It goes feeling then thought. The reason, not cause and effect, but truth behind the fluctuation of feeling is unknown and perhaps unknowable and is certainly not controllable. What can be further refined about this understanding?

Today was quite enjoyable. The concept vs truth of separation is fascinating and it seems only the surface has been scratched at this point. The questions you ask are extremely effective. Please keep up the good work. Thank you.

Starr

[Bananafish]

Can anything helpful, in terms of pointers, be gleamed from the above?

Can "content" and "space" exist as anything other than mere words?

There is clearly an event occurring on impact that requires two things to come into direct contact with each other. So if they were not previously separated then why are they not always in contact? Or if they are always in contact, as the above observation regarding apple and orange seems to indicate, then how to account for the distinct event "crash"?

Here we intend to look at what is experienced in the present moment.
Make two objects "crash."

What is felt?

Movement?
Sound?
Touch?

Which one of the above does the word "crash" point to?

The moment between thoughts can be observed rather easily, however, resting there for more than an instant is harder.

Isn't that enough?
Who told you that you should rest longer than that?

Just for a few seconds is ok.


Find the gap, rest, and then LOOK.

Its the feeling that the voice of thought is still heard in a specific place, in the cranium, that is troubling. It has been seen clearly that thoughts have no location yet they seem to be heard in between the ears anyway.

That sounds like the case in which an optical illusion turns out to be an illusion.
You know it is an illusion, but it can look the same even after truth about it is known.

In that situation, would you still make it a problem that it looks the same?

it is seen that anything other than the experience itself, in this case OUCH!, which is a feeling, is not the experience itself. Such as location. OUCH! the feeling has nothing to do with location.

Great! How do you feel to realise it?

It seems like awareness points to a feeling in the same way excited or irritated do. There is feeling very aware so awareness must be a feeling. No?

Why do you ask me?
If you aren't 100% clear, you have to keep LOOKing.

Can you elaborate on what you call "feeling very aware?"

Just to be clear, there is no expectation to control, change, eliminate, or alter thoughts or feelings in any way.

Understood. That was good to hear, as such expectations might hinder the understanding
of what is, here and now.

Reality is so clear and simple that it can be best seen without any
glasses worn. People tend to imagine that they need a special glass to see Truth,
but any glasses will, on the contrary, make it unclear ... just like when a person whose eyesight is
normal wears glasses and can't see things clearly.


From the beginning, we are not shortsighted, but we imagine ourselves to be so.


Just take of the glasses and it is seen. :)

Currently its seen like this. Feelings come and go according to nothing that can be identified until after the feeling is already there. Thought finds cause and effect for feelings but the feeling begins before thought can do this. It goes feeling then thought. The reason, not cause and effect, but truth behind the fluctuation of feeling is unknown and perhaps unknowable and is certainly not controllable. What can be further refined about this understanding?

Good. Is that still an intellectual understanding, or a more visceral, experiential one?

[Starr]

Can "content" and "space" exist as anything other than mere words?

No but a keyboard is not an effective means of communication without using words. It is clear that what is seen is what is seen. Words are never really accurate when describing experience. Content does appear to point to something though.

Said as simply as possible, while still being said,....

Hearing = sounds
Seeing = sights
tasting = tastes
smelling = odors

With sound, taste, and odor it seems that separation is less evident. No matter how many sounds are heard at once (right now this includes keys clacking, air conditioner humming, city noises outside, etc..) or how many flavors are tasted simultaneously (right now a mint as well as residual toothpaste), or how many odors are smelled simultaneously (right now wood cleaner and mint) they are not separated in the experience itself. The experience is the experience in its totality. Any separation that sub divides the experience into this smell and that smell, this sound and that sound, this taste and that taste, or this odor and that odor is done so once thought gets hold of experience. This is of course very useful for navigating the world around us, however, that experience itself involves separation is false. Separation seen this way is a useful concept created by thought not experience. Separation is not something inherent to experience itself.

Now on too the sights in the seeing. In this exact instant what is seen is what is seen. This includes all sorts of things, or does it? The only way to begin to describe what is seen, to separate what is seen, to in anyway break the whole experience into smaller parts named this and that, located here and there, is if thought steps in. Of course this is once again seen to be extremely helpful for day to day life. However the usefulness of a concept does not negate the fact that it is a concept. Reality is experience. Concept is thought. Experience is uniform, it has no inherit division. Not to sound all zen but it really does appear that all is one. Not intellectually, not as a concept, but in actual experience.

Experience is always in flux though. So that sounds heard now can still seem separate from sounds heard later in the day. Separation of experiences themselves seems to occur in time. The sub dividing of experience has been seen to be illusory but that the totality of of experience is changing such that one total experience still seems it could be separate from another. They are connected in time but different. Although it would be tough to nail down any particular moment in experience to compare it to another moment. Its always kind of flowing in such a way as to almost defy any attempt to capture a cross section of it. Questions please.

Here we intend to look at what is experienced in the present moment.
Make two objects "crash."

What is felt?

Movement?
Sound?
Touch?

Which one of the above does the word "crash" point to?

This was observed and observed and observed. In the example of walking, the collision being shoe on tile floor, all three are present (there is movement, it is heard, and it is felt) In the example of finger lightly hitting pillow only movement and touch are present (no sound can be heard). And in the example of leaf falling off tree into soft sand there is only movement (no sound or feeling is observed). So movement seems to the only thing present in every collision and therefore the best choice for what crash points to.

Isn't that enough?
Who told you that you should rest longer than that?

Just for a few seconds is ok.


Find the gap, rest, and then LOOK.

The results of this looking were listed above in regard to separation.

That sounds like the case in which an optical illusion turns out to be an illusion.
You know it is an illusion, but it can look the same even after truth about it is known.

In that situation, would you still make it a problem that it looks the same?

Not at all. Great analogy by the way :)

Great! How do you feel to realise it?

Every insight has been a pleasant experience. This one held on tighter than most so seeing the truth of it is especially rewarding.

Why do you ask me?
If you aren't 100% clear, you have to keep LOOKing.

Can you elaborate on what you call "feeling very aware?"

Driving tends to happen on auto pilot. Most of the time attention is floating in thought. Then someone hits the horn and instantly attention goes from lazily wandering thoughts to a actively surveying the surroundings. The heart skips a beat and every detail of the surroundings becomes crystal clear. This shift in feeling, from daydreaming to very alert, is the feeling of very aware.

Understood. That was good to hear, as such expectations might hinder the understanding
of what is, here and now.

Reality is so clear and simple that it can be best seen without any
glasses worn. People tend to imagine that they need a special glass to see Truth,
but any glasses will, on the contrary, make it unclear ... just like when a person whose eyesight is
normal wears glasses and can't see things clearly.


From the beginning, we are not shortsighted, but we imagine ourselves to be so.


Just take of the glasses and it is seen. :)

Another great analogy :)

Good. Is that still an intellectual understanding, or a more visceral, experiential one?

It seems so obvious and clear that feeling precedes thought and that thought then assigns cause and effect. It seems that the only hang up with this is that thought appears to be right. In the above example of someone honking their horn in traffic, there is the feeling of being startled and then there is thought identifying the cause of the feeling as another driver honking their horn. Clearly feeling then thought. But thought is right. Being startled has yet to happen for no discernible reason. The feeling of startled seems so inexorably tied to some actual observable cause (driver honking). Although feeling precedes thought, feeling doesn't seem to happen randomly without cause. Is this misunderstanding clear?

Today's was difficult and rewarding. Lots of looking. Good thing there was nothing else on the agenda for today!

Starr