Confusion to Clarity

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

And what about the one who/what looked out the window?
Is there a looker or seer?

No- when thought about a 'me' is ignored there is just seeing and what is being seen but not as two things.

Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found?

There is no dividing line as such- just colour. Thought says 'blue' and 'gold' but these are labels.

Is there a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘chair’ and the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’?

No- just colour.

Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’ and colour labelled ‘furniture’ be found?
Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’ and the ‘furniture’ or is there just simply colour?

There is just colour.

Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug and furniture’ and the colour labelled ‘wall’ be found?
Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’, ‘furniture’ and the ‘wall’ or is there just simply colour?

What do you find?
Nope- just colour.

Is there an actual dividing line between any of these “colourS” or are they just simply seamless colour which thought divides into ‘things’ and further divides in into many different colourS and labels them as pink, black, yellow, green etc?

It's all colour and your right- thought divides each colour 'label' and each label into another label- wall, floor etc.

Is there such a thing as “space” or “distance”?

Outside of thought applying 'here', 'there', 'near' or 'far'- no

Is there an actual body/you sitting in a chair, or all there is, is colour?

When ignoring sensation, taste, smell, thought- there is only colour.

Is there an appearance appearing, or is there simply AE of colour?

Just simply colour being aware-d.

And is there a seeing AND colour or are they one and the same?

One and the same. Even to use the label 'colour' seems redundant. There is just seeing.

Look at this picture bellow. Is this true?

When seeing only colour, no. There is just colour, or to go even further, just seeing.

FWIW my answers might give the impression that these exercises were 'easy'- they weren't! It's quite a stretch to ignore all the labels/thought that arise or are ascribed to seeing. In other words- it doesn't come naturally! Just thought you should know.

Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

my answers might give the impression that these exercises were 'easy'- they weren't! It's quite a stretch to ignore all the labels/thought that arise or are ascribed to seeing. In other words- it doesn't come naturally! Just thought you should know.

Of course it doesn’t come naturally. And we don’t even aim for that. I just gave you these exercises to see what is actually happening ‘under’ the conceptual overlay.

Look at this doodle. It looks like there are a lot of separate things…right?


Life seems to be a gigantic soup of experience that is grouped, categorised and labelled as things. There seems to be a ‘me’ that is ‘here’ that is experiencing things that are ‘out there’. And all those things ‘out there’ are all individual separate things.

None of it is separated except through thought because all of the images present are just one big canvas. Sounds overlap and intrude on each other, and there is a thought that says “I can separate bird song from car horns. Look! See? I've just named them!” But what is actually appearing is sound, with perhaps an image of a bird and an image of a car, and thoughts ABOUT sound appearing as a bird and car!

And thought appears saying “I can separate a cat from a book. See, I’ve just named them!” But what is actually appearing is colour and thoughts ABOUT colour appearing as shapes/images labelled ‘cat’ and ‘book’.

‘Things’ seemingly appear, but have a LOOK to see what is actually appearing.

What separates things? What makes up the borders? Can we pluck a thing out of the scenery in front of us? If not, is it truly separate or is it thought about variation in observed qualities which makes it so?

The next time you are watching television, look at the screen and see whether you can pluck an object from the scene. Are there objects existing inside the screen or is the image a seamless whole? What is it that makes it seem as though there are separate objects in the picture? Are they truly separated?

Vivien

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

Of course it doesn’t come naturally. And we don’t even aim for that. I just gave you these exercises to see what is actually happening ‘under’ the conceptual overlay.

Ok

What separates things? What makes up the borders? Can we pluck a thing out of the scenery in front of us? If not, is it truly separate or is it thought about variation in observed qualities which makes it so?

Thought and labels separate what is into 'things' and therefore makes the border between things. In the doodle, I can't separate out the cat from the book- it is just labels separating out variations in 'colour' when it is all really just colour.

The next time you are watching television, look at the screen and see whether you can pluck an object from the scene. Are there objects existing inside the screen or is the image a seamless whole? What is it that makes it seem as though there are separate objects in the picture? Are they truly separated?

I can't pluck out an object from the scene and there is no existing objects- just a seamless whole of colour. Thought/labels separate out the 'things' in the scene and thus makes them separate but they are not. The scene is one seamless whole as you say.

Thanks,
Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

I can't pluck out an object from the scene and there is no existing objects- just a seamless whole of colour. Thought/labels separate out the 'things' in the scene and thus makes them separate but they are not. The scene is one seamless whole as you say.

Nice looking.

How do you feel about seeing that there is no self?
Are there still doubts?
If yes, could you please explain?

Now, let’s start to investigate memory.

What is memory exactly? – please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it…
What is the memory ‘made of’?
WHEN does the memory appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?
WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

Please spend lot of time with EACH question… Look very carefully… Look at what actually going on and not what thoughts say… but what actually is.

Vivien

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

How do you feel about seeing that there is no self?

Interesting question. I could say "I' feel this or that but there is no 'I'- just thoughts about 'feelings'. I'm intrigued more than anything.

Are there still doubts?
If yes, could you please explain?

Yes doubts arise-I guess this is natural- but I just keep going back to AE to re-confirm no self again and again and again.

What is memory exactly? – please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it…

Memory is just a thought arising 'now'.

What is the memory ‘made of’?

A thought.

WHEN does the memory appear?

Now.

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

There is no difference. A memory thought refers to an event that may or may not have happened 'in the past' or an interpretation of that event.

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Tough one. It isn't as it cannot be confirmed in AE. There is a thought "I ate cornflakes yesterday"- yet I cannot confirm this in AE. In other words, taste of cornflakes is just a thought 'now' and not a taste, image of cornflakes is just a thought 'now', the sound of eating cornflakes is just a thought 'now'- and thoughts don't refer to AE. And yet I know I ate cornflakes yesterday (which was 'now' then!).

What is the future thought ‘made of’?

Thought content.

WHEN does the future thought appear?

Now

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?

No difference

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

It isn't known. The content of future thought MAY happen but it isn't known for sure.

What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?

No difference- just thought and thought content arising 'now'- and all there ever 'is' is what is happening now.

If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

See above.

Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

Yes doubts arise-I guess this is natural- but I just keep going back to AE to re-confirm no self again and again and again.

Good, just keep looking.

The content of future thought MAY happen but it isn't known for sure.

All right. So this statement assumes that there is such thing as future or time. But is there really?

Let’s investigate what time really is.

What is time?
How time is experienced?
What is past and future?
How past or future is experienced?
Does past or future ‘exists’ other than content of thoughts?
Is there a proof that you had dinner last night?
Is there any proof whatsoever that the past has ever happened?

Vivien

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

What is time?

Time is a man-made construct to 'package' constant change or life unfolding.

How time is experienced?

As arising thoughts about a past or a future- happening 'now'

What is past and future?

Labels/thoughts.

How past or future is experienced?

As thoughts ABOUT 'past' and 'future'- happening now.

Does past or future ‘exists’ other than content of thoughts?

No

Is there a proof that you had dinner last night?

'Last night' assumes a past. I 'had' dinner but that dinner was 'had' 'now'.

Is there any proof whatsoever that the past has ever happened?

Again, the question assumes a 'past'. I can say that I recall eating dinner (a thought 'memory' ABOUT eating dinner) but this thought arises 'now'. I can see a clear plate 'now' and assume that as proof that "I ate dinner last night" but this is seen 'now' and the thought arises 'now'. Experience can only happen 'now' and 'past' and 'future' are labels/thoughts happening 'now'.

Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

Experience can only happen 'now' and 'past' and 'future' are labels/thoughts happening 'now'.

Nice.

The general assumption that there is a linear time that started somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time or an event that is moving forward on this linear time, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But what is the experience of the now moving along the line of time?
How fast the present moment is actually moving?
How long does the now last?
Where does it start and where does it end?
When does the now exactly become the past?
What is the past in the actual experience?
How is it known that the now is moving? Or that it lasts?
How is it known exactly that there is such thing as 'now'?
What is the actual experience of 'now' or 'the present moment'?

Let’s investigate another frequently assumed possibility.
Maybe, instead of being 'one single now' moving forward on the line of time, there are infinite number of now-s following each other in a line, like pearls on a necklace.
...now now now now now now now now now now now now now....

Is there a gap between each now-s, like the knots between the pearls?
If yes, how the jump/leap is made from one now to the other?
What is doing the jump?
What is the gap made of? What is in the gap?
How long each now lasts?
Or the now-s are glued tightly together to make the transition between them easier? :)

And what makes the now-s to keep them in place in tidy a line and stop them from spreading to all directions? An invisible (unknown) thread?

Please look carefully with each question.

Vivien

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

But what is the experience of the now moving along the line of time?

There isn't. There is just the ever present 'now'. To suggest the now moves along a line of time introduces a past now and a future now.

How fast the present moment is actually moving?

It isn't moving- it just 'is' now. There is change happening giving the illusion of time or a moving now but now is always now.

How long does the now last?

To say that is lasts implies time. It doesn't 'last', it just is. If it 'lasted' there would be a beginning and end to now.

Where does it start and where does it end?

Again, a start and end implies time. It doesn't begin and end- is just is

When does the now exactly become the past?

The now doesn't become the past. It is always now. Thoughts/memories assume a 'past'.

What is the past in the actual experience?

Thoughts/memories- happening now

How is it known that the now is moving? Or that it lasts?

It isn't- 'moving' and 'lasting' implies past and future. There can only be 'now' in AE. Experience is always now.

How is it known exactly that there is such thing as 'now'?

Now is just a label put on what is happening or experienced. Experiencing is always 'now'. Experience cannot be experienced outside of this moment. In a sense there is no 'now', just what is. Now is the only 'time' that there is smell, taste, sight, touch, sense, thought.

What is the actual experience of 'now' or 'the present moment'?

AE- smell, taste, touch etc.

Let’s investigate another frequently assumed possibility.
Maybe, instead of being 'one single now' moving forward on the line of time, there are infinite number of now-s following each other in a line, like pearls on a necklace.
...now now now now now now now now now now now now now....

Is there a gap between each now-s, like the knots between the pearls?

No- for there to be a gap each pearl of 'now' would have a beginning and an end. Now is not a series of things-it is one. Even to say it is 'one' is unsatisfactory as that implies a 'thing' with borders and limits, a beginning and an end. It just 'is'.

If yes, how the jump/leap is made from one now to the other?

See above

What is the gap made of? What is in the gap?

There is no gap.

How long each now lasts?

There is no 'each'- there is just what is 'now'.

Or the now-s are glued tightly together to make the transition between them easier? :)

There is no 'now's' or 'them'. There is just this.

And what makes the now-s to keep them in place in tidy a line and stop them from spreading to all directions? An invisible (unknown) thread?

There is no 'now's' plural-there is just now, this, whatever is.

Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

Now is just a label put on what is happening or experienced. Experiencing is always 'now'. Experience cannot be experienced outside of this moment. In a sense there is no 'now', just what is. Now is the only 'time' that there is smell, taste, sight, touch, sense, thought.

Excellent looking.

Please look very carefully one-by-one with the following questions. Spend a few minutes with each. Literally scan through the whole body from head to toe, with particular attention on the head. Look behind the eyes, into the forehead, the top of the head, the throat, look everywhere. Also scan through all aspects of experience.

Is there a thinker?
Is there a seer?
Is there a feeler?
Is there a hearer?
Is there a taster?
Is there a smeller?

Is there an experiencER?

Is there anything having the experience of whatever is happening?
Is there anything which the experience is happening TO?

Is there any chooser or decider of any kind?
Is there a ‘doer’ of any kind which performs activities and movements?

Is there a self that is inside the body, perceiving a world that is outside?

Is there a you?
Has there ever been a you?

Is there anything that is not totally clear and you would like to look at?

Vivien

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

I’ll reply to your post tomorrow.
Thanks,
Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

Thank you for letting me know.

Have a nice day,
Vivien

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

Is there a thinker?

No- There is thinking and thoughts

Is there a seer?

No- there is seeing and sights

Is there a feeler?

No- there is feelings and felt

Is there a hearer?

No- there is hearing and sound

Is there a taster?

No- there is tasting and taste

Is there a smeller?

No- there is smelling and smells

Is there an experiencER?

No- there is just experience

Is there anything having the experience of whatever is happening?

No- there is just experience.

Is there anything which the experience is happening TO?

No- there is just experience

Is there any chooser or decider of any kind?

No- there is just choosing happening

Is there a ‘doer’ of any kind which performs activities and movements?

No- there is just what happens

Is there a self that is inside the body, perceiving a world that is outside?

No- there is just perception

Is there a you?

No

Has there ever been a you?

No

Is there anything that is not totally clear and you would like to look at?

No- doubts arise, resistance arises- 'I' just have to keep coming back to AE again and again to confirm what is known- the self is an illusion

Graham

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

Clarification: there is just feeling, tasting, smelling, sensing, hearing, experiencing, observing etc- not two things (eg taste and tasting)

Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

Here is an exercise, you can do anywhere at anytime. It helps to see again and again that the sense of self is nothing else then just a sensation. You can make this practice into a habit.

First localize where this sense of me appears inside the body.
Your job is to stalk and trap this Graham in a net of attention.

Let's go straight for the most obvious example of Graham inside.
Where does Graham feel most prevalent?

It will come and go, and there are times when Graham really shows up let’s say behind the eyes, inside the head.
When it does, fix in with precision to that place Graham occupies.
Hold it for a short while in this net of attention.
Look and see, is this Graham-behind-the-eyes-in-the-head anything but sensation?

Look again precisely where Graham feels to be, the sensation behind the eyes, maybe not right at the back of the skull, but closer in? Somewhere around the centre, but towards the eyes perhaps? Feel into that space, the sensations there, and just spend a couple of minutes feeling those sensations as sensations. Nothing more, nothing less. Just what they are - sensations.

Treat thoughts as just voices-off. Ignore them. Focus on the sensations, the one's that feel most Graham-like.

See them as sensations - only. Like a sensation in the foot, or stomach, or hand, or head. Sensations. Radically ordinary. Bereft of meaning.

The task is to see what is there for what it is.
To give things their true name.
A sensation in the head is a sensation.

Let me know what you find.

Vivien