Focusing on finding out the truth about self

[RainKat]

Hey Vivien,

Thanks for the suggestions around looking during the day. It’s a little difficult to find a question appropriate for the moment when there’s thinking going on. I was using “when am I” for almost a year, but it doesn’t seem to prompt real looking. Hmm…

A ‘negative’ thought is not unpleasant by itself. It’s just a thought. Just words. Only the accompanying sensations gives the impression of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the verbal or visual thought or even a situation. Can you see this?

Observe this during the day and let me know how it goes.

I can see this, and it’s not completely clear. I didn’t recall to do this test many times today, so I only have a few samples. But from my looking, I saw that sometimes “negative” thoughts could appear with little or no detectable sensation, where as other negative thoughts came with noticeable sensation. These sensations of contraction persist much longer than the thought. The sensation and thought didn’t have a connection in actual experience. In other words, they are unrelated, or just related by suggestion or assumption. I can see why I mistake so-called negative thoughts as being unpleasant. But, the thought isn’t causing a sensation. The thought isn’t unpleasant. Why they appear together, I don’t know.

There are only thought ABOUT ‘wanting’, but ‘want’ as such cannot be found. Can you see this?

Yes. Wanting isn’t in direct experience. There are thoughts that might say “I want” or even just images arise of a desirable “object” or situation, and this is what is mistaken for wanting. Sometimes there are thoughts about wanting, then my body goes and gets what is thought about which reinforces the illusion of wanting.


Thank you for the guidance around thoughts/images being like a movie. I’d like to print this out and refer to it during the day. Do you think it would help to think about this during the day?

[Vivien]

Hi Kat,

Thanks for the suggestions around looking during the day. It’s a little difficult to find a question appropriate for the moment when there’s thinking going on. I was using “when am I” for almost a year, but it doesn’t seem to prompt real looking. Hmm…

Asking ‘when am I?” or ‘Who/what am I?” are not too productive questions, since these questions imply that there is an ‘I’ I just have to figure out who/what/when. So the question itself is ‘faulty’. Looking through the self with these kind of questions can take a lots of time.

You can ask questions like these:

What is having these thoughts?
What is saying that? – when there is a thought narration going on
Where is the thinker?
What does this sensation/thought happening TO?
Where is the feeler?
Where is the hearer?
Where is the doer/choser/controller/wanter?
What does this experience happening TO?
Where is the experiencer?

I can see this, and it’s not completely clear. I didn’t recall to do this test many times today, so I only have a few samples. But from my looking, I saw that sometimes “negative” thoughts could appear with little or no detectable sensation, where as other negative thoughts came with noticeable sensation. These sensations of contraction persist much longer than the thought. The sensation and thought didn’t have a connection in actual experience. In other words, they are unrelated, or just related by suggestion or assumption. I can see why I mistake so-called negative thoughts as being unpleasant. But, the thought isn’t causing a sensation. The thought isn’t unpleasant. Why they appear together, I don’t know.

What makes you think that you cannot see this clearly? You gave a very nice description of AE.

Yes. Wanting isn’t in direct experience. There are thoughts that might say “I want” or even just images arise of a desirable “object” or situation, and this is what is mistaken for wanting. Sometimes there are thoughts about wanting, then my body goes and gets what is thought about which reinforces the illusion of wanting.

Nice looking.

Thank you for the guidance around thoughts/images being like a movie. I’d like to print this out and refer to it during the day. Do you think it would help to think about this during the day?

Thinking about it won’t help too much, because with thinking there is no looking. It stays only on the intellectual level. So it doesn’t have too much worth of thinking about no-self, rather LOOK for the self as often as you can.

Now, let’s investigate the notion of awareness or consciousness, or in other words the knower.

When it’s seen that a seer, taster, smeller, feeler, thinker, etc. cannot be found, the identification often goes to the seeming appearance of a self-existent, self-aware awareness, which is the knower of everything that appears.

So the identification with the body and the senses (feeler, hearer, thinker, etc) is replaced with a subtle form of identification, “I am that which is aware”…. So there is still some sort of separate entity which is aware and holds and knows all experience (object). And the identification with awareness is an excellent hiding place for the separate self.

Does this belief has come up for you “I = awareness”?
Or the belief that there is a stand-alone independent awareness / consciousness that is aware of what is going on?

I don’t know if you have this assumption that “ I = awareness” or the existence of an independent awareness, but nevertheless, let’s investigate this.

In English, awareness is a noun, not a verb. Nouns imply agencies, or entities.
But can such thing be found as an independently existing awareness?

Stop for a moment now and take a thought. Be aware of the presence of the thought.
Can a thought be separated from the knowing or awareness of it?
Try your best to separate the two from each other. What happens?

Is there a dividing line between the thought and the knowing or awareness of it?
Can you find the line where the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?

Can you find a thought without the knowing of it?

Can you find knower or awareness without any object (like thought, sensation, color, sound, taste, smell)?
In other words, can there be a knowing without a known?

Repeat this exercise many times during the day. Experiment not just only with verbal thoughts, but also with visual thoughts, sounds, taste, etc. Let me know how it went.

Vivien

[RainKat]

Hi Vivien,

Asking ‘when am I?” or ‘Who/what am I?” are not too productive questions, since these questions imply that there is an ‘I’ I just have to figure out who/what/when. So the question itself is ‘faulty’. Looking through the self with these kind of questions can take a lots of time.

Ah, that’s right. I remember you mentioning that about “when am I” earlier. Thank you for the list of question suggestions.

Thinking about it won’t help too much, because with thinking there is no looking. It stays only on the intellectual level. So it doesn’t have too much worth of thinking about no-self, rather LOOK for the self as often as you can.

Thanks so much for directing me back to looking. That’s very helpful.

What makes you think that you cannot see this clearly? You gave a very nice description of AE.

Hmm… I think that doubt is related to some thinking I’ve been having the past few days. It says “I’m a fraud,” and “I’m not really looking,” and “I need to look more.” The last one “I need to look more” is usually taken pretty seriously. Whereas, the first two are clearly just typical thought. I guess this is just a way for the idea of a self to stay alive.

Does this belief has come up for you “I = awareness”?

No. But, I saw some thinking that I’m experience (what’s actually in experience) lately when I’m looking as I fall asleep.

Or the belief that there is a stand-alone independent awareness / consciousness that is aware of what is going on?

That was my hypothesis for a while over the years. I haven’t seen that kind of thinking in a little while though. It seems pretty clear that all there is is experience and nothing is experiencing it.

I don’t know if you have this assumption that “ I = awareness” or the existence of an independent awareness, but nevertheless, let’s investigate this

Okay, great :)

But can such thing be found as an independently existing awareness?

No. There is just smell/taste/touch/sight/sound/sensation. No separate entity is experienced that is aware of these experiences. For that to happen, there would have to be something apart from experience, and it would need to be experienced becoming aware of other experiences. That’s not happening.

Can a thought be separated from the knowing or awareness of it?

No. In a figurative way thoughts are aware of thoughts, awareness is not aware of thoughts.

Try your best to separate the two from each other. What happens?

My body kinda reacts in a strange way. But anyway, trying this thought just seems to be everywhere. Trying to separate thought from awareness and get away from thought to be aware of thought, the thought just seems to fill all of experience and no gap or separation is there.

s there a dividing line between the thought and the knowing or awareness of it?

Nope. It’s like experience knows it’s self. There’s no difference between thought and experience and the experience of thought.

Can you find the line where the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?

No. As soon as a thought appears it is in experience, period.

Can you find a thought without the knowing of it?

Haha, like in the subconscious or something? No, not at all. Thought is either there or it’s not, and there are no thoughts waiting outside of experience waiting to be known. As soon as a thought appears, it is experience.

Can you find knower or awareness without any object (like thought, sensation, color, sound, taste, smell)?
In other words, can there be a knowing without a known?

No. The knower/awareness is an idea, which is thought, which is experience. All there is is thought/sensation/color/sound/taste/smell.

Let me know how it went

Oops, I didn’t get to your questions for today until this evening. I could try tonight and tomorrow and report back :)


Thanks Vivien

[Vivien]

Hi Kat,

No. There is just smell/taste/touch/sight/sound/sensation. No separate entity is experienced that is aware of these experiences. For that to happen, there would have to be something apart from experience, and it would need to be experienced becoming aware of other experiences. That’s not happening.

Yes, nice looking.

No. In a figurative way thoughts are aware of thoughts, awareness is not aware of thoughts.

What do you mean by thoughts are aware of thoughts?
Can a thought be aware?
Does a thought know anything?

Now let’s start to investigate time and 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

[RainKat]

What do you mean by thoughts are aware of thoughts?

Ah, maybe I got into interpretation there. That happens, but usually it’s ignored. What I noticed is that when looking, what ever appears in experience does not appear separately from experience. It’s not a subject-object relationship where something is aware of another. It seems like smell/taste/touch/sight/sensation/thought are the subject.

Can a thought be aware?

No. A thought can say something about being aware. A thought isn’t experienced becoming aware of something else, though. They just appear and then there’s no thought again.

Does a thought know anything?

No. Thoughts have lots of labels and images, there might be ideas about knowing. But those things are just appearing as they are. No thought is experienced learning something, or anything like that. The idea of knowing is not that clear, it’s not in actual experience. Thoughts just appear and they have labels and images.

What is memory exactly?

An very brief image and a longer sensation.

What is the memory ‘made of’?

Hmm… An image just appears and there’s a sensation. They aren’t made of anything. It doesn’t have any components and it couldn’t be taken apart.

WHEN does the memory appear?

I know we talk about memories appearing, but… a memory is just here now or it is not. It’s not really appearing or disappearing.

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

The difference seems to be that a general thought is a bunch of labels, and a memory thought is an image. But… sometimes general thoughts are images. So, there doesn’t seem to be a difference

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

Wow, it’s weird… The distinctions between has happened and was imagined are just in thought if at all. If there’s no thought like that, there are just these images and no distinction between past or imagination.

What is the future thought ‘made of’?

A future thought has labels and some of them have words like “tomorrow,” or they imply that something hasn’t happened yet.

WHEN does the future thought appear?

It’s not appearing at some time, it’s just the experience now or it’s not.

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

Both are just thoughts. Since what thoughts are about are not real, the so-called differences are not real. There might be different words “I like cookies” vs “I’ll get a cookie later” but these labels are… they’re not referencing anything real at all.

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

It’s not known. There’s just a thought predicting things;

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

A future thought and a thought about the past aren't appearing at the same time to compare the two. What ever I think is the difference is is just a bunch of interpretation and ideas.

Can you find knower or awareness without any object (like thought, sensation, color, sound, taste, smell)?
In other words, can there be a knowing without a known?

Repeat this exercise many times during the day. Experiment not just only with verbal thoughts, but also with visual thoughts, sounds, taste, etc. Let me know how it went.

Sorry, I forgot again. Maybe I’ll set some timers on my phone as reminders.

[Vivien]

Hi Kat,

Wow, it’s weird… The distinctions between has happened and was imagined are just in thought if at all. If there’s no thought like that, there are just these images and no distinction between past or imagination.

Yes. 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 contents of thoughts?
Is there a proof that you had dinner last night?
Is there any experiential proof whatsoever that the past has ever happened?

Vivien

[RainKat]

What is time?

Looking, there’s no actual experience of time. Once thoughts start back up, some of them imply time (e.g. “I need to get a drink”). So, time is an idea, thought. It’s not real. What these thoughts refer to are changes in color/sensation/smell/taste/sound. But, what is a change in color, for example? A change in color never happens. There’s just what ever colours there are now, and sometimes a thought or image of some other configuration of color.

How time is experienced?

It’s not experienced at all.

What is past and future?

Past and future don’t exist for real. There is thought, such as “I need to do my homework” and a sensation. These two things imply future, but it’s just an idea. If there’s a memory about the past, that’s just a thought. This memory is often appearing as an image, and it shows different colors. That supposed difference between the colors actually experienced and the colors in the image imply past. There are words appearing like “next,” “happen,” “going,” “after,” and these all somehow imply time and reinforce this illusion without there needing to be a specific reference to future.

How past or future is experienced?

They aren’t experienced. Looking close enough as my hand moves, I can’t remember what it looked like just movements ago. Colors don’t even seem to change, which would need to be experienced for there to be a past.

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

No. Past or future isn’t tasted, or smelled, it’s not in sight or sensed, it’s not heard.

Is there a proof that you had dinner last night?

Yes, my plate right here on my desk from last night. lol, just kidding. How is a set of colors evidence that something happened? It’s not. How is the thought that appears “I had dinner last night with this plate” evidence that the current configuration of colors and sensations were different? That thought is already gone. It wasn’t proof of anything.

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

What would that even look like? I’d have to experience both some set of colors/sensations, and the current set of colors and sensations, and then see that one set is BEFORE the ones that are happening now. I’ll look to see if that’s happening.


Nope. That’s not happening. There’s no proof that the past has happened, or even that anything happens at all.

Can you find knower or awareness without any object (like thought, sensation, color, sound, taste, smell)?
In other words, can there be a knowing without a known?

Repeat this exercise many times during the day. Experiment not just only with verbal thoughts, but also with visual thoughts, sounds, taste, etc. Let me know how it went.

No, no awareness outside of the so-called objects. What it seems like, after looking through the day, is that there are no objects that a subject is aware of. There is just subject.

[Vivien]

Hi Kat,

No, no awareness outside of the so-called objects. What it seems like, after looking through the day, is that there are no objects that a subject is aware of. There is just subject.

This statement implies that there are no objects (thought, sensation, etc = experience) there is only the subject the knower, nothing else. But looking at AE, is this really true?

Yes in reality, there is NO subject-object split.
There is no subject + object. There is no me and not-me.
There is no 2. There is no separation.
But does this mean that there is only knowing (subject) without anything known (object)?
Is this this possible at all?

Imagine a coin. Let’s say that one side of the coin, the tail is the knowing/aware-ing (subject), and the head is the known/awared, like a sensation, or a thought (object).

Can we say that there is only the subject (tail) and the object (head) is not there at all?
Can have a coin only with one side, just a subject?

Does subject exist without objects?

Vivien

[RainKat]

This statement implies that there are no objects (thought, sensation, etc = experience) there is only the subject the knower, nothing else. But looking at AE, is this really true?

Ah, did I get into intellectualization there? I think as I was looking and finding no separate awareness, this idea of only subject came up (which I learned from a teaching) trying to explain things. Looking at actual experience, there ARE sensations, thoughts, sight, etc (objects).

But does this mean that there is only knowing (subject) without anything known (object)?
Is this this possible at all?

Just looking, there is only knowing when there is something that is known. There is no knowing off to the side in experience that is knowing no objects. The thought came up, “what about in deep sleep? Is that knowing without objects?” But, how could I test that through looking at actual experience? Deep sleep isn’t happening now. It seems like deep sleep is another idea.

Imagine a coin. Let’s say that one side of the coin, the tail is the knowing/aware-ing (subject), and the head is the known/awared, like a sensation, or a thought (object).

Ahh… This is really helpful

Can we say that there is only the subject (tail) and the object (head) is not there at all?

No, no… There is heads and tails but they are not separate from each other because they are both on the coin.

Can have a coin only with one side, just a subject?

No, the nature of a coin is that it has two sides.

Does subject exist without objects?

No. Knowing doesn’t exist without known, there is no separate knower, and objects aren’t knowing other objects. Wow, I see a lot of thoughts trying to explain what’s going on with theories and saying “this is mysterious,” etc and getting excited. I’m just bringing it back to looking at if there is a subject without objects.

[Vivien]

Hi Kat,

The thought came up, “what about in deep sleep? Is that knowing without objects?” But, how could I test that through looking at actual experience? Deep sleep isn’t happening now. It seems like deep sleep is another idea.

If objects and the knowing of objects cannot be separated since these are not two, but rather one seamless experience, then how could a separate awareness or knowing be there without objects in deep sleep?

If there are no objects in deep sleep, then it automatically means that there is no knowing either, since awareness + objects as separate things don’t exist. There cannot be just the tail (knowing) without the (head) objects. It’s not possible. Can you see this?

No. Knowing doesn’t exist without known, there is no separate knower, and objects aren’t knowing other objects. Wow, I see a lot of thoughts trying to explain what’s going on with theories and saying “this is mysterious,” etc and getting excited. I’m just bringing it back to looking at if there is a subject without objects.

When the coin is looked at from the point of view of the tail (subject), then it SEEMS AS IF all there is the coin is the tail (awareness).

When the coin is looked at from the point of view of the head (object), then it SEEMS AS IF all there is to the coin is the tail (objects: thought, sensation, color, etc).

But actually both of them are just point of views and not the ultimate reality.
These point of views don’t describe the coin ( = experience) accurately.
Can you see this?

Awareness is not something that is waiting in the background for an object (like thought or sensation) to appear and then latch onto them with its knowing or aware-ing ability, so the thought or the sensation become known by it. For this to be true, there must be not only a stand-alone awareness, but a stand-alone thought or a stand-alone sensation without the knowing element. But there cannot be a thought or sensation without the knowing of them. We can fantasize about it, but actually thought or sensation without the knowing element simply doesn’t exist either. Can you see this clearly?

Is it also totally clear that there is no stand-alone, independent awareness waiting in the background for an object to appear and then latch onto it with its knowing or aware-ing ability?

Rather aware-ing is appearing simultaneously with the appearance of the thought or sensation. But this is even not true. Since no two separate ‘things’, an awareness and the thought appearing together, but just one ‘thing’ appearing ‘thoughtawareing’ or ‘sensationawareing’. Can you see this clearly?

And even saying that only ‘thoughtawareing’ is appearing is not completely true, since the word ‘appearing’ already implies something or somewhere in which or where it can appear. But this is the point where language fails us, due to its dualistic nature.

Vivien

[RainKat]

Hi Vivien,

If objects and the knowing of objects cannot be separated since these are not two, but rather one seamless experience, then how could a separate awareness or knowing be there without objects in deep sleep?

Ah, it wouldn’t be possible.

since awareness + objects as separate things don’t exist. There cannot be just the tail (knowing) without the (head) objects. It’s not possible. Can you see this?

Yes. When I look at my actual experience, it’s just like you describe.

When the coin is looked at from the point of view of the tail (subject), then it SEEMS AS IF all there is the coin is the tail (awareness).

When the coin is looked at from the point of view of the head (object), then it SEEMS AS IF all there is to the coin is the tail (objects: thought, sensation, color, etc).

Ahh…

But actually both of them are just point of views and not the ultimate reality.
These point of views don’t describe the coin ( = experience) accurately.
Can you see this?

Yes. This is very helpful.

We can fantasize about it, but actually thought or sensation without the knowing element simply doesn’t exist either. Can you see this clearly?

Yes. Just looking, there’s no separate thought or sensation separate in experience. The only experiences around are knowing and known, but never separate.

Is it also totally clear that there is no stand-alone, independent awareness waiting in the background for an object to appear and then latch onto it with its knowing or aware-ing ability?

Taking some time to just look at experience, nothing like a stand-alone separate awareness is there. There’s nothing outside of experience separate and waiting to know something. And, everything “in” experience has that knower-known (not not separate) quality.

Since no two separate ‘things’, an awareness and the thought appearing together, but just one ‘thing’ appearing ‘thoughtawareing’ or ‘sensationawareing’. Can you see this clearly?

Ahh, the way you see is so clear Vivien. Yes, yes, that’s very clear.

And even saying that only ‘thoughtawareing’ is appearing is not completely true, since the word ‘appearing’ already implies something or somewhere in which or where it can appear. But this is the point where language fails us, due to its dualistic nature.

Yes, the word appearing is just convenient for our discussion. While looking with you over the last little while I notice regularly that it’s not like different sensations come out of somewhere (appearing) during the looking. What ever is “in” experience just is, and sight/sensation/sound/smell/taste/thought doesn’t seem to change or disappear, and one moment of experience can’t be compared with another to prove if they do change. If there’s memory of a different experience, that’s thought. This is a little bit curious, but there isn’t a rush of thought trying to explain this (unlike the experience with awareness).


Thank you so much for your time Vivien. Much gratitude,
Kat

[Vivien]

Hi Kat,

You did a great looking!

Here are some questions to see if is there anything that is not completely clear. Please answer what's true for you right now, rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer.

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

Is there any chooser or decider of any kind?

Is there an ‘experiencer’?
Is there a ‘thinker’?

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

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

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

Is there a 'you' that started this investigation?
Has there ever been a 'you' doing anything?

Any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?

Vivien

[RainKat]

Hi Vivian. Thank you, your guiding is par excellence. Are we coming near the end of our conversation already?

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

Yes, have been a few moments of clarity where the whole story and of me-the-controller is seen as a fiction. In those moments, there’s an ease, or lightness, and the whole situation seems so funny! The school drama goes on, and there are times during the day when I make great plans to get this or that done, and either it happens or it doesn’t. And sometimes thoughts arise about how I have been avoiding course work (“believing” I control things)—but in those moments of seeing it’s so clear there is no I that is avoiding and there never has been. In those moments, it seems fine, everything seems fine—thoughts arising, believing them or not—everything is just as it is during that clarity.

Is there any chooser or decider of any kind?

It’s so easy with a little looking to see that there’s not. Often, things just happen as they always did—thoughts about choices—thoughts about decisions. But when thinking comes in to try to make a problem out of this, which seems to be lessening, it’s so easy to just look and see there is no I deciding things.

Is there an ‘experiencer’?

Not at all. This one is really clear. I want to say experience is experiencing it’s self—but that’s really not accurate. It’s such a joy to just LOOK at what is true instead. It seems like every little parcel of experience is aware, but there’s no separation like that. Thinking just can’t comprehend what is actually being experienced.

Is there a ‘thinker’?

lol, no. Thoughts are just here or they aren’t and they aren’t thought or controlled by a “thinker” (i.e. another thought).

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

Oh, well… I still get thinking about what’s to be done and how to do it. There’s not a constant awareness that there is no doer. This doesn’t seem to be a problem though. Sometimes I get thinking that implies there is a doer. For example, worrying about if I can do something, or regretting some action. It’s clear when ever I look that there is no doer though. Thoughts might appear about choices, and decisions, but they are just thoughts. If I am believing there’s a doer for a while, it’s because there’s a moment of clarity where it’s clear there is no doer that that can be recognized.

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

A big no to that. I still complain together with my partner about our responsibilities (in a light-hearted way). But at the same time that seems fine. There just doesn’t seem to be anything that can be done about this, and I don’t dwell in the thinking. It doesn’t seem personal that there are responsibilities and sometimes the I takes it personally. In the end, thought doesn’t influence ANYTHING any more than sound could cause a smell.

Other people? Wow, are there really other people? There’s just a bunch of colors and stuff. Let’s say there are other people, even if they believe the thought that “I am responsible” for things—it’s just a thought and there’s still no I that could change anything in order to need to take responsibility. But… there’s just a bunch of colors and stuff.

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

Oh, gosh no. This doesn’t even come up.

Is there a 'you' that started this investigation?
Has there ever been a 'you' doing anything?

It might be convenient to say so in conversation. “I” love to take credit for anything. But, in the end I just appear as a thought and don’t have anything to do with what ever configuration of colors or sensations that are now. It’s never been any other way, and if a thought appears that implies otherwise, it’s just thought and not proof of anything.

Any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?

Yes. Even though we’ve separated experience into sight/smell/touch/taste/sound/sensation for our conversation. It seems like there is not. Perhaps, is it just sightsmelltouchtastesoundsensationawaring?

Vivien, thank you.

[Vivien]

Hi Kat,

Are we coming near the end of our conversation already?

These were not the final questions, but we are getting closer to it with each post. :)

Y

es, have been a few moments of clarity where the whole story and of me-the-controller is seen as a fiction.

Your answers seem very clear, and yet you say that there were only a few moments of clarity. But in your other comments you say that you can see this clearly whenever you look.

Is there an expectation to see this clearly 24/7?

After seeing through the self, the illusion still can be taken as a reality (probably more often than one would expect), and the self could seem to be very real. But when it looked at closely, it’s clear that there is nothing there.

Falling for the illusion can happen much more often than one might expect. It can last for even hours several times during the day. And why? It’s because every time an emotion is triggered (by some circumstances or because of certain thoughts coming up), the self is activated. So whenever there is frustration, wanting or not wanting something, expecting something, having anger, resentment, feeling hurt, disliking something / somebody, etc. the self is there immediately. Since all these emotions are on behalf of the self. And after seeing no-self, all these conditioned issues need to be worked through, otherwise whenever these emotions arise the self comes with them. Humans are very often triggered (many-many times a day) and those triggering reactions can last from minutes to hours, meaning that the self is there and believed to be real for minutes, hours or days while those triggered reactions are functioning.

Taking the self as real, is also a conditioned habit of thinking. It’s a habit of the ‘mind’. It’s the result of a life-long conditioning. But upon each looking it gets a little bit weaker and weaker. So further looking is the key.

Oh, well… I still get thinking about what’s to be done and how to do it. There’s not a constant awareness that there is no doer. This doesn’t seem to be a problem though.

And probably there won’t be a constant knowing that there is no doer 24/7 for the above reasons. But it’s not a problem as you said, since upon looking it can be seen that there is nothing there.

Yes. Even though we’ve separated experience into sight/smell/touch/taste/sound/sensation for our conversation. It seems like there is not. Perhaps, is it just sightsmelltouchtastesoundsensationawaring?

Yes. Breaking up experience into 6 elements is ARTIFICIAL. We do it only for the sake of the investigation. We use this only as a tool to see the difference between what can be directly experience and thoughts about AE.

‘In reality’ experience doesn’t have 6 elements, it isn’t divided up into sections.
This division can be done only conceptually, only in thoughts.
Without thought, without the conceptual overlay there is no division in experience.
There is only one seamless experience.

But let’s have an experimental understanding on this. Now sit for about 10-15 minutes again, and look at the experience itself:

Where does a thought end and a sensation starts?
Is there a border or a dividing line between a thought or a sensation?

Where does a sound end and a thought starts?
Is there a dividing line or a border between sound and thought?

Or just take a thought. Does it have edges, or an outline?
And what about a sound? Does a sound have edges or an outline?

See in experience that there aren’t any lines or borders where one part of the experience ends and an another one starts. Can you see this?

Vivien

[RainKat]

Hi Vivian, thanks for your reply.

These were not the final questions

Ah, great! :)

Your answers seem very clear, and yet you say that there were only a few moments of clarity. But in your other comments you say that you can see this clearly whenever you look.

Ah, yes there are many small moments of clarity all throughout the day after doing some looking following a thought or just being alone without some task to do. There also seemed to be a few BIG moments of spontaneous clarity as described.

Is there an expectation to see this clearly 24/7?

No, I skimmed through the PDF before we started so I saw that that wasn’t the point. But, I know it’s pretty close to possible with a lot of work on letting go of attachments. Though, even then there will be stuff that comes up to be worked on, as I understand it. There is some expectation, though, for there to be more spontaneous clarity, almost as a natural state. I think this is because the practices I was doing before had this as the goal (continuous effortless awareness that there is no self by letting go of attachments via Sedona or Byron Katie or some other method).

Taking the self as real, is also a conditioned habit of thinking. It’s a habit of the ‘mind’. It’s the result of a life-long conditioning. But upon each looking it gets a little bit weaker and weaker. So further looking is the key.

Ahh

But let’s have an experimental understanding on this. Now sit for about 10-15 minutes again, and look at the experience itself

Okay :)

Where does a thought end and a sensation starts?
Is there a border or a dividing line between a thought or a sensation?

Thoughts don’t to have a boundary or container, and neither to sensation. They both sort of, just fill experience without any separation between the two. It does seem like there’s a little change in focus when a thought comes. It’s almost like colors and sensations get a little different after thought is no longer here. Maybe it’s just my eyes moving when thinking happens.

Where does a sound end and a thought starts?
Is there a dividing line or a border between sound and thought?

Sounds and thought are appearing simultaneously in experience without any borders or division.

Or just take a thought. Does it have edges, or an outline?
And what about a sound? Does a sound have edges or an outline?

No, thoughts and sounds don’t have a form at all.

See in experience that there aren’t any lines or borders where one part of the experience ends and an another one starts. Can you see this?

Yes. All the experiences just appear simultaneously. But, not even that, since there isn’t different experiences. There’s just experience.


Thanks Vivien :)