Help Me Please!!

[Brenda]

Hi Vivian,

The everyday belief is that there are:

- seer
- seeing
- seen

How many are actually present? All three? Just two? Or one?

This is the first I heard of this third one "seen", but this puts things in a different perspective, an already happening vs being part of the actual event, which allows things to be seen differently.
So I now see that there is only one, the seen.
Shouldn't we not be using the word looking then and only looked?

Please read your above comment thoroughly. You are repeatedly saying that “I see” or "I do not see".

Is there an ‘I’ or anything that sees?

It’s the same question as above:
Is there a SEER + SEEN?

There is no SEER at all, only the SEEN.

So experience is happening without the ‘I’ doing anything.

But you say: “I see this is not real. I see this is another illusion…”

What is it that is seeing that it’s not real?
What is it that is seeing this as another illusion?

I start the sentences with "I see" so you know I am looking with fresh eyes vs just thinking.
There is nothing seeing anything. It is very clear that I am not doing anything. Things are just happening. Things are happening all day long if I am looking or not looking, things continue to happen. I see my body moving and doing things without "me" deciding. As things happen, thoughts arise the say what is happening, and that is it, nothing more.
There is nobody that labels anything as real or an illusion but another thought.

In everyday language we say that there are 3 things:

1. a watcher (the subject of experience)
2. the watched (the experience itself)
3. watching, a verb, which is the ability of the watcher (1).

So 1 & 2 are linked by the 3. Watching is the ability of the watcher.

So if you talk about watching (verb) then there has to be a subject, a watcher, who is doing the watching.

But the question is:

Is there a watcher?
Is there the ability of watching?
Or there is only the watched?

I hadn't realized the difference here, but I understand what you are saying now.
And I see, there is only the watched.

So HOW and WHERE is watching (as a verb, ability) is happening?
And what is the 'I' that sees watching happening?

This may just be a play on words. I do not see the "I" doing or watching anything.

And WHAT is it EXACTLY that re-attached to the ‘I’?
WHERE is the one that is attaching to the ‘I’?

And what is it that FEELS re-attached?

I really seemed to be seeing things as is, but as soon as you questioned what I was saying, thoughts continued to arise saying things to question my understanding. There is no "I" so nothing attached to anything and I look again and still do not see it.
The feeling of "Attached" was actually frustration.
I realize there are more beliefs to drop.

Just because it isn’t seen 24/7 that the I is an illusion, does that change the fact that the self is just an illusion?

Is there an expectation to see this 24/7?

No, it does not matter if we are looking or not looking the "I" is still an illusion.
I see now that we may not see through the illusion 24x7, but when I am in the illusion, I sometimes believe the thought story.
Then when I realize I am listening to the thoughts, I look for the "I" and see the "I" doesn't exist.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

No, it does not matter if we are looking or not looking the "I" is still an illusion.
I see now that we may not see through the illusion 24x7, but when I am in the illusion, I sometimes believe the thought story.

“when I am in the illusion” – WHAT is it exactly that could be IN the illusion?

“I sometimes believe the thought story” – WHERE is the believer? – point to its exact location

Then when I realize I am listening to the thoughts, I look for the "I" and see the "I" doesn't exist.

“when I realize…” – WHAT is it that realizes that ‘I am listening to the thoughts?

And WHAT is listening to thoughts?

Please, don’t just say that there is no me/I, so there is nothing doing all of these.
But rather ACTUALLY LOOK with each question very thoroughly.

Please also tell me the process, how you do the looking/searching for the self/me.

Vivien

[Brenda]

“when I am in the illusion” – WHAT is it exactly that could be IN the illusion?

“I sometimes believe the thought story” – WHERE is the believer? – point to its exact location

The "I" is in the illusion, in the thought story. I do not see a belief except in the thought. So when I say "I" believe, the thought story is being played.

“when I realize…” – WHAT is it that realizes that ‘I am listening to the thoughts?

And WHAT is listening to thoughts?

A thought arises that says I am listening to the thoughts. Nothing is listening to the thought. It is just another thought saying one is listening to a thought.

Please, don’t just say that there is no me/I, so there is nothing doing all of these.
But rather ACTUALLY LOOK with each question very thoroughly.

I am ACTUALLY LOOKING everytime.
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I am confused. When I write "I see...." you ask me what is the I that sees, and when I don't write "I see" you tell me not to just say something. Is there a better way to communicate more clearly?

Please also tell me the process, how you do the looking/searching for the self/me.

When "Looking" happens, the focus is on a sound, or sensation or experience that arises. Then a thought will arise, and another thought, then a sensation, etc. As the focus stays on the sound, for example, there is a knowing of a thought, but that is it. One thought after another will rise and disappear. The focus may shift to another sensation, and another thought will appear. When the focus shifts to the thought, the thought contains a story usually labelling what it is that is being focussed on. If the focus switches to that thought, then another thought will appear and may say how it relates to the "I". When the content of the thoughts are looked at, they continue one after another saying a story, until the focus shifts back to a sensation.
When the focus stays on the experience, being the sound for example, there is a gap in the thoughts and this is where experience is happening.
Only one thought appears at a time, but they come one after another, telling a story about the same label, or if focus is shifted, then the thought story may change to describe the new focus.
There is nothing specific that is "doing" the focussing, and It doesn't matter if there is focussing or not, this process continues automatically.
As the focus is on the thought, the thought says that the "I" is doing the focussing", but it is just a thought and the "I" is only doing the focussing in the thought, it is not real, just part of the thought story.

"I" can not actually look for the self/me, because this can only be done within a thought, as there is no "ME" to do the looking, only the thought of a "me" doing the looking. This is the illusion. In experience there is no seeking, only in thought.

Once it is seen that there is no "I" doing the looking, that "I" only exists in thought, and thought is not real, perception changes and a feeling arises of freedom, which although the feeling is real, the thought saying "I feel freedom" is not real. It is just a thought.

Time and memories also only exist in thoughts, and the only thing real is the sensation or the experience.
When a sensation is focussed on, it may trigger a thought of a memory or future idea, and a new thought appears. If the focus switches to the thought, additional thoughts arise describing the memory or future, but again they are just thoughts, an illusion.
Experience only happens in the present.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

don't mean to be disrespectful, but I am confused. When I write "I see...." you ask me what is the I that sees, and when I don't write "I see" you tell me not to just say something. Is there a better way to communicate more clearly?

I would like to ask you to use language and words that BEST describe the EXPERIENCE itself.
If it feels like that there is an ‘I’ that sees, then write ‘I see’. But if there is no seeming I present IN THE MOMENT, then use langue that reflects how it is in that moment.

I would like to see that how much of this is just a language issue, and how much of it is coming from things not being totally clear.

So, please sit down, and just write down what is happening in this moment and use words that best describe the experience as it is.

And also, could you please tell when exactly you felt the shift from intellectual understanding to experiential?

And how the shift itself was felt?

Vivien

[Brenda]

So, please sit down, and just write down what is happening in this moment and use words that best describe the experience as it is.

Sitting on the chair, there is focus on a sensation. A thought appears that labels the sensation "there is a pain in the stomach". A new thought appears "you should go lay down". The focus shifts back to the sensation, and it is experienced. Another thought appears, but only appears. The focus shifts to another sensation, and a thought appears "it is the foot". The thoughts disappears and a new thought appears "you can't hike on a hurt foot", A new thought appears " yes I can", etc. These thoughts continue creating a thought story related to "MY" foot." The focus shifts to a sound. A thought appears "He is talking". A new thought "He is on the phone", etc. Thoughts continue about the phone conversation. The focus shifts to a sound. A new thought appears but the focus stays on the sound, and new thoughts are not noticed while focus is on the sound. New sensation arises. New thought "Cold". Next thought "I am cold", etc. This continues on an on.

And also, could you please tell when exactly you felt the shift from intellectual understanding to experiential?

And how the shift itself was felt?

There have been many shifts through the process, an exact moment cannot be known, and that would be only an illusion anyway. Feelings of sadness, loss, and confusion have appeared throughout this process, though they are only thoughts and once focussed upon, disappeared. There is no specific aha moment, though less thought stories are seen as more focus is on the different sensations that appear. During yesterday's writeup, there was a "pop" feeling, followed by a thought saying "ah I see it", but nothing more. It was at that point clear that the "I" lives in the thoughts and only the thoughts and there cannot be "looking" for the "I" because who would be doing the looking if the "I" is only a thought.

Thoughts appear that say "I am not even sure if I understand intellectually or experientially," but these are just thoughts and they disappear, and the focus shifts to other sensations.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

Sitting on the chair, there is focus on a sensation. A thought appears that labels the sensation "there is a pain in the stomach". A new thought appears "you should go lay down". The focus shifts back to the sensation, and it is experienced. Another thought appears, but only appears. The focus shifts to another sensation, and a thought appears "it is the foot". The thoughts disappears and a new thought appears "you can't hike on a hurt foot", A new thought appears " yes I can", etc. These thoughts continue creating a thought story related to "MY" foot." The focus shifts to a sound. A thought appears "He is talking". A new thought "He is on the phone", etc. Thoughts continue about the phone conversation. The focus shifts to a sound. A new thought appears but the focus stays on the sound, and new thoughts are not noticed while focus is on the sound. New sensation arises. New thought "Cold". Next thought "I am cold", etc. This continues on an on.

All right. You used the langue which is in line with experience. So please continue to do so with all my questions. Use the langue that feels right and true in the moment.

During yesterday's writeup, there was a "pop" feeling, followed by a thought saying "ah I see it", but nothing more. It was at that point clear that the "I" lives in the thoughts and only the thoughts and there cannot be "looking" for the "I" because who would be doing the looking if the "I" is only a thought.

OK, so there was a seeing that the ‘I’ is just a thought, however it was followed by a thought speculation that there cannot be a looker (one is doing the looking) since the ‘I’ is just a thought.

So at first there was looking at experience, but then there was just a thought conclusion.

You have to go a step further, and not just intellectually conclude that there is no looker since the ‘I’ is just a thought, but actually ACTIVELY SEARCH through the whole body, especially the head and the chest for a looker to have an experiential understanding of it.

It’s not enough to logically conclude that there is no looker, but it actually needs to be SEEN that there is nothing doing the looking.
Can you see the difference?

Thoughts appear that say "I am not even sure if I understand intellectually or experientially," but these are just thoughts and they disappear, and the focus shifts to other sensations.

You are not sure, probably because of the above.

You have to go further.

Please take an object, and put in front of you. It can be anything, a cup, a pen. I will call it a cup.

Just look at the cup, and while looking at it, try the find the EXACT PHYSICAL LOCATION INSIDE THE head where the cup is being looked at FROM. Where is this location?

Vivien

[Brenda]

It’s not enough to logically conclude that there is no looker, but it actually needs to be SEEN that there is nothing doing the looking.
Can you see the difference?

Yes. I do.

Just look at the cup, and while looking at it, try the find the EXACT PHYSICAL LOCATION INSIDE THE head where the cup is being looked at FROM. Where is this location?

As the image (cup) appears, a thought appears saying "it is a cup". There is no knowing of a cup prior to the thought, just the knowing of an image in experience. As focus moves to a straw, the thought appears "this is a straw". There is nothing in between the experience and the thought. a looker cannot be seen anywhere in this process.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

V: Just look at the cup, and while looking at it, try the find the EXACT PHYSICAL LOCATION INSIDE THE head where the cup is being looked at FROM. Where is this location?

B: As the image (cup) appears, a thought appears saying "it is a cup". There is no knowing of a cup prior to the thought, just the knowing of an image in experience. As focus moves to a straw, the thought appears "this is a straw". There is nothing in between the experience and the thought. a looker cannot be seen anywhere in this process.

Yes, but this is not what the question was about.

Please read my question very carefully:

Just look at the cup, and while looking at it, try the find the EXACT PHYSICAL LOCATION INSIDE THE HEAD where the cup is being looked at FROM. Where is this location?

Vivien

[Brenda]

Hi Vivian,

Just look at the cup, and while looking at it, try the find the EXACT PHYSICAL LOCATION INSIDE THE HEAD where the cup is being looked at FROM. Where is this location?

There is no exact "physical location inside the head being looked at from" that can be seen.

The image (cup) is seen and then a thought appears labelling it.
The cup is focussed on, and then the thought appears saying it is a cup. There is no looker seen anywhere in the head or any place else other than in the thought.
There is no actual "looking" taking place that is seen, only looked at.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

Please sit down for a few minutes, and close your eyes. Put your attention to the sensations of the body.
While feeling the sensations, investigate:

What is it that is feeling these sensations?

What are these sensations are happening TO?

Vivien

[Brenda]

What is it that is feeling these sensations?

There is "nothing" feeling these sensations. Sensations appear followed by a thought that labels how these sensations are felt.
There is nobody or nothing that is feeling anything, The "feeling" is only seen in the thought or the illusion.

What are these sensations are happening TO?

Sensations do not happen "TO" anything, they just happen. Sensations are the experience. The thought describes what the sensation is and who it affects, but this is only a thought, and is not real.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

Tell me what's left of Brenda. When checking reality, does she still exist?
And if so, can you tell me, what's left of her or how and when she appears?
Is there a Brenda to cross the gateless gate?

Vivien

[Brenda]

Tell me what's left of Brenda. When checking reality, does she still exist?

"Brenda" cannot be seen. She is part of the illusion and nothing more.

And if so, can you tell me, what's left of her or how and when she appears?

She does not appear. Only sensations and thoughts appear.

Is there a Brenda to cross the gateless gate?

Just as there is no gate to cross there is no Brenda to cross it.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

Great! :)

So has there been a shift? Could you please tell when exactly you felt the shift from intellectual understanding to experiential?

And how the shift itself was felt?

Vivien

[Brenda]

So has there been a shift? Could you please tell when exactly you felt the shift from intellectual understanding to experiential?

And how the shift itself was felt?

The shift was very subtle and happened during the walk to work. Focus was on the sensation (of walking), and then that is all that was seen. there was no me, no walker. Just the walking. There were no thoughts telling the story of the "I" and no I existed. The feeling of laughter and fun arose, as did a feeling of confusion and dizziness. Thoughts arose labelling these feelings, but as the focus stayed on the sensation (of walking) it was clear there was no "me".

As far as intellectual understanding, the thought story says there is no intellectual understanding and the thought story has many questions, all of which to continue the illusion.