Ending The Search

[Limazine]

Sure!

Back in these United States so should be less conflict with the time zones.

Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen?

Just what's seen

Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

There is no awareness separate from experience.

Can you find a "witness" or a "doer" disguised as "personal consciousness" doing the "seeing"?

There is no "doer" or a "witness" and no "personal consciousness" that was found. Just the act of "seeing" happening.

Can you find any "operator" behind it all? Is the experience somehow disconnected from the supposed "witness"?

There is no "operator" that can be found behind it all. The experience cannot be disconnected from the "witness" because there is only the experiencing happening.

[adamrenton]

Very good my friend.

Now we can move on to time and memory.

First let's look at time in Direct Experience.

There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) 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 a linear line, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?
How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?
Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?
How long does the ‘now’ last?
Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?
When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?
What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?
So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

You know the drill my friend. Direct Experience only...and fun...

;)

[Limazine]

Cool! And away we go.

But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?

There is no experience of the "now" moving along the line of time.

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

Nope, there is no experience of one "moment" give way to the next "moment"

Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?

In direct experience there is no experience of one event following another.

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

The "present moment" that we experience is in the past. I would assume that the actual present moment is timeless, so not moving at all. If I had to say something, then the experience is of the cognized past.

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

No I cannot.

How long does the ‘now’ last?

The conceptual "now" would probably last until death. The actual now would be forever since it is the source of "time".

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

The conceptual "now" would start when it is cognized and end when it is cognized since at the point it is no longer the now and part of the past.

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

Right "now". As soon as it "recognized" as the "now"

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?]

It would have to a thought, a mixture of erroneous "now thoughts". Since even the "now" is not an accurate recollection of the now, they would have no basis in reality. So something like people constantly misremembering stories except the falsity begins as soon as the story is put into words.

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?]

There is no experience of "time", just thoughts about "time".

[adamrenton]

The "present moment" that we experience is in the past. I would assume that the actual present moment is timeless, so not moving at all. If I had to say something, then the experience is of the cognized past.

Have you noticed that - even while speaking - the words are already being spoken and dying that instant? "I'm the Alpha and the Omega - the beginning and the end" - as the Good Book says.

I hope you see it now - the past and future - that everyone is obsessed about - is just a bunch of thoughts...about thoughts, about thoughts and so on. If you have any doubts - don't hesitate to write them down here.

Very well. Let's jump in to memory - since it is something that many people use as a basis of "a person".

Memory Exercise

Almost everybody believes that a memory thought is referring to something that has
happened. That a memory thought is a different thought than a non-memory thought.
Please don’t go to thought explanations, but just let a memory be there, and look at it.
Look at what is actually going on and not what thoughts say - but what actually is.

What is memory exactly?
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 and how is that difference is known exactly?

And finally:

Do you have any power to "store memories" anywhere and conjure them up "at will"?

[Limazine]

Have you noticed that - even while speaking - the words are already being spoken and dying that instant? "I'm the Alpha and the Omega - the beginning and the end" - as the Good Book says.

Damn. Never thought of it like that, adds extra punch to that quote.

I hope you see it now - the past and future - that everyone is obsessed about - is just a bunch of thoughts...about thoughts, about thoughts and so on. If you have any doubts - don't hesitate to write them down here.

Will do! Even thought I can see it wouldn't be surprised if this and the next exercise needed some extra marination. Will let you know if anything comes up

What is memory exactly?

A thought of a "past" "now" moment.

What is the memory ‘made of’?

Thoughts.

WHEN does the memory appear?

It appears 'now' even thought it is referencing the 'past'.

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

A 'general thought' would be something like "I am hungry" while a 'memory' thought would be "Last night's meal was good". The former references the perceived "now" while the latter references the perceived "past". Though both would be equally conceptual and false.

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

There is no way to know that the 'memory' is referencing something that has happened because it is nothing but a thought.

What is the future thought ‘made of’?

It would be made of 'thought events' that have not happened yet. Like thinking of a future vacation or what to do when you get home while at work.

WHEN does the future thought appear?]

In the 'now' as well, even thought it is referencing the 'future'

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

None at all. Both occur in the 'now', though one is a reference to a perceived event that will happen sometime in the 'future'

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

If there is a perception from thought that is found neither in the 'past', nor the 'now', then it must belong to the 'future'.

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

None in terms of total validity, but the former represents an equally false past while the later represents an equally false future.

Do you have any power to "store memories" anywhere and conjure them up "at will"?

There is no one to 'store memories' and to one to conjure them up 'at will'.

[adamrenton]

Will do! Even thought I can see it wouldn't be surprised if this and the next exercise needed some extra marination. Will let you know if anything comes up

Thank you my friend. Of course the layers of ego will drop steadily and more and more seeing will occur. Letting go of resistance is paramount in this endeavor. We can surrender peacefully or be dragged across the floor weeping.
Surrender is the key.

A 'general thought' would be something like "I am hungry" while a 'memory' thought would be "Last night's meal was good". The former references the perceived "now" while the latter references the perceived "past". Though both would be equally conceptual and false.

So - without going into the Thought Content - are "general" and "memory" thoughts different in Direct Experience?

It would be made of 'thought events' that have not happened yet. Like thinking of a future vacation or what to do when you get home while at work.

So - in Direct Experience - is "future" thought different than "general" thought?

If there is a perception from thought that is found neither in the 'past', nor the 'now', then it must belong to the 'future'.

And that perception is made of?

None in terms of total validity, but the former represents an equally false past while the later represents an equally false future.

Is one representation different from the "other" when it appears in Direct Experience?

Additionally - I'd like to know how you feel right now. What comes up? Do you have any questions? Any doubts as of yet?

Sending Love

[Limazine]

So - without going into the Thought Content - are "general" and "memory" thoughts different in Direct Experience?

No difference at all!

So - in Direct Experience - is "future" thought different than "general" thought?

As above, so below

And that perception is made of?

Perception is thoughts, thoughts of thoughts.

Is one representation different from the "other" when it appears in Direct Experience?

In direct experience it is all the same.

Additionally - I'd like to know how you feel right now. What comes up? Do you have any questions? Any doubts as of yet?]

Generally, all is well, basically the same feelings from the last time I had answered a similar question. If at any point this turns into a process of dragging and weeping, I believe you would be the first to know. Would be a shame if I end intellectualizing the whole thing and never directly look, but there is no one there to make that decision, no? Just going to let the process unfold as natural as possible, stay as open as possible, and hopefully more and more seeing will occur. If it does then great, if not, then well, it wouldn't be the end of the world, ha.

Cheers!

[adamrenton]

Would be a shame if I end intellectualizing the whole thing and never directly look, but there is no one there to make that decision, no? Just going to let the process unfold as natural as possible, stay as open as possible, and hopefully more and more seeing will occur. If it does then great, if not, then well, it wouldn't be the end of the world, ha.

There is no one to decide what happens. Even surrender - which I mentioned before - simply happens. It is one movement - one happening. Paradoxes unfold. We'll tear every layer - to reveal the foundation.

To solidify what we've uncovered so far - I'd like you to go on a little adventure. Take a walk through some woods, a park etc. Spend some time there and look around. Notice trees and grass gently dancing in the wind, people walking, animals hopping around.

During your walk - remember Direct Experience. Ignore the labels and look.

Do you see any separation between - what mind labels as trees, grass, people or animals - in Direct Experience?Or is it just Thought Content?
Do you see any "doer" in action? Any board meeting convened to decide the "next move"?
Is past or future present - during your walk - in Direct Experience?
When eyes blink, a leg moves, body shifts, coughing happens etc. - do "you" control the bodily processes required to make it happen? Is there anyone that decides "beforehand" that a certain action is going to occur? If yes - how such an action looks like?

One of the facets of illusion (separation) is the idea that we are separate from nature and everything "around us".

However:

Seeing from Direct Experience - is such a statement true?
Is there a concrete border between "your body" and "a tree" or "an animal" - which separates you?

I'd like you to really take your time with this one. Take even two or three walks if necessary. Direct Experience only - as always. I'll be waiting here. Don't hesitate to describe what comes up to the surface during this exercise.

Have fun :)

[Limazine]

We'll tear every layer - to reveal the foundation.

Okay, that's was pretty bad-ass. I took my time with the looking and walking exercise and here is what came up. I also briefly looked through the start of this thread and some other longer thread to see what's up.

Do you see any separation between - what mind labels as trees, grass, people or animals - in Direct Experience?Or is it just Thought Content?

There can be no separation between trees, grass, people or animals in Direct Experience. Any idea of separation is nothing but lovely thought content. Separate from whom? And separate from what?

Do you see any "doer" in action? Any board meeting convened to decide the "next move"?

There is no 'doer'. If there was a board meeting conveying what the 'next move' was, boy would I question their sanity. I suppose this question is like the negative thoughts pointer. If you could control negative thoughts, would you choose to have any? If you could choose your destiny, why would you ever make a move in the opposite direction?

Is past or future present - during your walk - in Direct Experience?

Just the now in which all spontaneously occurs.

When eyes blink, a leg moves, body shifts, coughing happens etc. - do "you" control the bodily processes required to make it happen? Is there anyone that decides "beforehand" that a certain action is going to occur? If yes - how such an action looks like?

There is no controlling the bodily processes. They just happen when they happen. Often such reflex movements such as scratching, or shifts, are so benign that they are done without even having and "I" thought occur with them.

One of the facets of illusion (separation) is the idea that we are separate from nature and everything "around us".
Seeing from Direct Experience - is such a statement true?

From Direct Experience the statement is not true. The only way you could be separate is you were somehow separate from what was going on, like watching a river flow from a bank. But the truth is that you are in that river and thus separate from nothing

Is there a concrete border between "your body" and "a tree" or "an animal" - which separates you?

There is no border between anything that separates you. This is one of the things that is hard to see, things interacting with things and building up their validity based on that.

I quite enjoy the walking process so I will continue to look and keep these pointers in mind going forward.

[adamrenton]

Thank you for taking the time with this exercise. Those walks can be quite soothing and pleasant. Moreover, they can reveal a lot of ideas - which spring up spontaneously.

But the truth is that you are in that river and thus separate from nothing

Who is in the river my friend? Is there a "you" or a "river" - separate from each other?

For the next exercise - you can take a walk or sit somewhere where you can quietly inquire.

SENSE OF "ME" EXERCISE

Many cultures and religions describe a sense of "I" as "consciousness", "Buddha Nature", "Kingdom of Heaven", "Tao" etc.
From our deep looking you can see those as just simple concepts and ideas pointing to "something" (yet not a thing) profound.
Let's drop those words and concepts and - as always - use sharp and pointy Direct Experience as our guide.

Spend 20-30 minutes sitting or walking. During that time concentrate on the aliveness - that sense of "being".
Just this pure sense. Simple.

Look and answer those questions, please:

Is the sense of being "enclosed" in the "body", some "room", "a head", "a brain"?
Does this sense of being have an age? A color?
Does this sense of being age?
Does this sense of being have a personality?
Is this sense of being a "person"?
Does this sense of self communicate?
Does this sense of self have a location?
Is there anyone "feeling the sense of being"? Or does it just spontaneously arise?
Does this sense of being have a length? Does it have a weight? A smell?
Is this sense of being "a thing" separate from anything? Can you separate being in Direct Experience? Is there a "line" somewhere?

And remember - some of those questions might seem very simple and some thoughts might describe them as such. However - we can't simply brush off those questions and must look deeply with Direct Experience. Really SEE IT.

Sending Love :)

[Limazine]

Who is in the river my friend? Is there a "you" or a "river" - separate from each other?

Ah, thanks for that. That would still be a separation so there is no me or river separate from each other.

Is the sense of being "enclosed" in the "body", some "room", "a head", "a brain"?

No the sense of being is not enclosed in anything in a body, or in a room, or in a head or in a brain. It is in whatever is being experienced, whether the hearing, the seeing, etc. Though boy do I have to fight that feeling, if it was located in the head or brain everything would be nice and orderly for "me"!

Does this sense of being have an age? A color?

It is beyond age and beyond color.

Does this sense of being age?

No, this sense of being can literally not age.

Does this sense of being have a personality?

It is an absence of personality if I had to try and describe it.

However, when focusing on the sense of being even the simple things become blessings, like some sort of magnification.

Is this sense of being a "person"?

Not a person. It is a sort of is'ing.

Does this sense of self communicate?

It has no way of communicating.

Does this sense of self have a location?]

None that I could find. It sort of races between whatever is unfolding from thoughts, to hearing, to seeing, to all the experiences.

Is there anyone "feeling the sense of being"? Or does it just spontaneously arise

That's the craziest thing, it just spontaneously arises. Thoughts arrive to try and take credit but you can see the labeling, at least when "focused".

Does this sense of being have a length? Does it have a weight? A smell?

It is utterly indescribable.

Is this sense of being "a thing" separate from anything? Can you separate being in Direct Experience? Is there a "line" somewhere?

No it is basically an inseparable part of the whole unfolding. There is no line between it and direct experience. As far as I can tell it is basically direct experience itself.

[adamrenton]

No the sense of being is not enclosed in anything in a body, or in a room, or in a head or in a brain. It is in whatever is being experienced, whether the hearing, the seeing, etc. Though boy do I have to fight that feeling, if it was located in the head or brain everything would be nice and orderly for "me

Can the sense of being "be in something"? Or is it just present?

Mind (as we call the thinking process) is conditioned to operate "within the framework of ego" - so it might seem strange that - what we were told - is not true. This makes the mind search for a different explanation and further labeling. Basically mind searches for a "me" somewhere - every single time. Mind "lives on" conflict and separation.

Is there anyone "fighting the feeling"? or are these just thoughts weaving a story?
Is the sense of being involved or changed by that story or the struggle of the mind?
Is there anyone using the mind or trying to decipher anything? Or is it just the mind labeling?
Is the sense of being involved in the search? Or does it allow everything to be as it is?

It is an absence of personality if I had to try and describe it.

It is one of the greatest paradoxes. Sense of being just is - but without it - even the appearance of a "person" or "way of being" wouldn't be possible. It is the fullest absence there is.

Not a person. It is a sort of is'ing.

Perfect. "It" just is. Omnipresent and Omnipotent. From this "Isness" everything unfolds.

None that I could find. It sort of races between whatever is unfolding from thoughts, to hearing, to seeing, to all the experiences.

When this "focusing" happens - is there a person doing it? Or is it spontaneous?
Does this sense of being really "race between" anything? Or is it just "focusing" with "what is" being present?

That's the craziest thing, it just spontaneously arises. Thoughts arrive to try and take credit but you can see the labeling, at least when "focused"

That's why we need inquiry in silence to see the conditioning nature of the illusion of ego. When "focusing" on just being happens - the "gap" (between thoughts, emotions etc) and the sense of being increases by itself. A sort of "spaciousness" is present. We abide as what is - rather then being a certain "thing". Another paradox here is - even with the "gap" - there is more intimacy with experience than ever before. True oneness.

No it is basically an inseparable part of the whole unfolding. There is no line between it and direct experience. As far as I can tell it is basically direct experience itself.

Exactly! Being is not separate from anything - it is "what is present" - right here, right now.

Please answer the questions above and describe how you feel during it.
Sending love! :)

[Limazine]

Can the sense of being "be in something"? Or is it just present?

The sense of being can never "be in something". It is just present, like a little dance of life.

Is there anyone "fighting the feeling"? or are these just thoughts weaving a story?

There is no one "fighting the feeling", it is just thoughts weaving a story together. There is nobody to resist the feeling.

Is the sense of being involved or changed by that story or the struggle of the mind?

No it is not, like how the commentary of sports can never have an effect on the outcome of the game.

Is there anyone using the mind or trying to decipher anything? Or is it just the mind labeling?

That's one of the craziest parts about it. No one is using the mind at all, it just labeling, and labeling for no one. This must be what they mean when they say ego or mind is not the enemy. Leave the guy alone, he is just doing his job.

Is the sense of being involved in the search? Or does it allow everything to be as it is?]

Basically he is the most zen guy in the world because he actually couldn't care less whatever happens.

When this "focusing" happens - is there a person doing it? Or is it spontaneous?

It would have to be another spontaneous action. There is no person to "focus" on anything.

[Does this sense of being really "race between" anything? Or is it just "focusing" with "what is" being present?

This is some is=ising. It is only the appearance of "focusing and racing" with the idea that there is a doer present doing the "focusing and racing".

That's why we need inquiry in silence to see the conditioning nature of the illusion of ego. When "focusing" on just being happens - the "gap" (between thoughts, emotions etc) and the sense of being increases by itself. A sort of "spaciousness" is present. We abide as what is - rather then being a certain "thing". Another paradox here is - even with the "gap" - there is more intimacy with experience than ever before. True oneness.

Thanks for that , I am beginning to see it.

Please answer the questions above and describe how you feel during it.
Sending love! :)

Well once again cheers. I find myself in quite a strange place. So, every-thing is a thing that stems from a source which is no-thing that can never-be-a-thing because all-things rely on it's no-thingness to be things. Yep, at a complete loss of words basically life can play an advanced game of hide and seek where the second partner had to be invented. I suppose "It's a prank, bro" has as much spiritual wisdom as anything else really. I have no idea where to go from here, but I suppose it will involve more looking™. And since I didn't get here through "my" own volition anyway whatever happens will happen and "I" won't make a lick of difference, which still serves as a comforting thought.

[adamrenton]

That's one of the craziest parts about it. No one is using the mind at all, it just labeling, and labeling for no one. This must be what they mean when they say ego or mind is not the enemy. Leave the guy alone, he is just doing his job.

It's the mind trying to outsmart the mind - that will never work. Just like you said - mind doing "mind stuff".

Basically he is the most zen guy in the world because he actually couldn't care less whatever happens.

Good one (let's not forget that the sense of being is not a guy here - gotta stay true to the direct experience). This "being" is pure openness and love -both uninvolved in it, yet totally intimate with it - another paradox for you my friend.

Well once again cheers. I find myself in quite a strange place. So, every-thing is a thing that stems from a source which is no-thing that can never-be-a-thing because all-things rely on it's no-thingness to be things.

Yes - appearance of "things" is made from no-thing. Emptiness playing a game of being everything. Fullest void that can be experienced.

And since I didn't get here through "my" own volition anyway whatever happens will happen and "I" won't make a lick of difference, which still serves as a comforting thought.

Is there anyone who could voice any disapproval? Is there a "You" to make a difference? Or are those just thoughts about thoughts?

I have no idea where to go from here, but I suppose it will involve more looking.

Since we are here - I must ask you about your expectations about the Truth. After all of those exercises and deep looking - in Direct Experience - residues of expectations may obscure the seeing. It is at this exact moment that the seeking process encounters "a wall". We are used to being certain of things. Yet - the unmistakable truth of "being" is forever drenched in uncertainty (at least in this "human experience"). The only certain point is "the being" itself.
It is important to see what is - we don't need to write essays about it. Once seeing occurs - it is there - plain and simple.
We started this inquiry to see if there is anyone there. Do you see it?

[Limazine]

Mind doing "mind stuff".

Ha.

This "being" is pure openness and love -both un-involved in it, yet totally intimate with it - another paradox for you my friend.

Lovely

Is there anyone who could voice any disapproval? Is there a "You" to make a difference? Or are those just thoughts about thoughts?

No one to voice anything, no you to make a difference, thoughts about thoughts making a "You".

Since we are here - I must ask you about your expectations about the Truth. After all of those exercises and deep looking - in Direct Experience - residues of expectations may obscure the seeing. It is at this exact moment that the seeking process encounters "a wall". We are used to being certain of things. Yet - the unmistakable truth of "being" is forever drenched in uncertainty (at least in this "human experience"). The only certain point is "the being" itself.

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. The being itself is indisputable.

It is important to see what is - we don't need to write essays about it. Once seeing occurs - it is there - plain and simple.
We started this inquiry to see if there is anyone there. Do you see it?

There is no one there, there is no way there could be anyone there. All that is there is the "being" that is untethered existence that is reliant on nothing. Emptiness that once described is no longer emptiness. It is so mind-numbingly simple that it is more fun to write about it in anecdotes and poems. If by do "you see it", you mean do you sense that there is something there that is the being, then yes.