Stillness

[Colette01]

Awareness is everywhere rather than somewhere. No. It's not different from experience.

That's right its not different to experience.

Its qualities are profound stillness and aliveness.

Can you find stillness and aliveness in AE? If not, what is 'stillness' and 'aliveness' then?

If awareness is experience could awareness have any specific qualities?

[Faithy]

Hi Colette,

I just want to thank you again for the gift of your precious time and wisdom. I am very grateful.

Can you find stillness and aliveness in AE? If not, what is 'stillness' and 'aliveness' then?

No. I can't find stillness and aliveness in AE. They are content of thought.

If awareness is experience could awareness have any specific qualities?

No awareness doesn't have any qualities apart from experience.

[Colette01]

Can you find stillness and aliveness in AE? If not, what is 'stillness' and 'aliveness' then?
No. I can't find stillness and aliveness in AE. They are content of thought.

Yup, its thought.

If awareness is experience could awareness have any specific qualities?
No awareness doesn't have any qualities apart from experience.

There is a habit of trying to know through thinking but awareness cannot be known by thought. There will be no knowing. THIS is not knowable. You can name experiences, but you can't know what they are. They're not knowable. Awareness isn’t a thing. So trying to be more aware is pointless and trying to become or find what THIS is…is pointless as well.

You can know sensation labelled ‘pain’, but you really don’t know what the sensation is. The same goes for sound. You can know sound, but you really don’t know what it is. Experiences are not an explanation. There isn't an explanation for THIS.

Try and describe the colour purple to someone who has never seen colour.
Try and describe the smelled labelled ‘banana’.
Try and describe the taste labelled ‘toast’
Try and describe sensation labelled ‘cold’

Ice-cream, for example is a descriptor…it describes taste…therefore the taste of ice-cream is just a story…of there being different tastes. There is no experience OF taste…there is only experience appearing AS taste, because thought divides experience into categories.

You can describe ice-cream ie describe what it is made from, and that it is cold, tastes creamy, vanilla or chocolate, and you can describe what the word ‘taste’ refers to; however, you cannot describe the experience of/as taste…because there is no ‘taste’, there is only experience itself, which thought is describing as taste.

So you can't actually describe the taste of ice-cream, just like you can't describe the colour purple. You'll only end up using words like creamy, or sweet - which would mean absolutely nothing if you were describing it, as if to a person with no taste. You can only describe the components that make up ice-cream but not the taste itself. You can only ever offer other labels for experience, but those labels in no way convey/capture what they're referring to. Experience itself (THIS) can only ever be referred to with concepts but can never be described. THIS is indescribable and unknowable.

[Faithy]

Thanks Colette,

I see what you are pointing at.
I am just trying to be more present and less thoughtful.
Noticing life in the gaps between thoughts.
Recognising more and more the power of thoughts to dominate our experience of life if we let them.
Also recognising that something different is also present.

[Colette01]

Thanks for your comments Faithy, less thinking is essential and we've been working steadily with this throughout. Thought is life, there is no separation between thought and 'life', life is a continuous flow embracing everything. If 'we' get out of the way and stop splitting experience erroneously via thought we can see this. The separations we fabricate (starting with 'I') reveal themselves as illusions. Perhaps by 'something different is present' you mean a glimpse of awareness that includes thought along with other aspects of AE, a glimpse of the unseparated?

It might be helpful now to:

a) Pause, and and go back, read the whole thread carefully from the beginning. This will help consolidate and clarify. We know when we're not clear, we know when the penny hasn't dropped, so wherever, whenever you find this in the head do the exercise again until you get it. You might want to make a note of sticking points, things you just don't get or points of clarity.

b) Let me know what insights arise, what's changed over the course of these explorations.

Maybe give yourself a ring-fenced time to do this, maybe a couple of days (finding time when you've got space to read and reflect). While its good to pause I've also found that its important not to stop or we tend to lose continuity. Do let me know what you think of that and I look forward to hearing what you find.

[Faithy]

Hi Colette,

a) Pause, and and go back, read the whole thread carefully from the beginning. This will help consolidate and clarify. We know when we're not clear, we know when the penny hasn't dropped, so wherever, whenever you find this in the head do the exercise again until you get it. You might want to make a note of sticking points, things you just don't get or points of clarity.

I've started going back over the thread and I'll be back in touch in a few days. If at any time you need to pull out as my guide I'll understand. You have given support over months so generously and it's not the easiest time on the planet. I'm not sure how long you expect when you take on the job as the guide but your guidance has been so helpful and if you needed to finish I'll be forever grateful for your help. Just to clarify I'm not wanting to pull back at all. I just needed to say that.

[Colette01]

Hi Faithy,

thank you for your consideration. I’m happy to go ahead
:-)

[Faithy]

Hi Colette,

I hope you are staying well and enjoying isolation. After the dark night will come a new more loving and caring chapter for humanity and our planet (at least that's what I'm hoping for.)

In regards to the review an encouraging thing is I realise now the fusion I had with thought at the start. It's interesting to revisit and see how easily I now see the content of thought as just what it is. I'll be back in touch when I'm through.

Happy Easter.

[Faithy]

Hi Colette,

I'm sorry it's been so long. I just realised that I didn't send this yesterday when I wrote it. I forgot to submit it.

I've reread our whole thread and have redone a lot of the exercises.
I'm very clear that no self can be found in AE.
I can also see content of thought more clearly now.
I can see that in AE there is no body.
I can see there is no self in charge but struggle a bit to accept that personal activities are automatic or just happen.
eg my partner is playing his guitar and I will join him soon to play the uke. I can see in AE that no self decides when to join him exactly, that it will just happen. If I watch AE I can see that thoughts arise and are busy labelling as I get the uke and go outside. Content of thought before I get up includes thoughts about playing the uke. I watch all this and wonder how it happens and yes I notice the "I" that I use to describe that I'm watching. I still don't KNOW who exactly is watching.
I am also curious about the role of habit and apparent personality when there is no separate selves. Where does personality arise if there is no separate selves?

Thank you for your ongoing support

[Faithy]

Hi Colette,

I'm sorry it's been so long. I just realised that I didn't send this yesterday when I wrote it. I forgot to submit it.

I've reread our whole thread and have redone a lot of the exercises.
I'm very clear that no self can be found in AE.
I can also see content of thought more clearly now.
I can see that in AE there is no body.
I can see there is no self in charge but struggle a bit to accept that personal activities are automatic or just happen.
eg my partner is playing his guitar and I will join him soon to play the uke. I can see in AE that no self decides when to join him exactly, that it will just happen. If I watch AE I can see that thoughts arise and are busy labelling as I get the uke and go outside. Content of thought before I get up includes thoughts about playing the uke. I watch all this and wonder how it happens and yes I notice the "I" that I use to describe that I'm watching. I still don't KNOW who exactly is watching.
I am also curious about the role of habit and apparent personality when there is no separate selves. Where does personality arise if there is no separate selves?

Thank you for your ongoing support

[Faithy]

Hi Colette,

I'm sorry it's been so long. I just realised that I didn't send this yesterday when I wrote it. I forgot to submit it.

I've reread our whole thread and have redone a lot of the exercises.
I'm very clear that no self can be found in AE.
I can also see content of thought more clearly now.
I can see that in AE there is no body.
I can see there is no self in charge but struggle a bit to accept that personal activities are automatic or just happen.
eg my partner is playing his guitar and I will join him soon to play the uke. I can see in AE that no self decides when to join him exactly, that it will just happen. If I watch AE I can see that thoughts arise and are busy labelling as I get the uke and go outside. Content of thought before I get up includes thoughts about playing the uke. I watch all this and wonder how it happens and yes I notice the "I" that I use to describe that I'm watching. I still don't KNOW who exactly is watching.
I am also curious about the role of habit and apparent personality when there is no separate selves. Where does personality arise if there is no separate selves?

Thank you for your ongoing support

[Faithy]

Hi Colette,

I'm sorry it's been so long. I just realised that I didn't send this yesterday when I wrote it. I forgot to submit it.

I've reread our whole thread and have redone a lot of the exercises.
I'm very clear that no self can be found in AE.
I can also see content of thought more clearly now.
I can see that in AE there is no body.
I can see there is no self in charge but struggle a bit to accept that personal activities are automatic or just happen.
eg my partner is playing his guitar and I will join him soon to play the uke. I can see in AE that no self decides when to join him exactly, that it will just happen. If I watch AE I can see that thoughts arise and are busy labelling as I get the uke and go outside. Content of thought before I get up includes thoughts about playing the uke. I watch all this and wonder how it happens and yes I notice the "I" that I use to describe that I'm watching. I still don't KNOW who exactly is watching.
I am also curious about the role of habit and apparent personality when there is no separate selves. Where does personality arise if there is no separate selves?

Thank you for your ongoing support

[Colette01]

Hi Faithy, I hope this finds you and yours well.

Thank you for being clear and honest, really helpful. It seems we’ve come a long way :-) You have been patient and steadfast, super useful qualities for the purposes of this inquiry. You’ve provided a useful recap of what we’ve covered so lets clear some bits up and build on the rest. 



I've reread our whole thread and have redone a lot of the exercises.
I'm very clear that no self can be found in AE
I can also see content of thought more clearly now.
I can see that in AE there is no body.

Great.

I can see there is no self in charge but struggle a bit to accept that personal activities are automatic or just happen. eg my partner is playing his guitar and I will join him soon to play the uke. I can see in AE that no self decides when to join him exactly, that it will just happen. If I watch AE I can see that thoughts arise and are busy labelling as I get the uke and go outside. Content of thought before I get up includes thoughts about playing the uke. I watch all this and wonder how it happens and yes I notice the "I" that I use to describe that I'm watching. I still don't KNOW who exactly is watching.

Is there an ‘i’ wondering about anything or is there only thought with the content ‘I’ wonder how this happens?

Have another look at The Doer Exercise I'll paste it into the next post to remind. Remember, its necessary and totally fine to explore these exercises many times.

I notice the 'I' that 'I' use to describe what I'm watching

Yes, you've spotted this, you're flagging this up for attention, so now go a little further with the insight, inquire yourself. The 'I' that is habitually referenced in language - is it ever anything more than a linguistic convention? Is it ever more than a thought? Is the ‘I’ that is embedded in a question i.e. am I watching? Is the ‘I’ real because it is part of a question? 'I' cannot be found in AE as you have seen, but thought continues to reference ‘I’ AS IF it existed. How will you square this circle yourself? You’ve seen there is no ‘I’, no body, no thing that is controlling or making decisions, and yet there is doubt? In what medium is the doubt delivered? Is it thought? Is there some revision here needed around thought? It feels like we’re half way there, you’ve seen there’s no ‘I’ in AE but you haven’t totally bought it that there’s no ‘I’ in thought? Do you feel that this is accurate?

'I still dont know who exactly is watching'

Was the that which created the possibility of a watcher ‘thought’? Does thought arise with content i.e. ’who is watching’? And in so doing resurrect the possibility of ‘I’ that is doing some thing? Does thought say, there is seeing so that proves that SOMEONE must be seeing?

'I still dont know who exactly is watching’

Go back to this sentence. Is there a self that you can find in AE that is watching. Be really clear. Can you find an ‘I’. Then when you’re absolutely clear go back to the question ‘I still dont know who exactly is watching’ and answer it in your own words. Repeat the thought question ‘I still dont know who exactly is watching’ and answer it again. Keep answering the same question until its absolutely clear - that the question is a thought but the truth of it is in AE. Thoughts like this will continue to arise, but it is a thought and the truth is in the seeing not the thinking or thought question.


Reliance on Knowing -



'I still dont know who exactly is watching’



Just to repeat this earlier post - you will never 'know' this, remember the previous post where we talked about the hope, the wish that this inquiry, that life could be known by thinking - it cant. Wrong tools for the job. You will never 'know' the truth through thinking, suffering wont end through thinking, if we could have done it with thinking we’d all be free long ago!! Remember the post that started…There is a habit of trying to know through thinking but awareness cannot be known by thought. There will be no knowing. THIS is not knowable..etc… Is there doubt here? It's OK if there is...flush it out.

Each thought that arises infers that life happens because of …. something, it infers ownership (experience owned by ‘I’)… something is happening, someone must be doing it, there must be cause and effect (the world must be like this because I've always thought it was), but its a story that we've taken for granted for ever. But you've looked into experience and you cannot find the something that is doing/owning activity.


I am also curious about the role of habit and apparent personality when there is no separate selves. Where does personality arise if there is no separate selves? 
What could have a personality? I wonder if you could answer the question. Where does personality arise if there is no separate self’?


Great...you trigger your own inquiry and you have the skills to answer it

what could have a personality?

The question is good. The answer and clarity is to be found by looking in AE, but not in further conjecture/thinking. Look yourself in AE - what could have a personality? Let me know :-)

[Colette01]

Hi Faith, here it is again - just note any else that arises from repeating, any sense of consolidation, clarity, doubts.

Doership Exercise

Although you see that there is no noticer/observer/witness, there may still be the feeling of identification of being the ‘doer’. That it still ‘feels’ like there is a self that is the ‘chooser’. So let’s have a look at this as it has to do with the sense of seeing.

Take a few relaxed breaths to let the dust settle for a while, and then:
Look on your right.
Then look on your left.
Finally, bring your head back to centre, close your eyes and look in front.

Okay, so when you look on the right, the view on the right is seen (whatever that is).
When you look on the left, the view on the left is seen (whatever that is).
And then, when you look in front of you with eyes closed, the view in front is seen (ie ‘black space’).

So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ not to see? I’m not asking can you ‘choose’ to see something else like another view or ‘black space’ if you close your eyes. The question is; can you turn seeing off? Can you NOT see what is seen?

Same thing with the view on the left, can you NOT see the view on the left?
Same thing with the view in front with closed eyes, can you NOT see the ‘black space’?
Can you turn off seeing?
What did the 'chooser' choose? Did a 'self' choose something?
If you are unable to choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

[Faithy]

Hi Colette,

Is there an ‘i’ wondering about anything or is there only thought with the content ‘I’ wonder how this happens?

Of course there is only the content of thought saying "I wonder...." no actual I to wonder about anything!

From the doer exercise...."Can you turn off seeing?
What did the 'chooser' choose? Did a 'self' choose something?
If you are unable to choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?"

Seeing cannot be turned off. There is no chooser seen to choose anything.
As there is only awareness and it can't be chosen or not chosen there is nothing else to choose.

The 'I' that is habitually referenced in language - is it ever anything more than a linguistic convention? Is it ever more than a thought? Is the ‘I’ that is embedded in a question i.e. am I watching? Is the ‘I’ real because it is part of a question? 'I' cannot be found in AE as you have seen, but thought continues to reference ‘I’ AS IF it existed. How will you square this circle yourself? You’ve seen there is no ‘I’, no body, no thing that is controlling or making decisions, and yet there is doubt? In what medium is the doubt delivered? Is it thought? Is there some revision here needed around thought? It feels like we’re half way there, you’ve seen there’s no ‘I’ in AE but you haven’t totally bought it that there’s no ‘I’ in thought? Do you feel that this is accurate?

Yes. That's accurate. Thoughts continue to be egocentric even though it's been recognised that in reality there is no I.

what could have a personality?

There is no evidence of personality in AE. Personality is merely found in the content of thought.