Here

[Hawthorne]

Hi Bella,
I ran out of time to answer these today, I will write you tomorrow.
Thank you
Albert

[Hawthorne]

But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time? Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

Not at all! In fact, things happen without any apparent antecedent in experience. It is only in inference and induction that I can see "this caused that". For instance, the earth-mover that drove past my window just now. Through induction and inference, it probably came from some city yard or construction company, and it's probably off to dig a hole somewhere, or vice-versa. But my experience of it consisted of 20 seconds of noise and light, and it was gone.

Code: Select all

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

No, except for the experience of memory (thoughts). but these can't be considered a 'primary source'- they are commentary.
It is not a direct experience. The sense of continuity acts as a 'glue' to contextualise the experiences, but it can't be said to be a 'real thing', except in the way that thoughts are 'real things'.

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

Since there is no point of reference, there is no way of answering this question. It would only make sense if there were some fixed point to observe from, but since there is no fixed point of experience, there is no way to judge the scale of time or movement.

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began? How long does the ‘now’ last?

I cannot find a starting point. I cant answer the second part, for the same reason as above. "Forever" would imply some way of measuring time against a metric. There's no measuring stick... the only one that a person can pretend to rely on is constantly changing shape! I usually measure time against my 'self'. But in the absence of a fixed self, there's no way to tell. Amazing!

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

In direct experience, there is no beginning or end. The question, still, seems impossible to answer without relying on induction, which is not the tool we're using, nor does it yield reliable results.

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

Typically, "Now" is labelled 'past' when it is referred to in memory rather than the experience of the senses. But in direct experience, there is no specific 'turning point' ... Now is now, without a past.
The past is inferred through memory and context. " That object was there, now it is here. Therefore, time has passed. "
Now is described in the present tense and can be accessed through the senses directly, at-this-moment.
But the description, inference, and contextualization of the past occur in the present moment.

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

As above, memory and inference through context. Thoughts, in other words.

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

No experience of 'time'. There are experiences of thoughts about the 'passage of time' , which is really the process of change. "Three years ago I lived in the west. I wonder how my old friends are doing." But this is really more of semantics- the experience of 'time' is not to be found, in my experience.

[Bella]

Hi Albert,

Great looking!

No, except for the experience of memory (thoughts). but these can't be considered a 'primary source'- they are commentary. 
It is not a direct experience. The sense of continuity acts as a 'glue' to contextualise the experiences, but it can't be said to be a 'real thing', except in the way that thoughts are 'real things'.

Do thoughts have duration? Or do they appear full content?
Can you find a commentator?

That object was there, now it is here. Therefore, time has passed.

Without time as a reality. How about space/distance?

From May 19 about the looker

It often seems to be behind the eyes, but upon investigation that also resolves into sensation. It often appears that the 'looker' is behind what I'm seeing, or behind me somehow. Like a camera lens, it's invisible in the 'video'. Reminds me of my earlier pondering: What is observing, if not an 'observer'? Observation occurs whether it's 'me' or not. Also, what is it that maintains the sense of continuity, illusory though it may be? It's very mysterious to me to realise that there's no 'seer', yet seeing happens nonetheless. Is there a way of seeing this directly?

The sense of continuity is now clear to you probably, after the time-exercise.
Now go back to to the exercise with hands on desk, to your experience of the looker. You described you investigated the looker and saw it was just a sensation.
Where was the looker when you saw the first looking-sensation was just a sensation? Was there another looker? Or did the looker change place? Can the looker be directly seen? Who or what sees the looker?

Bella

[Hawthorne]

Great looking!

Thanks, I got a haircut .

Do thoughts have duration?
Or do they appear full content?

Wow, this is a seriously mind bending question!
Duration seems to be a bit hard to pin down. My experience of a thought is simultaneous. The whole thing just happens at once, apparently! How come they seem to be one after another then? I'm genuinely confused by this. Why is experience sequential in this way? It's really weird.

Thoughts do not have 'duration', and 'duration' is a very hard quality to identify in any phenomenon. It only makes sense as a relative measurement of spatial change, against a fixed point.
Thoughts appear in experience 'total', or 'full content' as you put it.

(A delightful coincidence occured that I want to document- a really great song called 'lost in time' came on my radio as I began working on this question. I had to smile!)

Can you find a commentator?

No.

Without time as a reality. How about space/distance?

That makes sense!
Space and distance are very quantifiable, as opposed to 'duration'. Although they are just as relative in some ways.
"How long does it take" is a question that can't be answered in my direct experience, only relative to other, spatial, phenomenon. One day is the movement of the earth around it's axis, one year is a trip around the sun. The passage of time is the movement of objects in space.
So how long does a thought take? It's not physically anywhere, except I guess as an electrical signal in the brain, but I don't access that in direct experience. It is instantaneous. It happens 'now', by definition.

1.Where was the looker when you saw the first looking-sensation was just a sensation?
2.Was there another looker? Or did the looker change place?
3.Can the looker be directly seen?
4. Who or what sees the looker?

1. It was just not there. It was just an experience without a looker.
2. There was no awareness of 'a looker'. I don't know if there was another one or if it changed place- it was not in my experience. Just no looker.
3. I still don't know! I have not seen a/the looker.
4. How can I find this out? I feel like a dog chasing its tail! Isn't any 'looker' just a sensation or thought? how could there be an experience that is not thought or sensation?

[Bella]

Hi Albert,

Let’s recap a bit. Time is a mental construct. Invented by men to make sense of experience. In direct experience, time doesn’t exist, as you found out. There is only NOW. And NOW being timeless. It has no duration and contains all. Thoughts can’t have duration either, otherwise they couldn’t be experienced. Talking in the head is a seeming ‘thought with duration’. But is in fact only mental sounds and thoughts interpreted.

The body is a mental construct, as you found out. It is constructed from sensations and thoughts.

Space is measured by the time it takes to get from A to B. Without time, space can’t exist as such. Space is also a mental construct.

Looking into direct or actual experience is looking in the NOW.

Is there anything in the above text that is not totally clear?

My experience of a thought is simultaneous. The whole thing just happens at once, apparently! How come they seem to be one after another then? I'm genuinely confused by this. Why is experience sequential in this way? It's really weird.  

Good! Reality is not what we always thought it was.

About the looker:
You found out that what appears to be the looker (in your post from May 19 behind the eyes) is only a sensation. Then you investigated whether there was a new looker, looking to the sensations that had seemed to be the feeler/looker.

1. It was just not there. It was just an experience without a looker.
2. There was no awareness of 'a looker'. I don't know if there was another one or if it changed place- it was not in my experience. Just no looker. 
3. I still don't know! I have not seen a/the looker. 
4. How can I find this out? I feel like a dog chasing its tail! Isn't any 'looker' just a sensation or thought? how could there be an experience that is not thought or sensation? 

In this example you switched your attention from the object to the subject. The subject in that way becoming the new object. But what happened to the old subject? It appeared as the new looker.
Look again to see this for yourself.
Look at a random object, say a cup.
The cup is known as a visual image.
What is it that sees the the cup/object/has the visual image?
Whatever you know it to be (in your former example a sensation behind the eyes), it is also known as the subject. Ok?
Now switch you attention from the cup (old object) to the seer/looker (old subject).
Investigate the seer (the former subject), now the new object. What is it? Look really hard. Is there a new location for the new object?
By what is the new object seen? What is the new subject? Look really hard. Is there a new location for the new subject? Switch your attention again, this time to what was the new subject. What happens?

Is there a distance between the seer/looker and the seen?
Is there a difference between the seer/looker and the seen?

Bella

[Hawthorne]

Is there anything in the above text that is not totally clear?

That is all very clear.

What is it that sees the the cup/object/has the visual image?

It seems to change every time attention goes to a new object. In one example it was 'feeling behind the eyes', but in another it may be in a different location. The closer I look, and as I perform the exercises below, the more it seems the object itself is what 'has' the image.

Whatever you know it to be (in your former example a sensation behind the eyes), it is also known as the subject. Ok?
Now switch you attention from the cup (old object) to the seer/looker (old subject).
Investigate the seer (the former subject), now the new object. What is it? Look really hard. Is there a new location for the new object?

The new location becomes the object itself when I look in this way.

By what is the new object seen?

It simply exists in itself. The object and subject appear as one object.

What is the new subject? Look really hard. Is there a new location for the new subject? Switch your attention again, this time to what was the new subject. What happens?

The subject disintegrates. There are only objects. There's no apparent 'location' for the subject. Simply an object in awareness.

Is there a distance between the seer/looker and the seen?
Is there a difference between the seer/looker and the seen?

No! It's all happening at once, in the same place. Here and now. No difference. The chair exists in-itself as a chair. Not Albert-looking-at-a-chair. It is simply a chair. And so on.

This is amazing, Bella. I am astonished. I will enjoy playing this exercise for a long time, I think.

[Bella]

Hi Albert,

Take a cup and place it in front of you on the table. Sit for a minute and then look at the VISUAL IMAGE in front of you. Be sure: only your direct or actual experience.
How is it known where the cup ends and the table begins?
What is the DE of "cup"?
Can the backside of the cup be known?
Does the cup exist (as separate entity)?
Is there an inside of the cup?
Does form exist?

There's no apparent 'location' for the subject. Simply an object in awareness.

Does the object have a location?
Is there a stand-alone awareness? Where is it?
Can an object be separated from the awareness of that object?

Bella

[Hawthorne]

Hi Bella, I'm going to have to do this tomorrow!
These questions are getting pretty deep.

[Bella]

Take your time. You’re doing great.

[Hawthorne]

How is it known where the cup ends and the table begins?

The colour and shapes called 'cup' become colours and shapes called 'table'.

What is the DE of "cup"?

Roundness, whiteness, hollowness, and so on. I can describe the sensory input of the cup in this way.
These are all patterns of light and colour, which only make sense in context. There's no 'cupness' , just a pattern of qualities called 'cup'.

Can the backside of the cup be known?

Not directly (without turning it around, but then it'd be the front!)

Does the cup exist (as separate entity)?

No. It exists as an interpretation of light and colour.

Is there an inside of the cup?

Not in my direct experience. I would generally say 'yes' , since I can remember filling a cup with things, but in the experience of literally just looking at the cup on my desk, the answer is "no".

Does form exist?

As interpretation of colour and lights, form exists, the same way "I" exist so that I can tell you this. But in an experiential, quantitative way, no. It does not.

Does the object have a location?

Not really. It is just right where it is. "Location" would only make sense relative to other, theoretical objects which are outside of direct experience.

Is there a stand-alone awareness? Where is it?
Can an object be separated from the awareness of that object?

No, awareness of an object is inseparable from the object itself. Without the object, there could be no awareness, and vice-versa. Awareness without an object does not exist in my experience and is impossible by definition.

[Bella]

Hi Albert,

Great looking again!

Roundness, whiteness, hollowness, and so on. I can describe the sensory input of the cup in this way. 

Those descriptions are already interpretations. The DE of ‘cup’ is only form and shape.

So let’s look at emotions, what they really are. Bring up an emotion, feel it, and let’s examine what is really going on.
An appearing ‘emotion’ like ‘fear’ or ‘happiness’ has three ‘components’:

(a) a pure bodily sensation, like contraction or relaxation
(b) a mental label stuck to (layered over) the sensation, like “this is fear” or “this is contraction in the stomach” or “unpleasant” or “I am happy”
(c) and simultaneously appearing mental images (pictures) about a certain body parts, like picture about the stomach or the chest

So when an emotion is present, identify these three components, and investigate them:

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘pleasant’ or ‘unpleasant’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’?

Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘pleasant’ or ‘unpleasant’ are just mental labels on the pure sensation?

Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?

Is there REALLY ‘sadness’ or ‘sorrow’ or ‘suffering’, or are there only thoughts about ‘sadness’ or ‘suffering’?

So if you look very closely, you’ll see that there is neither sufferer, nor suffering. There are only thoughts ABOUT a sufferer and suffering. Can you see this?

Bella

[Hawthorne]

Hi Bella!

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘pleasant’ or ‘unpleasant’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’?

No, there's just feelings, like you said. Sensory input. The interpretation of 'happy' or whatever is a thought.

Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘pleasant’ or ‘unpleasant’ are just mental labels on the pure sensation?

Yes, totally.

Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?

The only innate attribute detectable is 'existence' or 'being', in the sense that it is occuring, and not 'not-occuring' (that's sort of obvious but I'm trying to be accurate).
Otherwise, it's neutral.

Is there REALLY ‘sadness’ or ‘sorrow’ or ‘suffering’, or are there only thoughts about ‘sadness’ or ‘suffering’?

Sensations and thoughts.

Can you see this?

Yes, I can see this clearly, although, of course- the habit of taking emotions 'literally' still runs the show most of the time. there is a certain 'coming to' I've been noticing, though. Ruminating just sort of fizzles out upon noticing itself.


Thank you!
Hope you're well,
Albert

[Bella]

Hi Albert,

The only innate attribute detectable is 'existence' or 'being', in the sense that it is occuring, and not 'not-occuring' (that's sort of obvious but I'm trying to be accurate). 

Just to check for clarity about this.
Reality is our direct or bare experience. For the purpose of inquiry, we try to get as close as possible through deviding our experience in the 6 sense-fields. This deviding is artificial. It only helps to get as close as we possibly can at that time.
Is there a stand-alone sensation/sight/sound/smell/taste/thought? Or is there always a certain blending of these? Or is there a ‘something’ in which they appear?
As long as we are not fully enlightened, there are beliefs that hold us back from our bare direct experience.

Yes, I can see this clearly, although, of course- the habit of taking emotions 'literally' still runs the show most of the time. there is a certain 'coming to' I've been noticing, though. Ruminating just sort of fizzles out upon noticing itself. 

Throughout the day, there will sometimes be emotions that ‘run the show’. Take these to your meditation and look for the ‘coming to’.
Is the ‘coming to’ a visible aspect of direct experience? Has it existence?
Who is having the emotion?
What makes it happen? Is there a mechanism that makes it inevitable?
Why should it happen?

Bella

[Hawthorne]

Hi bella,
I forgot to reply today. It's getting very busy! I will give this my attention tomorrow.
Thank you

[Bella]

Thanks for letting me know.