Emptiness

[Aragon]

Hi Gerd,

I notice you can answer all the questions with apparent clarity, but the last one suggests that the answers are coming from an intellectual understanding rather than looking.

I wonder if you might try the exercise below. Try to think that you are not really looking for the correct answer, but to see what is happening. The exercises are about getting you to look, rather than a particular answer. It is through the looking that the shift occurs.

So....

1. Can you listen to a sound. Notice the quality of the sound. Really tune into the sound. Spend some time with it. Be curious, as if you had never heard the sound before.

2. Then listen, but have a sense of the listener, that which receives the sound.

3. You can switch between the two, noticing the sound, and noticing the apparent listener.

4. Then go again to this sense of a listener.

Can you locate the listener? Does it feel like it is in the head, or the body, or where? When you actually go to the listener in your experience, what do you find?

Here is a tip: There is no correct answer to this exercise. It could be different for me than it is for you.

I'd like you to write about the process and what you find, so I can see how you are looking.

I look forward to hearing what you find.

Wishing you well,

Aragon

[Gerd]

Hi Aragon,

Can you locate the listener?

No, I cannot locate the listener. There is only AE of sound.

Does it feel like it is in the head, or the body, or where?

It feels like it is in the head.

When you actually go to the listener in your experience, what do you find?

It feels like the head is filled with the AE of sound. There is no sound outside the head. The sound outside the head is a thought.

Thank You, Gerd

[Aragon]

Hi Gerd,

Hope this finds you well.....

When you actually go to the listener in your experience, what do you find?

It feels like the head is filled with the AE of sound. There is no sound outside the head. The sound outside the head is a thought.

What is the AE of the 'head'? You did the head exercise previously..... can you look at the head again:

Press a finger down on top of the head...can a head or a finger be found or only AE of sensation?

** I know you know the answer to this, but please do the exercise. Please see if anything else can be found other than sensation?

Then.... can you see the thought which describes the sensation as finger, or pressure - can you see that happen? Can you stay with the sensation, when 'stripped of the meaning from the thought'? Does it point to 'head' or finger' or 'pressure' in any way?

And again...

Where is the line, the boundary between inside and outside of the head? Where does the head end and the sound begin?

You can answer this without doing the exercise. But look!

We think there is a boundary. But can you find it?

I cannot stress enough that it IS IN THE LOOKING for the boundary and not finding it, that you will see.

Please let me know how you get on,

Aragon

[Gerd]

Hi Aragon,

What is the AE of the 'head'?

The AE of the head is a thought.

Press a finger down on top of the head...can a head or a finger be found or only AE of sensation?

There is only AE of sensation.

Please see if anything else can be found other than sensation?

Nothing else can be found but AE of sensation.

Then.... can you see the thought which describes the sensation as finger, or pressure - can you see that happen?

Ok., I can see the thought of a finger or thought of pressure.

Can you stay with the sensation, when 'stripped of the meaning from the thought'? Does it point to 'head' or finger' or 'pressure' in any way?

Without thought there is only AE of sensation.

Where is the line, the boundary between inside and outside of the head?

Inside and outside are thoughts. So there is no line. There is only AE of sensation or sound.

Where does the head end and the sound begin?

There is only AE of sound.

We think there is a boundary. But can you find it?

It’s difficult for me to understand what boundary you are talking about. There is only AE of sound (without inside/outside). In thought there is subject/object, where the sound comes from and where it’s going to. So the boundary could be at the ears. But boundary/ears are thoughts.

Thank You, Gerd

[Aragon]

Hi Gerd,

Thanks for your response.....

We think there is a boundary. But can you find it?

It’s difficult for me to understand what boundary you are talking about. There is only AE of sound (without inside/outside). In thought there is subject/object, where the sound comes from and where it’s going to. So the boundary could be at the ears. But boundary/ears are thoughts.

As you have said, ears are AE of thought…so can thought actually divide sound from the knowing of it? Do you need thought to tell you that a sound has arisen in your field of awareness? Can you find a dividing line of any description between the sound and the knowing of it? Do you have to cross any borders, travel distances, go to other dimensions, open any doors to know that a sound has appeared? Or is there just knowing of the sound?


Going back to your previous post, the following question was asked:-

When you actually go to the listener in your experience, what do you find?

You answered:-

It feels like the head is filled with the AE of sound. There is no sound outside the head. The sound outside the head is a thought.

So now that you have once again seen that the actual experience of the head is really AE of sensation, can any dividing line be found between sound and the knowing of it? Do the sensations divide sound from the knowing of it? Do sensations know anything about sounds?


As there is no inside or outside of the head…do sounds appear in a particular location? Is there an actual distance between the sound and the knowing of it?

When you actually go to the listener in your experience, what do you find?

I look forward to your reply.

Wishing you well, Aragon

[Gerd]

Hi Aragon,

As you have said, ears are AE of thought…so can thought actually divide sound from the knowing of it?

I don’t understand the question. ‘Knowing’ is a label/thought. So we are not in AE of sound but in thought?

Do you need thought to tell you that a sound has arisen in your field of awareness?

No, there is AE of sound, so I don’t need thought.

Can you find a dividing line of any description between the sound and the knowing of it?

There is only AE of sound. ‘Dividing line’ is a thought. I don’t understand what is meant by knowing a sound?

Do you have to cross any borders, travel distances, go to other dimensions, open any doors to know that a sound has appeared?

No, I don’t have to cross any borders…… AE of sound just is.

Or is there just knowing of the sound?

There is just AE of sound. Knowing of the sound is in thought.

So now that you have once again seen that the actual experience of the head is really AE of sensation, can any dividing line be found between sound and the knowing of it?

AE of sensation and AE of sound are not connected. As I wrote before: ‘dividing line’ is a thought. What is meant by knowing a sound?

Do the sensations divide sound from the knowing of it?

I don’t understand the question: there is AE of sensation, there is AE of sound and there is ‘knowing’ as a thought. All three are not connected.

Do sensations know anything about sounds?

No, sensations don’t know anything about sounds.

As there is no inside or outside of the head…do sounds appear in a particular location?

No, sounds don’t appear in a particular location.

Is there an actual distance between the sound and the knowing of it?

I don’t understand what is meant by knowing a sound.

When you actually go to the listener in your experience, what do you find?

There is no listener. There is only AE of sound.

Thank You, Gerd

[Aragon]

Hi Gerd,

You say the 'knowing of sound' is a thought, and yet you say a sound is known without the need for a thought.

Yes, the sound is known/aware-d, even before thought labels it.

Is there any difference between the sound, and the knowing/aware-ing of it?

Can the sound be known without the aware-ing of it?

Can the aware-ing of it be known without the sound?

Are these two things or just one undivided experience?

And where are you in all this? Is there a 'you' that is separate from this? If not then what - what do you take yourself to be?

Wishing you well,

Aragon

[Gerd]

Hi Aragon,

Is there any difference between the sound, and the knowing/aware-ing of it?

A sound becomes a sound through aware-ing of it.

Can the sound be known without the aware-ing of it?

The sound can only be known with aware-ing of it.

Can the aware-ing of it be known without the sound?

The aware-ing of it can only be known with a sound.

Are these two things or just one undivided experience?

There is only one undivided experience in AE of sound.

And where are you in all this? Is there a 'you' that is separate from this? If not then what - what do you take yourself to be?

There is no ‘You’. There is only the experience of sound.

Thank You, Gerd

[Aragon]

Hi Gerd,

Thanks for your reply:

And where are you in all this? Is there a 'you' that is separate from this? If not then what - what do you take yourself to be?

There is no ‘You’. There is only the experience of sound.

And yet you exist, no?

Without you, would sound exist?

Without you, would knowing/Aware-ing exist?

So what are you? What do you take yourself to be?


Wishing you well,

Aragon

[Gerd]

Hi Aragon,

And yet you exist, no?

I would say a body exists like an apple exists.

Without you, would sound exist?

Without the body there would be no sound. Without an I but with a body there would be a sound (AE of sound).

Without you, would knowing/Aware-ing exist?

Without the body there would be no knowing/aware-ing. Without an I but with a body there would be knowing/aware-ing.

So what are you? What do you take yourself to be?

There is a body without an I.

Thank You, Gerd

[Aragon]

Hi Gerd,

Thanks for your reply.

When we looked at the head, Gerd, did you find a head, or did you find the actual experience of sensation only?

Please go back to the head exercise and redo the exercise carefully. Report back to me what you find.

The label ‘head’ is AE of thought and not AE of a head
Sensation labelled as ‘head’ is AE of sensation and not AE of a head
Colour/image labelled as ‘head’ is AE of colour/image and not AE of a head
Thoughts about the head - what it is, where it sits, what it looks like and what it does etc are AE of thought all content of the thought/label ‘head’) and not AE of a head.

So what is known is label + sensation + colour/image + thoughts about the head. But is a head actually known? Can a head be found as actual experience or are there only thoughts about a head?

Thought points to label + sensation + colour and says it is a 'head', when 'head' is simply AE of thought.

Can you see this?


So now, I want you to look at the body and tell me what the actual experience of the body is. Let me know what you find.

Wishing you well,

Aragon

[Gerd]

Hi Aragon,

When we looked at the head, Gerd, did you find a head, or did you find the actual experience of sensation only?

There is only AE of sensation, colour….

So what is known is label + sensation + colour/image + thoughts about the head. But is a head actually known?

No, a head is not known.

Can a head be found as actual experience or are there only thoughts about a head?

There are only thoughts about a head and AE of sensation, colour….

Can you see this?

Yes I can see, that ‘head’ is AE of thought.

So now, I want you to look at the body and tell me what the actual experience of the body is.

There is AE of sensation, colour…. and ‘body’ is AE of thought.

Thank You, Gerd

[Aragon]

Hi Gerd,

In all the ways of looking that you have done in this thread, you have the tools you need..... I would really encourage you to try and look again at the exercises, and not see them as a one-off activity.

So given what you have just said:

If the body is not what is aware of sound...what is? Isn't it you (not Gerdself) but you that is the knowing awareness of experience?

And given that there is no dividing line, no distance between the sound (which is known) and you(that which is the knowing of the sound)...is there a you and sound...or are they one and the same thing?

And can you find anything outside of this which you could point to as being 'you'

Is knowing separate from the known (sound)?

Do you need anything to know that you are aware, that you are that which is the knowing of all experience?

Wishing you well,

Aragon

[Gerd]

Hi Aragon,

I would really encourage you to try and look again at the exercises, and not see them as a one-off activity.

I regularly read parts of the thread again and redo the exercises.

If the body is not what is aware of sound...what is? Isn't it you (not Gerdself) but you that is the knowing awareness of experience?

Ok., so ‘you’ is the knowing awareness of experience.

And given that there is no dividing line, no distance between the sound (which is known) and you(that which is the knowing of the sound)...is there a you and sound...or are they one and the same thing?

There is only AE of sound. So there is no dividing line between the sound and the knowing awareness of the sound. If we say knowing awareness is ‘you’ then sound and ‘you’ is the same thing. This sounds logical but right now I have no understanding for this.

And can you find anything outside of this which you could point to as being 'you'

No, I have no idea what ‘you’ could be.

Is knowing separate from the known (sound)?

There is only one experience so knowing and known go together.

Do you need anything to know that you are aware, that you are that which is the knowing of all experience?

This is a difficult sentence, I read it several times and I don’t know if I got it correctly. Right now I’m not aware, that you/I am that which is the knowing of all experiences. At the moment this is more a definition for me. I don’t know what I would need to know to be aware of this. But maybe it's getting clearer over the time.

Thank You, Gerd

[Aragon]

Apologies Gerd, will reply tomorrow :)