Confusion - Which approach to pursue?

[Vivien]

Hi Reece,

Even when there isn't a focusing in on anything observable, there is still a perceiving and happening of life, but no perceiver can be found.

Yes. You did a nice investigation.

So is there any separation? Meaning, anything that is separate from life, observing or perceiving it? Or there is just the whole, just experience, and nothing standing outside of it, watching it or experiencing from the distance?

Is there any division in reality? In anywhere? Or only ever thoughts talk about division/separation without any grounds in reality?

Here is a lovely exercise, which will deepen what you already found:

Go out into nature and spend some time watching the movement of the whole. See how clouds move, trees swing, leaves wiggle, grass moves, insects, birds.

Then focus on sensations and see how they too are in constant motion, thoughts come and go, just as sounds, colours, sensations come and go.

Notice that everything is part of one movement.

Then close your eyes and see if there is a line between you and out there, between you and life itself. If yes, where is the boundary?

Is there an inside and an outside of Life / experience?

Is there something which is not included in the movement of the whole?
Is there a witness that is watching life happening from a distance?
Or is witnessing part of the one movement too?

Is there anything which is not just happening?

Let me know what you find.

Vivien

[DeLaRiva]

Hi Vivien,

So is there any separation? Meaning, anything that is separate from life, observing or perceiving it? Or there is just the whole, just experience, and nothing standing outside of it, watching it or experiencing from the distance?

Is there any division in reality? In anywhere? Or only ever thoughts talk about division/separation without any grounds in reality?

Nothing other than life can be perceived, there is nothing else. There is an observing happening but no observer can be found. When all objects are discerned as not 'me', and focus has been taken off of everything, life and observing is still happening.

No division in reality can be found. Because observing in DE occurs via the senses of Reece (seeing through these eyes, hearing through these ears etc.), it can appear that there is division since I am seeing specifically from these senses. This however, is just a thought story and in reality can just be seen as 'thoughtness' appearing in DE.

Is there something which is not included in the movement of the whole?
Is there a witness that is watching life happening from a distance?
Or is witnessing part of the one movement too?

Is there anything which is not just happening?

Everything is happening automatically. My breath and heart beat happens as effortlessly and naturally as the wind blows the trees. None of this is controlled. Vibrations/sensations in the body also happen naturally, as do thoughts.

Thought can sometimes come in and try to judge/control sensations and other thoughts, but it is quickly noticed that thought also pops up just as automatically as appearances in the outside world, and it quickly comes and goes, just as a cloud in the sky. It can't be controlled or grasped, trying to grasp at thought is impossible, all that happens instead is new thoughts appear.

Witnessing is also effortless, it happens even when focus is taken off of everything.

There seems to be no observable line that distinguishes this body/mind and the rest of life. Although it was noticed that sensations in the body are always observed and experienced, where sensations in other objects and bodies cannot if that makes sense? Which can be give the appearance of separation. Although this can just again be classed as simply a thought/story that creates separation. In DE there is no story, it is just thought that creates these stories, trying to label and put life into an understandable box.

Cheers,

Reece

[Vivien]

Hi Reece,

There is an observing happening but no observer can be found.
life and observing is still happening.

And is this observing is separate from what is being observed?
Is there life + observing?
Or observing itself is part of life, part of the whole?

No division in reality can be found. Because observing in DE occurs via the senses of Reece (seeing through these eyes, hearing through these ears etc.)

Senses of Reece? So the body is owned by Reece? How do you know that?
How do you know that Reece has senses? That Reece has a body?
Where is Reece, the owner?

Is the word/thought Reece is owning the senses or the body?
Is the thought I owning?
Or what is it that HAS senses?

(seeing through these eyes, hearing through these ears etc.)

And HOW do you know that seeing happens through the eyes? And hearing through the ears?
Yes, this is what we learn it school, but is this the immediate experience?

Vibrations/sensations in the body also happen naturally, as do thoughts.

This is another thing we might learn, that sensations are INSIDE the body.

Please close your eyes.

Can you find two things there? A body? And all the sensation encapsulated in that body, as a container?
Is there anything else to the body other than sensations?
Is there a sensation + body? Or there are only just sensations in experience?
And the word body is just another label, abstraction on the experience of sensations?

Although it was noticed that sensations in the body are always observed and experienced, where sensations in other objects and bodies cannot if that makes sense?

HOW do you know that there is another set of sensations belonging to another body?
Isn’t this just an assumption?

Isn’t this assumption based another assumption, that ‘these’ sensations are belonging to ‘this’ body, so there must be other sensations belonging to other bodies?

Vivien

[DeLaRiva]

Hi Vivien,

And is this observing is separate from what is being observed?
Is there life + observing?
Or observing itself is part of life, part of the whole?

Nothing can be found outside of life, observing happens as a part of it.

Senses of Reece? So the body is owned by Reece? How do you know that?
How do you know that Reece has senses? That Reece has a body?
Where is Reece, the owner?

Is the word/thought Reece is owning the senses or the body?
Is the thought I owning?
Or what is it that HAS senses?

Sorry, my language wasn't very clear. I just use the word 'Reece' to describe the bundle of thoughts and sensations in DE, it's not an entity that owns anything, there is no separate Reece or I to be found that owns anything.

And HOW do you know that seeing happens through the eyes? And hearing through the ears?
Yes, this is what we learn it school, but is this the immediate experience

Well seeing and hearing and sensations all occur appear in awareness. In DE it all happens within the one whole.
But if I place my hands over my eyes my vision is blocked for example, or if I put earplugs in at night when the neighbours are being noisy haha, no sounds can be heard.

Can you find two things there? A body? And all the sensation encapsulated in that body, as a container?
Is there anything else to the body other than sensations?
Is there a sensation + body? Or there are only just sensations in experience?
And the word body is just another label, abstraction on the experience of sensations?

No. A body is just a word that is used to label a set of perceptions and sensations in DE.
The body is just sensations and perceptions in experience.
If the body comes into contact with something - for example touching the sofa - this is just another sensation/vibration which appears equally in experience.

For instance, there is nothing different or special about the sensation of the head when compared to say the sensation of my hand touching the sofa.

HOW do you know that there is another set of sensations belonging to another body?
Isn’t this just an assumption?

Isn’t this assumption based another assumption, that ‘these’ sensations are belonging to ‘this’ body, so there must be other sensations belonging to other bodies?

I don't know that there is another set of sensations belonging to another body. In DE this cannot be known, it's just a thought that is believed. So this can just be classes as 'thoughtness' appearing in DE.

Cheers,

Reece

[Vivien]

Hi Reece,

Well seeing and hearing and sensations all occur appear in awareness.

How do you know that?
Is this something that is seen (that things appear IN awareness), or is this something you’ve learned from others?

Is Awareness anything more than as concept for explaining something, similarly, like Reece is an idea/concept, too?

Saying that seeing, hearing appear in awareness is story about separation. Can you see that?

Where do you find this awareness? Is it anywhere else, other than in a thought, as a concept?

But if I place my hands over my eyes my vision is blocked for example, or if I put earplugs in at night when the neighbours are being noisy haha, no sounds can be heard.

OK, isn’t this a reasoning? Isn’t this just a story about cause and effect? Let’s look into this.

Sit somewhere quietly and listen to the background noise. After some time, block your ears with your hands. THOUGHTS come up saying that now there is no sound, or just hardly audible.

HOW do you know that a few seconds ago there was a louder sound?
Other than a thought telling a story, what do you do about a previous moment?
HOW do you know that the hands on the ears causing the sound be less audible?

We can speak in terms of X 'causes' Y. It is often said that one thing 'causes' another. But take a look.

What if 'cause' and 'reaction' are simply conceptual overlays?

What if these apparently separate things simply arise as what is happening in the moment and we have no idea what could actually be 'causing' what?

What if all thinking about 'cause' and 'reaction' is just ideas about what is imagined to be happening?

No. A body is just a word that is used to label a set of perceptions and sensations in DE.
The body is just sensations and perceptions in experience.

So if it’s clearly seen that the body is nothing else but a sensation, then which sensation hears?
Can a sensation hear sounds?

Vivien

[DeLaRiva]

Hi Vivien

How do you know that?
Is this something that is seen (that things appear IN awareness), or is this something you’ve learned from others?

Is Awareness anything more than as concept for explaining something, similarly, like Reece is an idea/concept, too?

Saying that seeing, hearing appear in awareness is story about separation. Can you see that?

Where do you find this awareness? Is it anywhere else, other than in a thought, as a concept?

Yeah, awareness is just a concept, just a label for the mind to understand something. No awareness space can actually be found.

I was doing a detailed self-enquiry today, once again seeing that there is no self, and yet there still remains this undeniable sense of being. I began to get the sense that rather than being 'no-thing', it felt more right to say that "I" was actually everything.
All appearances were equally me. The self can't be found in any specific observable sensation/perception, so it is more like "I" am just the whole experience.

HOW do you know that a few seconds ago there was a louder sound?
Other than a thought telling a story, what do you do about a previous moment?
HOW do you know that the hands on the ears causing the sound be less audible?

I see what you mean. There is a knowing of sounds and there is also a knowing of no sound. The knowing is not coming from the ears, just as the knowing of seeing is not coming from the eyes.

Previous moments are just thoughts. All that ever truly exists is the now. The past and future is just thoughtness, there is only actually the ever changing appearances in the Now.

What if 'cause' and 'reaction' are simply conceptual overlays?

What if these apparently separate things simply arise as what is happening in the moment and we have no idea what could actually be 'causing' what?

What if all thinking about 'cause' and 'reaction' is just ideas about what is imagined to be happening?

Yes, the concept of cause and reaction is just another thought, overlaying on the moment trying to narrate and explain what is happening.

So if it’s clearly seen that the body is nothing else but a sensation, then which sensation hears?
Can a sensation hear sounds?

No, a sensation cannot hear sounds. There is an observing/knowing of sounds, just as there is a knowing when there are no sounds. Yet this knowing/observing cannot be found.

Cheers,

Reece

[Vivien]

Hi Reece,

You did a nice inquiry.

No, a sensation cannot hear sounds. There is an observing/knowing of sounds, just as there is a knowing when there are no sounds. Yet this knowing/observing cannot be found.

Yes. Now it’s worth looking at, if there is any separation or difference between knowing and the known.

Is there a thought + the knowing of it?
Is there a dividing line between a thought and the knowing of it?
Where does the thought end and the knowing of it starts?

Is knowing/observing something separate from all the rest?
Is knowing something other than, different to, or separate from experience?

Vivien

[DeLaRiva]

Hi Vivien,

Is there a thought + the knowing of it?
Is there a dividing line between a thought and the knowing of it?
Where does the thought end and the knowing of it starts?

The knowing cannot be found. Only the thought can be found. There is no dividing line.
Despite a 'knowing' not being able to be found however, there is still a knowing that remains even after the thought has dissipated.

There is a knowing before thought, during thought, and then after a thought has gone.

Is knowing/observing something separate from all the rest?
Is knowing something other than, different to, or separate from experience?

Knowing or observing cant be found, there is simply just life happening. It is not outside of this.

Cheers,
Reece

[Vivien]

Hi Reece,

Thanks for your replies. Now we start to look at the notion of decision.
Here is an exercise for you.

1. Place both hands on a table in front of you, palms down.
2. When you have done that, rest for a moment and then raise one hand in the air but not the other.

Don't go to thoughts, examine your experience. Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire:

What is it exactly that is choosing which hand to raise?
Can you find a self/me or anything that is doing the choosing?

Is there a me/I controlling and moving the hand?
Is there a ‘I’ controlling which hand to raise?
Is there a controller? Where?

How is the decision made?
Is the decision made by an I/self?
Is there a decision maker? Where?

Repeat this many times before replying.

Vivien

[DeLaRiva]

Hi Vivien,

Thanks for the reply. I practiced this exercise numerous times today.

What is it exactly that is choosing which hand to raise?
Can you find a self/me or anything that is doing the choosing?

I can't find anything choosing which hand gets raised.
There is no 'me' choosing which hand gets raised. There is just an observing of hands on the desk and then an experiencing/observing of one hand getting raised.

Is there a me/I controlling and moving the hand?
Is there a ‘I’ controlling which hand to raise?
Is there a controller? Where?

There is only the experiencing of one of the hands getting raised. There is nothing in experience that can be observed as controlling the hands.
Thought can appear in awareness, but this does not decide which hand gets raised. Thought could say 'right hand' but the left hand gets raised instead. Thought has no control.

How is the decision made?
Is the decision made by an I/self?
Is there a decision maker? Where?

In DE there is no decision. There is just observing/experiencing of what's happening. It's impossible to be aware of anything before it is already happening.
No self can be found that makes a decision. Only content can be found in DE (sensations/perceptions) and none of these are sentient. When looking for the self there is nothing objective to be found, just a effortless appearing of everything in this moment.

Sometimes with self enquiry, there is a feeling of some resistance to the fact that 'I' has no control and to the fact that it doesn't actually exist. Thought doesn't want to believe it haha. The fact that if the 'I' doesn't exist, that this could mean all relationships with others actually have no meaning and its all an illusion, not real etc.

This can be recognised as just 'thoughtness' however, an interpretation over experience that can be observed; the 'content' of thought isn't reality. In DE there is nobody for even these nihilistic kind of thoughts to stick to - taking these thoughts as true just strengthens the idea that there is a separate individual 'I' who thinks this way. They are not true or false, they are just 'thoughtness' over what is if that makes sense?


Cheers,

Reece

[Vivien]

Hi Reece,

This can be recognised as just 'thoughtness' however, an interpretation over experience that can be observed; the 'content' of thought isn't reality. In DE there is nobody for even these nihilistic kind of thoughts to stick to - taking these thoughts as true just strengthens the idea that there is a separate individual 'I' who thinks this way. They are not true or false, they are just 'thoughtness' over what is if that makes sense?

Yes :)
So what is here ‘underneath’ or ‘besides’ thoughts?

Sometimes with self enquiry, there is a feeling of some resistance to the fact that 'I' has no control and to the fact that it doesn't actually exist. Thought doesn't want to believe it haha. The fact that if the 'I' doesn't exist, that this could mean all relationships with others actually have no meaning and its all an illusion, not real etc.

Let’s look at the notion of “I don’t exist” vs “the I doesn’t exist”.
I DO not exist is completely different to the I DOES not exist. So, the “I” that perceives itself to be small, finite and separate is a particular thought system, a particular form of narrative which is the I that doesn’t exist. But it doesn’t mean that I don’t exist. Something clearly exist, you are aware don’t you?

That’s another question if there is a need for an identity. A statement that “I am this or that”, or it’s enough just to exist, just to be without any definition, without identity?

There is amness, there is beingness, there is existence, but is it personal?
Does it have an identity?
Does it have a location?
Is it finite belonging to the body, or being located in the body?

Vivien

[DeLaRiva]

Hi Vivien,

So what is here ‘underneath’ or ‘besides’ thoughts?

There is awareness before, during and after thought. There is an undeniable sense of aliveness, and yet this cannot be found in any observable object.
No observable object in DE is sentient in itself, but yet there is an aliveness that is aware of absolutely everything in DE.

Something clearly exist, you are aware don’t you?

Exactly. Despite not being able to find anything observable in DE, I am undoubtedly aware.
It cannot be said that I am not aware, since there is something aware of the statement 'I am not aware' haha.
The separate, finite 'I' is not aware, since it does not exist. The separate I is just a bunch of thoughts/feelings/sensations which all appear on their own; they are not controlled by anything and they are not aware.

That’s another question if there is a need for an identity. A statement that “I am this or that”, or it’s enough just to exist, just to be without any definition, without identity?

Identity is not needed. The need for identity is just a thought, which again appears on its own and has no controller.
The belief/thought in being a separate 'I' with an identity leads to the belief in the content of thought, in turn leading to the need to react to thoughts since they feel like 'mine'.
This need to react to thought can also be accompanied by a strong feeling, a strong compulsion of wanting/needing to engage and play with thought.

In DE however, thoughts simply appear on their own. The belief that thoughts need to be/can be managed at all is just another thought, in reality nothing has to be done. Same with feelings, they can just be as they are. They are not controlled or owned by anyone - this is simply a belief.

There is amness, there is beingness, there is existence, but is it personal?
Does it have an identity?
Does it have a location?
Is it finite belonging to the body, or being located in the body?

There is an 'amness' present in DE, but no words or identity can describe it or do it justice. Words and identity can only relate to objects in the world. Whatever amness is, it can't be boxed into a label, it's not observable.
This amness is not located in the body. The sensations of the body can feel like the most intimate experience in DE, but when broken down in self enquiry, the sensations and perceptions of the body appear in DE just like every other object. None of these perceptions/sensations are sentient.

Cheers,

Reece

[Vivien]

Hi Reece,

You did a nice investigation.

Here is another exercise to have a closer look on decision making.

Please put some chocolate (or something you think you shouldn’t eat or drink) in front of you. Look at it. Inspect it closely. Smell its delicious fragrance. And pay attention to emerging desire to eat it.

When the desire is there, pay close attention to the thought process.
See how thoughts list pros and cons why you should or shouldn’t eat the chocolate.
These opposing thoughts might even try to argue or convince each other what to decide.

What is it that is considering these options?
Is there anything that is listing the pros and cons, or only just thoughts appear about pros and cons? – look very carefully

Now, make a decision, but whatever you decide, don’t eat the chocolate (yet). Rather just pay very close attention when the decision is made. Particularly pay attention to thoughts, as the decision is made.

Let’s say a thought appear: “I decided not to eat the chocolate”
So the thought about the decision just appeared. What made that thought to appear?
Can you find the thing that made that decision, apart from the presence of the thought about the decision?
How exactly the decision is made?

Now, act according to the decision. (Either eat or don’t eat the chocolate.)
What is it that performed the chosen action?

Vivien

[DeLaRiva]

Hi Vivien,

I actually had a similar scenario happen naturally today which I thought could be good to use, although it wasn't to do with food. While working today on my laptop I came across a pair of shoes that I really liked. There was a desire to buy them.

What is it that is considering these options?
Is there anything that is listing the pros and cons, or only just thoughts appear about pros and cons? – look very carefully

All that can be found are the thoughts for and against buying the shoes and the feelings/desire driving the decision. When looking for the one who is hearing and considering these options, there is nothing to find and the thoughts stop. Thoughts only usually seem to appear when there is not a clear observing of them, once observed, they vanish.

So the thought about the decision just appeared. What made that thought to appear?
Can you find the thing that made that decision, apart from the presence of the thought about the decision?
How exactly the decision is made?

The decision is simply another thought that appeared on its own. I did not buy the shoes. The whole process was just thought on top of thought, just observable content.
There was a desire/impulse to buy the shoes and also a desire to not buy the shoes - the desire/want to not buy the shoes was simply stronger in the end. There was simply a decision which is also experienced/observed.
As stated above however, the very exercise of observing this decision making process seems to stop thought in it's tracks and the mind goes still, making the process impossible to observe haha.

The feelings surrounding decision making are also interesting. The feelings that come with desires and wants can feel so strong (EG - the desire to buy the shoes), but when observed they are seen as just sensations/vibrations of the body; just neutral feelings. And when looking for the I who all this appears to, attention falls off of all these observable objects in experience, and everything just effortlessly appears on its own

The closest I can get to answering the question 'Who am I?' is to take focus off of all objects. This feels different & more direct than when I'd previously look for the 'I' in objects of the world in a very effortful way.

Cheers,

Reece

[Vivien]

Hi Reece,

When looking for the one who is hearing and considering these options, there is nothing to find and the thoughts stop. Thoughts only usually seem to appear when there is not a clear observing of them, once observed, they vanish.

When you say that thoughts vanish when they are observed, you are talking about thoughts considering whether to by the shoes or not, or do you mean that all thoughts stop?

Is it possible to not have any thoughts even just for a minute?
Set a timer and check.

As stated above however, the very exercise of observing this decision making process seems to stop thought in it's tracks and the mind goes still, making the process impossible to observe haha.

We talk about a mind a lot, in everyday language, even mention it in this inquiry.

But is there an actual mind that could stop?

Where is this mind in the very moment you observe it?
What it is like? How bit it is? What shape it has?

And how do you know when this seeming mind has stopped?

The feelings surrounding decision making are also interesting. The feelings that come with desires and wants can feel so strong (EG - the desire to buy the shoes), but when observed they are seen as just sensations/vibrations of the body; just neutral feelings. And when looking for the I who all this appears to, attention falls off of all these observable objects in experience, and everything just effortlessly appears on its own

Yes. You did a nice investigation.

The closest I can get to answering the question 'Who am I?' is to take focus off of all objects. This feels different & more direct than when I'd previously look for the 'I' in objects of the world in a very effortful way.

Is there a desire to figure out ‘who am I’?
What is it having this desire?

Is there an actual I that can figure out who it is?

What is it that wants an identity, to say that this is who I am?

Vivien