Assistance with true awakening

[poppyseed]

Hi Amanita
Very good clear looking!!!

I can't say. The words are just labels but thoughts arise just like all sensations. Like when a finger stops touching the keyboard the sensation goes away, its just not occurring anymore, it doesn't need to be from somewhere or going to somewhere. It happens until it's not happening.

You can't put a time on it. Even if thinking a sentence the beginning of it vanished by the end of the sentence. It's only the immediate moment.

Amazing!

What are you, when you don't think about what you are?

I'm here. I don't know what that is, but I know I am.

Focus on the feeling of am-ness/being, aliveness.
Can you tell if there is a being or just being?
Is life happening to a being or as being?
Is that “aliveness” any kind of object or subject? Is it even a human?
Is it what you've taken as "you"?
Is that being separate from the seeing, hearing,...? Where is the border that shows that separation? Can there be being/am-ness/aliveness without objects (seeing, hearing...)? Or seeing, hearing,... without being? How is that observed?

I can feel my fingers typing and body sitting on the chair, thoughts coming about what I want to type.

Let’s explore the “body”
1. Take something cold from the fridge – like a can of cooldrink. When you touch the can, what does more accurately describe your experience:
a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”? With eyes closed, where does the cold appear?
Observe the order in which the details appear
2. Sit comfortably on a chair. Close your eyes and relax. Pay attention only to the feeling of your body. Just notice the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images. Keep your eyes closed and look:
Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair? At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation?
Is it "my" body, or is it just a body?
Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?
What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
Can the 'body' do things?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, walking, lying down, etc) before replying.
Love
Rali

[Amanita]

I'm going to take another day for this one.

Thanks so much for the guiding too!

[poppyseed]

Hi Amanita

I'm going to take another day for this one.

Thanks for letting me know! Please let me know if you struggle with a question.

Thanks so much for the guiding too!

My pleasure, really! :)
Love
Rali

[Amanita]

Can you tell if there is a being or just being?

There's just the being.

Is life happening to a being or as being?

As being, it's one thing.

Is that “aliveness” any kind of object or subject? Is it even a human?

It feels like a subject here.

Is it what you've taken as "you"?

Yes.

Is that being separate from the seeing, hearing,...?

It's like the being and sensations are dependent on each other and arise together, so not separate.

Where is the border that shows that separation?

There is none. Like visually for example something could be 5 feet or 50 feet way and it's still immediately right here.

Can there be being/am-ness/aliveness without objects (seeing, hearing...)?

I can't find any objects without beingness or vice versa. They seem to co-arise.

How is that observed?

Not sure, just looking at direct experience.

a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”? With eyes closed, where does the cold appear?

B is more accurate, A is the story, B is the direct experience. The cold appears right here as a sensation.

Can it be known how tall the body is?

No.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

There's sensations that could be labeled weight on a chair, but it's just sensations.

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

I'm aware of the pressure points of the body where it's touching the chair or floor, but those shift and there's no definitive shape or form, just sensations arising.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair? At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation?

Just one sensation of "sitting".

Is it "my" body, or is it just a body?

A body. "My" is just a label, when looked at from direct experience there's just the sensations arising with the body.

Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?

There's no separation for inside or outside. Sensations can come up that could be labeled "inside the body" but DE is it's just a sensation arising.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

The label body really just refers to the sensations. The actual experience is just the sensations that are here.

Can the 'body' do things?

The idea of the body can't do a thing. Things just kind of happen.

[poppyseed]

Hi Amanita

Can you tell if there is a being or just being?

There's just the being.

It almost felt like you will say the Being. Is it the being or just being (as a verb describing the flux of it)?
Just in case you start dropping Awareness, Consciousness, Brahman, etc.(which are all concepts by the way), there is a video that you might find interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lm3G0_ ... ex=17&t=8s

As being, it's one thing.

It feels like a subject here.

Just for future reference:
“feels like”, “seems like” = thought content
Nothing in DE is feels like – it’s either here (describable with the senses) or not. If it is not there but it “feels like” it could be here then it is just an inaccurate thought about DE. Is that clear?
To be a subject, that means that there is some kind of “solidity”, observable characteristics. Let’s say that you have lost your keys and you swear that you left them in your coat. You go to look and check all the pockets - the keys are not there. You swear they must be as that was the last place you remember them. You have a vivid memory of putting them there after you left the house. But when you check they are not there. At this point you can keep believing that the keys are in your pocket, or you can admit you were mistaken.

This is just like that. You may see clearly that the self is an illusion but still feel a sense of self - just like the keys. But feeling something to be true and seeing that it is or is not is different. This is why we may find ourselves coming back to your expectations at the start and at the end.

Now, I’d like to ask you to explore this SENSE of self very-very thoroughly. Not by thinking about it, but by FEELING it. Keep the focus of attention on the sense of self and inquire:

Does the sense of self have a location?
Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?
Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?
If the answer is yes, how does the sense do this exactly?
Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?
What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?
What is found?

It's like the being and sensations are dependent on each other and arise together, so not separate.

When you say “dependent on each other” what makes them then inherently existing without thought content? Thought isolates out of the whole and labels things into existence. What makes you say (after LOOKING) that there are subjects and objects inherently existing and not just language (where you have a subject doing something on an object). We can “see” the “objects” – seeing, hearing, thinking,… but where is the subject? Is it doing the seeing, hearing,… ? You said that no one is doing the thinking, so is he/she doing the rest – seeing, hearing... then? Check! When seeing something, is there any division between seeing, seer, and the seen?
Are these three separate?
You are looking at your screen now, so is the screen outside of seeing? Is there a seer in the “other direction”? Is seeing happening to a seer?

The label body really just refers to the sensations. The actual experience is just the sensations that are here.

Very good!
Love
Rali

[Amanita]

It almost felt like you will say the Being. Is it the being or just being (as a verb describing the flux of it)?
Just in case you start dropping Awareness, Consciousness, Brahman, etc.(which are all concepts by the way), there is a video that you might find interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lm3G0_ ... ex=17&t=8s

Just being. And thanks for the video, a helpful reminder to let go of the concepts that pop up.

Is that clear?

Yes!

Does the sense of self have a location?

No, nothing fixed. It's comes and goes, sometimes it can feel like it's behind the eyes or in the chest when it appears.

Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?

No.

Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?

No.

Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?

No, it just appears like other senses appear, it's here until it's not.

What is found?

Another sensation arising until it doesn't.

What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?

It's another sense that then had the label "self" thrown on it. The sense of self comes and goes like other sensations.

When you say “dependent on each other” what makes them then inherently existing without thought content? Thought isolates out of the whole and labels things into existence.

They don't inherently exist, it's all one whole and immediate experience . And by "labeling into existence" do you mean the labeling then creates separation making things into separate different things?

What makes you say (after LOOKING) that there are subjects and objects inherently existing and not just language (where you have a subject doing something on an object). We can “see” the “objects” – seeing, hearing, thinking,… but where is the subject?

There's nothing inherently existing, just this immediate seeing, hearing, thinking etc with no subject, it's just happening.

so is he/she doing the rest – seeing, hearing... then?

No, all the seeing, hearing, thinking is happening automatically to no one.

When seeing something, is there any division between seeing, seer, and the seen?

There's the seeing, no need for a seer or seen. In DE it's whole.

so is the screen outside of seeing? Is there a seer in the “other direction”? Is seeing happening to a seer?

It's just the seeing with no separation.

[poppyseed]

Hi Amanita

Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?

No, it just appears like other senses appear, it's here until it's not.

What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?

It's another sense that then had the label "self" thrown on it. The sense of self comes and goes like other sensations.

Is the sense of self the sixth sense (seventh if you count thought)? The word “sense” can have two meanings – 1. as one of the faculties of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch; and 2. an idea that something is the case
In this case (in my questions) “sense” of self is more like the second. Please make a distinction.

For something to appear and disappear it has to exist on its own, you have to be able to describe its characteristics. Is the self appearing and disappearing or sensations? Is the “self” a label/thought or a sensation? If it is described with sensations then it is a sensation wrongly labelled “self” (instead of “sensation”). Do you agree? Like the illusion/mirage of an oasis in the dessert – it just looks like something else. But when it is properly examined it is seen that there was only the dessert.
So what makes the “sense of self” different form a thought/an abstraction? Also, why some sensations are “self” and others are not? That would mean that "self" is not synonymous with sensations. Is the “sense of self” a sensation labelled “self”, or the “sense of sense” is a thought that is layered over/labelling/pointing to certain sensations, colours, smells, sounds and tastes :)? Does the label "self" contain an actual self...does it contain an actual person?

You see some labels point to existing “material” stuff (e.g. “table”), others are useful in communication but cannot be found as a thing (e.g. “country”), and third (e.g. “Santa”, or “Superman”) point to imaginary stuff, something that doesn’t exist/is not real. I say that real is that which does not disappear when you stop believing in it. Is the “sense of self” real?

They don't inherently exist, it's all one whole and immediate experience . And by "labeling into existence" do you mean the labeling then creates separation making things into separate different things?

Well labelling “creates” things out of thin air, when all that is there are seeing, hearing, … , and even that is not really like that. The knowing of each of senses is not separate - it's more like knowing of seeing_hearing_tasting_sensing_smelling_thinking / experience. And even that is not very accurate as there are no separate knowing and experinced – it's more like knowing_seeing_hearing_tasting_sensing_smelling_thinking. I like describing reality with just THIS. In Buddhism the term "thusness" or "suchness" is used, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction. However, the DE labels are useful in the inquiry.

No, nothing fixed. It's comes and goes, sometimes it can feel like it's behind the eyes or in the chest when it appears.

Remember “feels like” = thought content
What are “eyes” in DE? When you say “behind the eyes” – where exactly is this? What is “chest” in DE? Does it have a location?
You said that you couldn’t find a seer, but let’s explore this as it is often believed that 'visual sights' are coming from the eyes, because when it's investigated the attention automatically goes to the sensation 'of the eyes', and at the same time the mental image or idea 'of the eyes' appear with it. So another sense of self is linked to the sensation 'of the eyes' (“behind the eyes”)

What are the eyes in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image + thoughts about eyes, right?

Can sight (colour) come from a sensation?
Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)?

Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation?
Does a mental image suggest in any way that it is eyes?

Similarly, “chest” in DE is a sensation + colour + thoughts about a chest, right? So WHERE exactly is “in the chest”?
Love
Rali

[Amanita]

Is the sense of self the sixth sense (seventh if you count thought)?

The "sense of self" is just an idea, a thought. There's seeing, feeling, hearing, the sense of self is another thought.

Do you agree?

Yes.

So what makes the “sense of self” different form a thought/an abstraction?

Nothing, it's another thought.

Is the “sense of self” a sensation labelled “self”, or the “sense of sense” is a thought that is layered over/labelling/pointing to certain sensations, colours, smells, sounds and tastes :)?

It's the combination of all the senses with the labeled put on. When you breaking it down, sensation by sensation that labels seen through.

Does the label "self" contain an actual self...does it contain an actual person?

No, the label self is empty of any essence, there's nothing there.

Is the “sense of self” real?

It's another thought.

What are the eyes in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image + thoughts about eyes, right?

There are no eyes in DE, just seeing. Yes the description is accurate about the concept eyes.

Can sight (colour) come from a sensation?

Sight's just there, it doesn't need to come from something.

Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)?

Not at all.

Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation?

No.

Similarly, “chest” in DE is a sensation + colour + thoughts about a chest, right? So WHERE exactly is “in the chest”?

Same as above, chest is just a label or concept of the combined things. There is no in the chest.

[poppyseed]

Hi Amanita

Very nice looking!
Here is an even deeper investigation of the body. Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen. Repeat the exercise several times.

Stand in front of a bigger mirror.

(1) First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.

(2) Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations. Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror? Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or only thoughts suggest it?

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror. Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’? Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all? Or are there only colours and shapes?

(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen. Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).
Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

(8) Start to walk slowly.
Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

(9) Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

Love
Rali

[Amanita]

I've been doing these throughout the day often, but would like to take another day.

Here are a few answers, struggled on 4 for awhile.

(2) Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations. Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror? Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

No connection between the sensations and the image. It's like the image is a mirage. The sensations are here and the image is just colors and shapes.

(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

No, the image in the mirror has no connection like above. The sensations are here and there in the mirror is just color.

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or only thoughts suggest it?

This one I'm unsure of. Looking at hand, hand moves, sensation arises. The last sentence is a thought that suggests that's what's happening...DE is seeings happening, sensations happening, thoughts about it happening. I was looking at this for a long time and wanted the thoughts to not be there...but it's fine if the thoughts are there they are just thoughts doing their thing....

[poppyseed]

Hi Amanita

No connection between the sensations and the image. It's like the image is a mirage. The sensations are here and the image is just colors and shapes.

Very good!

This one I'm unsure of. Looking at hand, hand moves, sensation arises. The last sentence is a thought that suggests that's what's happening...DE is seeings happening, sensations happening, thoughts about it happening. I was looking at this for a long time and wanted the thoughts to not be there...but it's fine if the thoughts are there they are just thoughts doing their thing....

Yes, they are “doing” their thing :) Why should thoughts not appear? I know that it seems like we vilified the thoughts but is there anything wrong with their appearance? What wishes that thoughts are not here? And sooner or later thoughts start being “helpful” (the slave, not the master) but that happens after all conditioning is seen through (checked with DE).

I've been doing these throughout the day often, but would like to take another day.

No problem, this is a long exercise so don’t rush and give it a proper try.
Love
Rali

[Amanita]

Why should thoughts not appear?

No reason why they shouldn't.

is there anything wrong with their appearance?

Nothing, just like other appearances.

What wishes that thoughts are not here?

Another thought.

Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?

It's just a color and shape. Sensations arise here, images arise there is no connection between them.

Or are there only colours and shapes?

Colors and shapes.

Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

'Legs' is another thought. There are sensations that people would call 'legs' in thought but the DE is just sensations.

Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

Body is another thought, same with legs and other parts. There just this experience here.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?

Sensations.

Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?

Walking is just a label for sensations.

Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?

Just thoughts about walking, in DE there's just sensations.

Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?

Just thoughts of the body and thoughts are not the thing, they are just labels about the DE.

Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

Nope.

Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

You can't put a location on it. It's just right "here" and even that's not accurate. 'room', 'outside', 'space' all words but not the DE of sensations.

[poppyseed]

Hi Amanita

You can't put a location on it. It's just right "here" and even that's not accurate. 'room', 'outside', 'space' all words but not the DE of sensations.

Very good!

Let’s have a look at the idea of control, choice and decisions. Please explore the exercises below and report your findings! Remember that we’re looking for some kind of entity, a something, an ‘I’ which is doing the ‘choosing’. Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’, but remember we are not interested in “seems like” and “feels like” entities, but ones that could be described.

1. Hold a hand in front of you; palm turned down. Now turn the palm up. And down...and up and so on.

How is the movement controlled?
Does a thought control it?
Can a ‘controller’ or and entity that is choosing be located?
How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over.

2. Put two objects that you like in front of you (e.g. a cup of coffee and a glass of juice)

Step1. Look at drink A and at drink B. Think about their respective qualities, the things you like about them, compare and weigh the pros and cons of each. See if a preference is manifesting for one or the other.
Step2. Count to 5.
Step3. Choose one of the drinks. Pick it up and take a sip.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience an entity doing the ‘choosing’?

In step 3 where you made a choice, did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does it look like?

3. Please take me through a biggish decision that you made recently - not something very personal so you are able to share more details about your decision making...

How did it come to be? Consider all of the conditions that were necessary for it to happen. If any one of those conditions were different, would the outcome have been the same? How many of these conditions were outside of your influence? What was in your control (according to thought)?

Please take your time with each exercise! Repeat as many times as you need and then write the answers for all of them. Watch like a hawk. Don't go to thoughts, examine the actual experience. Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire with the questions.
Love
Rali

[Amanita]

How is the movement controlled?

It's just happening.

Does a thought control it?

Not at all.

Can a ‘controller’ or and entity that is choosing be located?

No the movement happens with no controller.

How is the decision made to turn the hand over?

It just happens. Thoughts can make some big story about reading the question, doing the exercise etc. But the decision just happens, handing turning over happens with no story needed.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

I did this with two different potato chips. Qualities popped up there was no choosing the qualities would come though. I didn't choose the preferences. Thoughts/preferences about the chips came up but there wasn't choosing.

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience an entity doing the ‘choosing’?

When I started counting there was still the subtle comparison occurring as well, but not as noticed as before the countdown. i didn't choose any sequence of events there or shut down the preferences. There was a choice happening, but no entity.

In step 3 where you made a choice, did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does it look like?

No. A choice happened at 1. There was no need for thought in the equation.

3. Please take me through a biggish decision that you made recently

I would say going through this guiding.

How did it come to be?

Seeking for a decade, going through so many different meditations/teachings, not finding answers in those, stumbling upon LU the list of how it came to be could go on forever.

Consider all of the conditions that were necessary for it to happen.

Quite literally an infinite amount.

If any one of those conditions were different, would the outcome have been the same?

would it lead to this exact happening this moment? No.

How many of these conditions were outside of your influence?

Everything was outside my influence. Hell my so called "seeking story" started 100% outside my control or influence, wasn't even interested in spirituality before. And everything else is 100% outside my control or influence too.

What was in your control (according to thought)?

According to thought making the choice to actually do it, but that's just thought.

[poppyseed]

Hi Amanita
Very good looking!!!

Everything was outside my influence. Hell my so called "seeking story" started 100% outside my control or influence, wasn't even interested in spirituality before. And everything else is 100% outside my control or influence too.

I just wanted an example of a decision that you would normally consider that you’ve made. The point was to look entirely in thought content where cause and effect “live” and see that even there there’s no “you” making a decision. It was just one event leading to another, leading to another, with “actions” based on previous conditioning. The thought “decision is made” is layered on top of other thoughts/beliefs/descriptions of what has happened before. Why does the wind blow? It just blows. Yes we can say it happens as a result of previous events but there’s no entity “wind” that does the blowing. There is no wind that decides to blow. It’s just language. What is “moving of the hands” in DE? We’ve seen that it’s just a sensation, labelled “hands moving” + colour/shape labelled “hands moving”. So, what makes the sensations to appear? What makes seeing to appear? LOOK! Is there anything that causes anything to appear? Do cause and effect exist outside of thought content? Thought comes to describe that things are happening and why they are happening, but in DE things are just happening. Is the description/explanation/label needed for things to happen?

Another factor in cause and effect is time, so let’s explore it. 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’?
Love
Rali