Direct experiencing

[poppyseed]

Hi Marina

I'm glad we still get to look together! It's really my pleasure talking to you! This is how the inquiry goes - there is no one way how it can go. Every inquiry is unique and if anything it challenges me like a guide to point uniquely to the person's needs.

Looking forward to your answers!
Love
Rali

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

Oh, dear Marina, thank you for being so honest with your feelings. It takes courage to share what’s in your heart, especially when you feel unsure or even overwhelmed.

I promise I will be honest, that’s the least I can do to make sure we are not wasting any time pretending about anything.

Let me first assure you: you're not wasting my time. Your process, however it unfolds, is deeply valuable, and there's no rush to arrive anywhere.

This made me cry, thank you so much, and indeed thank you for reminding me that there is nothing to do, nowhere to go.

There are no medals at the end, no finishing line either. Sometimes just sitting with these questions, even without clear answers, can plant seeds that grow in unexpected ways. 🌱

Yes, and I have always been a slow bloomer haha so I need to give it some space and let it bloom when it is ready.

When you say that awareness still feels primary and obvious, let's honor that experience. It’s okay if clarity hasn’t yet fully landed. Often, the mind resists because it's stepping into something unfamiliar, even if that unfamiliar thing offers peace. That going in circles is what thought does, trying to make sense of it all, eventually “giving up” to find the answers. Also it is part of the mourning over the self (in whatever form) – denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance - thus, completely normal.

Yes, it just caught me off guard because I thought I was past this already, but it seems that our inquiry has stirred up some residual identification, which started to make a lot of noise and panic in order to preserve itself.

Taking a break can be helpful, if that feels right. Rest and stillness often bring clarity when we least expect it.

Yes, in the stillness is where there is no suffering/self. I think it is better not to take a break at this point, because it seems that what we are doing is definitely having some effect and I want to keep the momentum going. In the meanwhile I am trying to let go of thoughts and beliefs more often, during the day, just sitting and meditating (focusing on DE’s) and letting go of anything that seems sticky.

And if another format of guidance might serve you better, that is fine too. You can always return to this inquiry, or adapt it in a way that suits you better. Confusion cannot be solved (through thinking) it can only be dissolved by looking what is here now.

The reason I mentioned a different format, is because there was a huge feeling of “maybe I am doing it wrong” or “Maybe I am just not getting what you mean exactly” and that it might be better to have an in person conversation where I can double check to make sure I am understanding things. This is just doubt that was creeping in, and the need to understand everything. I can see this is just thought, old beliefs and the “self” trying to perpetuate the idea of a self.

Is there an entity that get frustrated or give up? 

No, there is nothing like that in reality. It is just an idea, an old belief.

There is only resistance. Is that resistance yours to solve?

No it is just there.

If you are willing to continue looking with me, I’m here. If you prefer another guide, it is also fine. Please let me know.

No, like I already mentioned, I’m super thankful for your time and effort and would love to continue this with you.

Now back to the inquiry (provided you want to continue)…

Yes, let’s dive back in.

I guess I can’t really, I can let go of the idea of “Me”.

Can you?

Im guessing from your question, the correct answer is No ;) haha
Of course yes I see that there is no “Me” in the first place to let go of anything. But there seems to be an ability to focus on one thing instead of another. So focus on what’s really here instead of thoughts or beliefs. I guess that could be considered as letting go of the idea of a self/me.

In what capacity?

like I just described.

What is that entity that can let go of anything, including itself?

Yeah, there is no entity. Its just an idea, thought construct.

Yes!!!What says that awareness is needed for there to be “something”? Thought/logic?

Yes, it is thought and logic. That is the definition of awareness as I have understood. Awareness is the light that shines in everything. A bit poetic, but basically awareness is that which makes anything experiencable (that’s not an actual word but I think it conveys the message).

Since when do we trust thought to have the answers?

It has been this way since I can remember, relying on thought to makes sense of life. It hasn’t really worked well I must admit. Hence me being here talking about this with you :)

Is it the word perception?

The word perception is also just a label pointing to something that I can’t really explain. Like you mentioned, I might be mistaking a subtle feeling for awareness/perception. My thoughts keep jumping back in here trying to use logic to prove that there is awareness in that which is. I can see this is thought/belief. I guess I can just ignore it for now, because I don’t want to end up in a loop again.

Is there perception/perceived at all?

I don’t know. what I can say is that it doesn’t feel like there are 2 separate things. There is just this oneness. What that is I can’t really say (that would be just using thought again), including saying that it is aware or not.

Or just what IS?

Yes there is only that which IS.

Where does the perceived ends and the perceiving of it starts? LOOK!

When Looking - nothing can be found, except that which is, which can’t be labeled further.
The “perceiving” sense seems like it doesn’t have a start or end, because it is always there, not changing. That which is perceived seems to be changing all the time. I guess this is where also this feeling comes from. But I do see that what is changing all the time are the labels that are given to the content of DE’s/thoughts.

Don’t just say the one contain the other. How is that in reality, how exactly is it observed that it is like that – are there little molecules of awareness going through the experience?

I guess it is the observing itself that I am referring to as the awareness/perception. Not little pieces of it seen floating around (that would be cool to see though) :)

Is experience built of awareness molecules?

No, there are no molecules in general, this is also just a label/thought.

How is it KNOWN that what appears right now is awareness dressed as experience? 

I don’t know, just logic again I guess…. “what else could it be if not awareness”.. Again this feeling of needing to have an explanation for it, and then just sticking to this explanation of awareness that makes most sense. a narrative that I believed at some point and just grabbed onto for dear life.

Convince me!

I’ve been trying, but it doesn’t seem to be working :D

You got convinced... To say it is self-evident is a way of saying you have no evidence but you just believe that.

Yes, the reason I am convinced is because it feels like there is a subjective experience here that is “known” ….

If it’s something that is self-evident (obvious), I should be able to see it in all its glory.

 Ok, so I am trying to just LOOK with the assumption (yes I know this is a thought/belief but just experimenting) that there is no awareness here. What is left? Feeling, seeing, thinking mostly. It becomes a bit blurry/undefinable when filtering out any thought. It feels very odd, empty, but still alive. 
Thought is the only one trying to put the concept of awareness back in the picture. “how can anything be experienced if there is no awareness of it”? I will ignore this.

Where should I look for it? 

The way I have been guided is by following the question: are you aware? I would have to answer “yes”, even though this answer comes from thought, thought itself would not be possible if the answer was no. So I am curious what your answer would be to this question: are you aware? And if you answer yes, then I would ask you, how do you know this? If the answer is No, then I would ask well how are you able to even respond to the question if there is no awareness?

Pretend you are my guide and point to me.

I would point you to where you are looking from, not what you are looking at (which is what the question before attempts to do).

I will answer the remaining part tomorrow morning or afternoon!
Love,
Marina

[Marly6]

And here is the rest:

Usually, the evidence is it acts like a duck, it quacks like a duck, etc. You should be able to describe why you actually chose that particular word (knowing) besides what you’ve been taught.

I chose knowing, because I can say that I know that I am experiencing. I am somehow registering the experience.


You can’t just say it just knows everything. You should be able to see how it knows, how it registers – the whole mechanism. 

When I say it knows everything, I mean that everything that IS is known while it is appearing. I cannot see any mechanism.

Furthermore, is there time where it is seen that IT could be this or that besides the memories/thoughts – no before, or after? 

No there is no time.

Is there linear time? 

Linear time is a thought construct, labels. This is clear.

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. Is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?

No the NOW is unchanging and eternal. It is not moving anywhere.

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

Only with thought this is experienced this way. When there is no thought, only DE there is nothing, just THIS.

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

Only in thought.

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

It’s not moving at all, there is no such thing as a moment.

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

No. Once during a phycadelic experience I had this vision of me trying to cut the present moment with a very sharp knife, in order to be able to pinpoint it to say “this is a sliver of the present moment”. But this was impossible as the present moment that thought constructs is always changing, so if you would cut a piece of it it would already not be the present moment anymore… and when thought is absent there is only THIS that cannot be cut up into small bits/conceptualized.

How long does the ‘now’ last?

Now is just THIS everlasting isness. There is no moment Now.

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

It doesn’t start and it doesn’t end.

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

When thought replays it from memory.

At what point does it become the future?

When thought tries to project it to an imaginary scenario.

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

Thought (thinking)

What is the “future” in DE?

also Thought/thinking.

Do the words ”before” or “after” point to anything existing?

No

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

It is just thought.. this is clear for me yes.

So if there is no actual time where all can unroll, how is it known that awareness can be seeing, or hearing or just itself – different things?

The “different things” is a thought construct.

That can only come from thought, right?

The awareness label comes from thought definitely, but there seems to be also a subtle feeling associated with it, that then also thought labels as awareness maybe.

Is what thought saying about ANYTHING true?

No it is just belief/conditioning, but not ultimate truth.

Any of it?

Is the thought “I am having and experience” or “I am aware” not truth? This might be the only thing that I can say for sure. This is what is also getting me still stuck on this awareness thing.

Is there a direct correspondence/link between thought and experience?

Im not sure. I do see that a lot of time a DE will trigger a thought or mental image automatically. But this is just habit.

Do you see how the thought “There is knowing that is the base of everything” is layered on top of what IS?

Yes I do see that this is a thought and thoughts are always layered on top of what IS.

What makes it true? 

You are saying that THIS is indescribable , but you describe it in a certain way and then you believe it – this is an identification with thought.

Yes I see that.

Exactly the same as the self – identification with thought. No thought is true about anything – it is just a conditioned way of linking words in a sentence, much like ChatGPT. Does AI know anything about experience?

Probably not, but we can not say for sure.

There is a belief that labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’. But there isn’t. Just like it is a generally accepted belief that labels like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ (or any other quality) are inherent characteristics of ‘things’. But actually, they are not.

Yes this is clear. They are just labels and what someone might consider bad, someone else might consider not too bad. So this doesn’t have an intrinsic truth to it.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN' , what is the actual experience?

the actual experience is the colour red and sight/seeing.

Is the colour red ‘experienced’, or is the colour green ‘experienced’ as the label suggests?

The colour red is experienced.

Does the label ‘GREEN’ have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?

No

Or does the label suggest something else other than what is here now (red colour)?

Could be suggesting anything, depends on what you agreed that label represents.

Is 'green' associated in any way with the experience of the colour red; or is green just a label that overlays the actual experience of red?

It is just a label overlayed on the actual experience.

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’ , is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

No it is the same experience in reality, just a different label.

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

The labels have no effect.

Let me know what is SEEN.
…
There is the resistance I was talking about. There are mental images with any word (including knowing), no matter the word – SELF, God, Emptiness, knowing, awareness, pink elephant, table. That is how thought is. You just don’t want to look and you are diverting with a quote.

I guess its because there is nothing to see. There is nothing there. It is derived.

*Example of experience broken down into DE
Vacuuming the house
Hearing the vacuum cleaner = sound (hearing)
Smelling the incense burning = smell (smelling)
Feeling the vacuum in my hand = sensation (feeling)
Seeing the floor = light/shapes/colour (seeing)
Thought about what else needs cleaning = thought (thinking)

Love,
Marina

[poppyseed]

Hi Marina

Yes, and I have always been a slow bloomer haha so I need to give it some space and let it bloom when it is ready.

It will happen the way it will happen, it’s not in your control, it’s not your responsibility, and you can’t will it or let it happen. Let’s be honest here – you just don’t exist to do any of this :). It’s a free falling with no safety nets and never ending. Holding on is not advisable :)

Yes, it just caught me off guard because I thought I was past this already, but it seems that our inquiry has stirred up some residual identification, which started to make a lot of noise and panic in order to preserve itself.

It never truly ends. The falling away is not straight forward process – not one directional – it’s more like a circle (an enso), but each time going deeper and deeper, as beliefs come to the surface to be seen in the light of just THIS (no self, DE). There is no one to progress or cross the gate and live happily ever after. Once this is seen, there is a relaxation, peace, surrendering. It just unwinds itself the same way it winded itself, or at least it seems so. In reality nothing really happened in the first place. There is nothing to be known or understood, no solutions needed. Just breathe, smile, and enjoy the ride :)))

The way I have been guided is by following the question: are you aware? I would have to answer “yes”, even though this answer comes from thought, thought itself would not be possible if the answer was no. So I am curious what your answer would be to this question: are you aware? And if you answer yes, then I would ask you, how do you know this? If the answer is No, then I would ask well how are you able to even respond to the question if there is no awareness?

Yes, I am familiar with Rupert Spira’s inquiry. However, let’s not forget that any description is a finger pointing to the moon not the moon itself. How would I answer… I would say: I don’t see anyone or anything that is aware, so maybe the question is irrelevant. There is something/experience/THIS but that does not mean that there must be awareness of it in order to exist. It just IS and “I” am part of that IS-ness appearing as thoughts and sensations (the illusion of an I). You see, there are as many answers or descriptions of THIS as the numbers of “humans”. Your description can only come within the framework of conditioned use of concepts. That is why I pointed to the parable of the blind men and an elephant


Each blind man feels a different part of the animal's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the animal based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, conditioned experience as they ignore other people's limited, conditioned experiences (bubble of reality) which may be equally true (more like equally not true). That story is used a lot by different schools of thought. The Buddha ends the story by comparing the blind men to preachers and scholars who are blind and ignorant and hold to their own views: "Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing.... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus." All concepts are empty (of inherent existence). They exists only in relation to other concepts. Good exists dependently on bad. Awareness exists only because there is stuff to be aware of – no inherent existence, dependent origination. This is where all attempts to describe anything as something and believe it as true should drop away. The concepts that are taken as true only reveal where the identification is – the fear of not existing, desire to exist in some form, fear of the unknown. And that needs to be explored, everything else is a diversion. Emotions need to felt and seen for what they are.
When it comes to the fear, it is completely unnecessary. There wasn’t existence before the inquiry that all of a sudden disappeared (or will disappear). Things have always been that way – just THIS. As far as the repercussions for the future…What future? The future never comes… Nothing actually changed and nothing was ever born or lost, nor will die, although it may have seemed that way. All that is here is indivisible wholeness /THIS - nothing can be added to it, nor taken away. What IS, is beyond qualities and flaws to be added or removed, accepted or rejected. Perfection is a flawless state where everything is exactly right the way it is.

Im guessing from your question, the correct answer is No ;) haha
Of course yes I see that there is no “Me” in the first place to let go of anything. But there seems to be an ability to focus on one thing instead of another. So focus on what’s really here instead of thoughts or beliefs. I guess that could be considered as letting go of the idea of a self/me.

Is that focus in your control really? Close your eyes and sit quietly for 10-15 minutes.
Watch what focus does. Focus on focusing, attention itself.
Do you move it, or it moves by itself?
Hold focus on breath - see how it moves to thoughts, sensations, feelings, sounds.
Is this something you control?
What moves focus? Can anything be found that moves attention, or does attention/focus move on its own?
Is focus like a torch that lights up things (sitting in the dark/waiting to be aware of) ? What is focus made of? To focus on something is to isolate it – to make something out of nothing (from the indivisible whole). Is focus much different than a thought/description/label? To focus on what is really here is to describe DE (still thought) instead of going to other thoughts (old patterns)…

I would point you to where you are looking from, not what you are looking at (which is what the question before attempts to do).

Where exactly are you looking from? Where is here and where is there? LOOK! From behind the eyes (sensation + mental image), within the head (sensation +mental image), from empty vastness/void (sensation + mental image)? Is there such a thing as “where you are looking from”? A center, a kernel? What is there when you LOOK? Look carefully: if you have to draw a line from where you are watching to the wall in front of you, where will the ends of the line be??

When I say it knows everything, I mean that everything that IS is known while it is appearing. I cannot see any mechanism.

Does it need to be known in order to appear? What appears if all is already here? How is THIS (what IS) suggesting in any way that is known?

The awareness label comes from thought definitely, but there seems to be also a subtle feeling associated with it, that then also thought labels as awareness maybe.

How does this feeling suggest in any way that is linked to/associated with “awareness”? Or any other meaning if there is no one on one correspondence with labels (green – red)

Is the thought “I am having and experience” or “I am aware” not truth? This might be the only thing that I can say for sure. This is what is also getting me still stuck on this awareness thing.

Are you sure? Why should these thoughts be an exception? Aren't thoughts just thoughts, no matter what they are based on? Is there anything that you can say true for sure? How do you know that? If thoughts are just conditioned meaning that is imposed on THIS?
There is an identification with that particular thought: “I am aware”. Where is this “I” that has experiences and that is aware? Point to it. Where exactly are you pointing to? (look at your finger)
How exactly are the experiences had? OR all there is are just the experiences? Furthermore are there experiences or just what IS - unchangeable, indivisible wholeness? What happens when we swap the word experience for is-ness? Does is-ness needs to be known? Is THIS like a language where we have a subject doing something on an object?

Exactly the same as the self – identification with thought. No thought is true about anything – it is just a conditioned way of linking words in a sentence, much like ChatGPT. Does AI know anything about experience?

Probably not, but we can not say for sure.

Can we really say for sure that WE have experiences?? This is exactly where the problem with language is. We create a word and we start believing it is an IT, a thing, that it has qualities and even experiences – anthropomorphism. And this is exactly why the “I” starts “existing” in the first place. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a set of technologies (algorithms) that enable computers to perform a variety of advanced functions, including the ability to “understand” and translate spoken and written language, analyse data, make recommendations, and more. How does that differ from thought? Does thought know anything about experience? Let’s look at the similarities
Thoughts are not direct experience. DE is what is happening in the present moment as the five senses—seeing, hearing, feeling (physical sensations, not emotions), tasting, and smelling. Thoughts, on the other hand, are mental interpretations and labels that are added to these sensory experiences. Language plays a crucial role in the formation of thoughts. Thoughts often manifest as words and mental images, and that language creates the illusion of separate objects and subjects (like the “I” and “awareness” and “apples”). Groups of concepts taken for truth of how things are become beliefs upon which new ideas land and stick, creating an even bigger, more magnificent castle of concepts. What seems to be “the world,” the totality of all that is happening, is a creation of language, and words are the building blocks that create the story about it. A bubble of reality. Similarly, while ChatGPT can generate seemingly coherent and insightful text, it does not have any understanding or direct experience of the world it is talking about (exactly as thought). It is simply manipulating language based on patterns it has learned. DE is beyond language.
While thoughts (much like AI) can be helpful in many ways, it is important to remember that they are a tool, not a substitute/equivalent to direct experience. When you see that all knowledge is composed of made-up stories about made-up things, those stories lose their grip.
Love
Rali

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

It will happen the way it will happen, it’s not in your control, it’s not your responsibility, and you can’t will it or let it happen. Let’s be honest here – you just don’t exist to do any of this :). It’s a free falling with no safety nets and never ending. Holding on is not advisable :)

Yes the holding on is what is the issue.

It never truly ends. The falling away is not straight forward process – not one directional – it’s more like a circle (an enso), but each time going deeper and deeper, as beliefs come to the surface to be seen in the light of just THIS (no self, DE).

Yes you are right.

There is no one to progress or cross the gate and live happily ever after. Once this is seen, there is a relaxation, peace, surrendering. It just unwinds itself the same way it winded itself, or at least it seems so. In reality nothing really happened in the first place. There is nothing to be known or understood, no solutions needed. Just breathe, smile, and enjoy the ride :)))

Yes

Yes, I am familiar with Rupert Spira’s inquiry. However, let’s not forget that any description is a finger pointing to the moon not the moon itself.

Yes. Not only Rupert Spira… just doing a random search on youtube for Awareness, these kind of things can be found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfCLEasOUPo
I am wondering if this is just misunderstood by me or are these kind of people just stuck on identification themselves?

How would I answer… I would say: I don’t see anyone or anything that is aware, so maybe the question is irrelevant.

Ok yes there is no aware entity, but who or what is answering the question?

There is something/experience/THIS but that does not mean that there must be awareness of it in order to exist.

But can it be said that THIS itself is awareness?

It just IS and “I” am part of that IS-ness appearing as thoughts and sensations (the illusion of an I).

Yes this is clear.

You see, there are as many answers or descriptions of THIS as the numbers of “humans”. Your description can only come within the framework of conditioned use of concepts. That is why I pointed to the parable of the blind men and an elephant

Ok yes I see what you mean. Pointing to it or naming it will never really be what it really IS.

Each blind man feels a different part of the animal's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the animal based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, conditioned experience as they ignore other people's limited, conditioned experiences (bubble of reality) which may be equally true (more like equally not true). That story is used a lot by different schools of thought. The Buddha ends the story by comparing the blind men to preachers and scholars who are blind and ignorant and hold to their own views: "Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing.... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus." All concepts are empty (of inherent existence). They exists only in relation to other concepts. Good exists dependently on bad. Awareness exists only because there is stuff to be aware of – no inherent existence, dependent origination. This is where all attempts to describe anything as something and believe it as true should drop away.

Yes, this is clear. Although there is a tendency to try to explain things that is automatically happening (most of the time). On rare occasions it is absent and then THIS is just there and nothing is needed/there is no one who wants/needs anything.

The concepts that are taken as true only reveal where the identification is – the fear of not existing, desire to exist in some form, fear of the unknown. And that needs to be explored, everything else is a diversion. Emotions need to felt and seen for what they are.
When it comes to the fear, it is completely unnecessary. There wasn’t existence before the inquiry that all of a sudden disappeared (or will disappear). Things have always been that way – just THIS. As far as the repercussions for the future…What future? The future never comes… Nothing actually changed and nothing was ever born or lost, nor will die, although it may have seemed that way. All that is here is indivisible wholeness /THIS - nothing can be added to it, nor taken away. What IS, is beyond qualities and flaws to be added or removed, accepted or rejected. Perfection is a flawless state where everything is exactly right the way it is.

I can feel that there remains this need to understand all this, but it is seen that this is just a thing that is appearing. It is tiring to engage with this every time, so just letting it be for now.

Is that focus in your control really? 

Probably not....

Close your eyes and sit quietly for 10-15 minutes.
Watch what focus does. Focus on focusing, attention itself.
Do you move it, or it moves by itself?

It is just moving by itself.

Hold focus on breath - see how it moves to thoughts, sensations, feelings, sounds.

Yes it keeps moving around by itself.

Is this something you control?

Not really. It feels like “I” can decide to bring the focus back to breath when it drifts off to something else, but in reality that also happens by itself. There is no “I” who does anything.

What moves focus?

Nothing moves it. It IS movement.

Can anything be found that moves attention, or does attention/focus move on its own?

Nothing can be found indeed. It just moves.

Is focus like a torch that lights up things (sitting in the dark/waiting to be aware of) ?

I really don’t know what it is to be honest.

What is focus made of? 

I would have said “awareness” before, but now I don’t know for sure. It seems like just a fluctuation of thought.

To focus on something is to isolate it – to make something out of nothing (from the indivisible whole). 

Yes indeed, focus is just a form of thought/thinking.

Is focus much different than a thought/description/label? 

No.

To focus on what is really here is to describe DE (still thought) instead of going to other thoughts (old patterns)…

Yes

Where exactly are you looking from?

I don’t know. There is a looking, that Im sure of. It is then just derived with logic that the looking must be happening from somewhere. I would then conclude that it must be from awareness that the looking is happening. But this is just thought again.

Where is here and where is there? LOOK!

Here and there is not real. There is just THIS.

From behind the eyes (sensation + mental image), within the head (sensation +mental image), from empty vastness/void (sensation + mental image)?

Yes the last one, empty vastness is the description I would probably have chosen, but this is again indeed pointing to a sensation or seeing and labels.


Is there such a thing as “where you are looking from”?

The looking itself is where the looking is happening so there is not a separate place.

A center, a kernel?

Yes this feels a bit like there is, but this is a mental construct or belief.

What is there when you LOOK? 

Nothing is there. Just the looking itself.

Look carefully: if you have to draw a line from where you are watching to the wall in front of you, where will the ends of the line be??

There is no distance so there is no line possible.

Does it need to be known in order to appear?

The appearance of it is the knowing, not like it needs to be known first and then it can appear. The knowing is the appearance or issness of it.

What appears if all is already here?

It doesn’t really appear, because it already IS.

How is THIS (what IS) suggesting in any way that is known?

THIS seems to be what IS really. Known implies that there must be something that knows it. But I can see now that this isn’t true. This is blowing my mind a bit to be honest… I know that mind is the one that has constructed this idea of knowing so it is having a hard time. I can definitely see the lack of the one who knows, but the knowing itself seems to be built in somehow.

How does this feeling suggest in any way that is linked to/associated with “awareness”?

Yes it is thought that associates the feeling to awareness.

Or any other meaning if there is no one on one correspondence with labels (green – red)

Thought

Are you sure?

I have to say yes. I am sure that I am aware of our conversation for example. But I do see that there is no I here, so this seems to be coming from thought then. Thought is sure :’)

Why should these thoughts be an exception?

They are masquerading as truth.

Aren't thoughts just thoughts, no matter what they are based on?

Yes they are just thoughts.

Is there anything that you can say true for sure?

I thought so (that I am aware) but now Im not so sure.

How do you know that?

Thought

If thoughts are just conditioned meaning that is imposed on THIS?

Yes that is what it is.

There is an identification with that particular thought: “I am aware”. Where is this “I” that has experiences and that is aware? Point to it.

I can’t find the I but it feels like the awareness part is everywhere where there is something experienced. Not in a particular place, but just here/now - in the issness of everything.

Where exactly are you pointing to? (look at your finger)

Nowhere in particular.

How exactly are the experiences had?

The experiences (DE’s) seem to be centred around the “Body” label as they are also labels. But THIS is just what IS, it is not happening to anyone.

OR all there is are just the experiences?

They are just there.

Furthermore are there experiences or just what IS - unchangeable, indivisible wholeness?

Yes the experiences are also labels, so there is only THIS (unchangeable/indivisible wholeness).

What happens when we swap the word experience for is-ness?

Isness is just what is, without further differentiation. Experience still points to a difference somehow.

Does is-ness needs to be known?

No it just is.

Is THIS like a language where we have a subject doing something on an object?

No those are just labels/thought.

Does AI know anything about experience?

Probably not, but we can not say for sure.

Can we really say for sure that WE have experiences?? 

No experience just IS. There is no “we”.

This is exactly where the problem with language is. We create a word and we start believing it is an IT, a thing, that it has qualities and even experiences – anthropomorphism. And this is exactly why the “I” starts “existing” in the first place. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a set of technologies (algorithms) that enable computers to perform a variety of advanced functions, including the ability to “understand” and translate spoken and written language, analyse data, make recommendations, and more. How does that differ from thought?

It doesn’t. But thought is not awareness I would argue.

Does thought know anything about experience? 

Thought by its nature is a step away from experience so No, thought cannot really touch experience ever.

Let’s look at the similarities
Thoughts are not direct experience. DE is what is happening in the present moment as the five senses—seeing, hearing, feeling (physical sensations, not emotions), tasting, and smelling. Thoughts, on the other hand, are mental interpretations and labels that are added to these sensory experiences. Language plays a crucial role in the formation of thoughts. Thoughts often manifest as words and mental images, and that language creates the illusion of separate objects and subjects (like the “I” and “awareness” and “apples”). Groups of concepts taken for truth of how things are become beliefs upon which new ideas land and stick, creating an even bigger, more magnificent castle of concepts. What seems to be “the world,” the totality of all that is happening, is a creation of language, and words are the building blocks that create the story about it. A bubble of reality. Similarly, while ChatGPT can generate seemingly coherent and insightful text, it does not have any understanding or direct experience of the world it is talking about (exactly as thought). It is simply manipulating language based on patterns it has learned. DE is beyond language.

Yes agreed/understood.

While thoughts (much like AI) can be helpful in many ways, it is important to remember that they are a tool, not a substitute/equivalent to direct experience. When you see that all knowledge is composed of made-up stories about made-up things, those stories lose their grip.

I see this yes, but some of the stories are not recognised as stories, so they are believed to be truth, which is tricky.


*Example of experience broken down into DE
Having my morning coffee
Seeing the coffee in the cup = light/shapes/colour (seeing)
Hearing the clock ticking in the living room = sound (hearing)
Smelling the coffee = smell (smelling)
Having a sip of the coffee = taste (tasting)
Feeling the warm cup in my hand = sensation (feeling)
Thought about answering Rali = thought (thinking)

Love,
Marina

[poppyseed]

Hi Marina
Just to let you know that:
During the night of Monday November 25th we will perform network maintenance in Amsterdam (AMS0) between 22:00 and 00:00 CEST. During this maintenance, we will update the network configuration in the network segment where your service(s) listed below are hosted.
that means that the messages posted in that time will or may be lost.
Love
Rali

[poppyseed]

Hi Marina
I can see how the believes are starting to crumble a bit :))

Ok yes there is no aware entity, but who or what is answering the question?

You tell me after you check…
Is there anything else but a thought? There is seeing involved (seeing the “screen”) and interpretation of that seeing by thought, which results in more thought (hopefully with looking/focus on DE) which is either the result of describing DE or conditioned pattern. Thought self-organising itself... So where exactly is the evidence for something else than thought???

Yes. Not only Rupert Spira… just doing a random search on youtube for Awareness, these kind of things can be found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfCLEasOUPo
I am wondering if this is just misunderstood by me or are these kind of people just stuck on identification themselves?

What are others in DE? Remember, the "eyes" and "ears" are on you ("your" thought interpreting seeing, hearing, etc)

But can it be said that THIS itself is awareness?

To say that, is to claim that you understand what THIS is, and to claim that it has properties (being aware), which would mean that some concepts exist inherently, where none do (the fact the word needs a definition and that definition is built of other concepts…). If I see it in one way and you in another, what does that suggest? Some people might use the word God, or the Void, or the Universe, or Brahman, consciousness, or whatever – it just points to the fact that there are as many conditioned descriptions as people, and none of them reflects truly THIS, which is beyond qualities… The word of choice just reveals your conditioning :)

Yes, this is clear. Although there is a tendency to try to explain things that is automatically happening (most of the time). On rare occasions it is absent and then THIS is just there and nothing is needed/there is no one who wants/needs anything.

Exactly! Thought does what thought does – gives meaning to patterns, believing them to be “things”. Thought is not the enemy, (something to get rid of). It just needs to be seen as empty, a good tool. The phrase "the mind is a good servant but a terrible master" means that the mind can be a useful tool, but it can also become a source of suffering if it's believed.

I can feel that there remains this need to understand all this, but it is seen that this is just a thing that is appearing. It is tiring to engage with this every time, so just letting it be for now.

Is it not possible to understand at all? Is there meaning to THIS outside of thought content? Can you make peace with that? Thought is just not equipped to do that. Whatever “understanding”, you come up with, is not going to be it. I suppose the analogy with the icons on your computer desktop comes handy. They are used as a visual representation of what is actually a binary code – zeros and ones - so you can make use of them. But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it? And when the box does not want to open, do you grab the tools from the shed in order to fix it?

It doesn’t. But thought is not awareness I would argue.

Of course you will ;). And it will be just that – an argument/a thought.

I see this yes, but some of the stories are not recognised as stories, so they are believed to be truth, which is tricky.

And that is where the illusion is…
Seeing that all stories are empty (just tools) creates relaxation, a “space” for “everything” to unfold in peace – no aversion and no attachment to anything. First because there is no self/entity (in any form or shape) to pull or push, and second because nothing is what it seems to be. But that needs to be seen as these stories come to the surface, otherwise it will not work (bypassing). A religion (understood or misunderstood) is just another story - enlightened story. This process (of seeing beliefs) might take a day, a year, or a lifetime – it very much depends on the conditioning, trauma, etc. The only way is when a problematic belief appears (there is suffering) to check what is actually here. There is a structured way to deal with believes that could be quite helpful and I will show it to you at the end.

Now let’s examine choice and decision making as it could be helpful further with some beliefs (like answering questions, doing stuff, etc)…

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

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

I can see how the believes are starting to crumble a bit :))

I don't know exactly, but there is definitely some more space, hard to explain.

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.

Thanks for this. Please give me some more time to repeat this a few times, ill get back to you by end of Friday with all the answers :)

*Example of experience broken down into DE
Having a conversation with my friend over coffee
Seeing my friends face = light/shapes/colour (seeing)
Hearing the words she is saying = sound (hearing)
Feeling the warm cup in my hand = sensation (feeling)
Smelling the coffee = smell (smelling)
Having a cookie with my coffee = taste (tasting)
Thought about our conversation = thought (thinking)

Love,
Marina

[poppyseed]

Hi Marina
Sure! Enjoy! :)

Love
Rali

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

Ok yes there is no aware entity, but who or what is answering the question?

You tell me after you check…

Yes, the thing is that I can’t find anything that I can point to but I am sure that there IS an answer to the question (not necessarily coming from somewhere/something, and the answer itself is thought), but it definitely IS here.

Is there anything else but a thought? 

No

There is seeing involved (seeing the “screen”) and interpretation of that seeing by thought, which results in more thought (hopefully with looking/focus on DE) which is either the result of describing DE or conditioned pattern. Thought self-organising itself... So where exactly is the evidence for something else than thought???

Evidence is something you can show or point to, and that is not there.

What are others in DE? Remember, the "eyes" and "ears" are on you ("your" thought interpreting seeing, hearing, etc)

Others are labels/thought.

But can it be said that THIS itself is awareness?

To say that, is to claim that you understand what THIS is, and to claim that it has properties (being aware), which would mean that some concepts exist inherently, where none do (the fact the word needs a definition and that definition is built of other concepts…). If I see it in one way and you in another, what does that suggest? 

That it is not ultimate truth.

Some people might use the word God, or the Void, or the Universe, or Brahman, consciousness, or whatever – it just points to the fact that there are as many conditioned descriptions as people, and none of them reflects truly THIS, which is beyond qualities… The word of choice just reveals your conditioning :)

Ok, yes agreed/understood.

Yes, this is clear. Although there is a tendency to try to explain things that is automatically happening (most of the time). On rare occasions it is absent and then THIS is just there and nothing is needed/there is no one who wants/needs anything.

Exactly! Thought does what thought does – gives meaning to patterns, believing them to be “things”. Thought is not the enemy, (something to get rid of). It just needs to be seen as empty, a good tool. The phrase "the mind is a good servant but a terrible master" means that the mind can be a useful tool, but it can also become a source of suffering if it's believed.

Yes, suffering is a good pointer actually. It can show where there is still a belief.

I can feel that there remains this need to understand all this, but it is seen that this is just a thing that is appearing. It is tiring to engage with this every time, so just letting it be for now.

Is it not possible to understand at all?

Its just my analytical mind that is just always trying to understand everything. I know that it is not possible to understand THIS truly.

Is there meaning to THIS outside of thought content?

No the meaning is THIS itself in its totality, which cannot be understood by the mind/thought.

Can you make peace with that? 

My mind is having trouble with it… but “I” doesn’t really exist so only peace should remain.

Thought is just not equipped to do that. Whatever “understanding”, you come up with, is not going to be it.

Yes I know :)

I suppose the analogy with the icons on your computer desktop comes handy. They are used as a visual representation of what is actually a binary code – zeros and ones - so you can make use of them. But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it?

No its just a bunch of code, ones and zeros, information.


And when the box does not want to open, do you grab the tools from the shed in order to fix it?

Sometimes I want to grab a hammer and smash it when it doesn’t work ;) haha, but no of course not, it it a totally different level of existence.

It doesn’t. But thought is not awareness I would argue.

Of course you will ;). And it will be just that – an argument/a thought.

Indeed.

I see this yes, but some of the stories are not recognised as stories, so they are believed to be truth, which is tricky.

And that is where the illusion is…
Seeing that all stories are empty (just tools) creates relaxation, a “space” for “everything” to unfold in peace – no aversion and no attachment to anything. First because there is no self/entity (in any form or shape) to pull or push, and second because nothing is what it seems to be. But that needs to be seen as these stories come to the surface, otherwise it will not work (bypassing). A religion (understood or misunderstood) is just another story - enlightened story. This process (of seeing beliefs) might take a day, a year, or a lifetime – it very much depends on the conditioning, trauma, etc. The only way is when a problematic belief appears (there is suffering) to check what is actually here. There is a structured way to deal with believes that could be quite helpful and I will show it to you at the end.

Yes it is easy when the belief is seen as a belief, but the problem is that sometimes it is difficult to recognise it as belief, and not truth.

Now let’s examine choice and decision making as it could be helpful further with some beliefs (like answering questions, doing stuff, etc)…
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.

Ok keeping that in mind when doing the exercises.

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?

It was just happening by itself.

Does a thought control it?

No there were no thoughts.

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

No it was just happening.

How is the decision made to turn the hand over? 

There was no decision I could see/pinpoint. It was just a continuous happening.

Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over.

I also did the exercise with first the thought appearing “I will now turn around my hand” and then the hand turning, but here also there was not a decision maker that could be located who “was having the thought”.

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

Ok, glass of water, and a cup of tea.

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.

Yes, it is cold so a sip of the hot tea would be nice, instead of the cold water.

Step2. Count to 5.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Step3. Choose one of the drinks. Pick it up and take a sip.

Ok, yes took a sip of the tea.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities?

No they belong to them.

Or did they kind of appear by themselves?

They warm/hot quality is inherent to the drink as it was at that time.

If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

The preference is already there, as I really don’t like winter, and being cold so a warm drink is preferred by default.

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?

Not that I can recall or pinpoint.


Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting?

No, the counting was all there was at that moment.

Did you directly experience an entity doing the ‘choosing’?

No, this is clear.

In step 3 where you made a choice, did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’?

No it did not, I wouldn’t even call it a choosing, it was just a happening.

If so, what does it look like?

The part of an entity choosing or doing stuff is not there. I don’t think this was ever very strong for me, so any remnant of this has really faded in the last period. But what is still remaining is this awareness feeling that is just observing/aware and not causing or doing anything. Just witnessing everything. I wouldn’t say this is an entity, but more an active seeing/perceiving.

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...

I decided to start a small business next to my full time job.

How did it come to be?

This seems to me like it was a logical progression of events and circumstances into this.

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?

It would have maybe happened sooner or later but it would have happened. Or maybe if I had gotten into a serious accident and could not use my hands, then it might not have happened.

How many of these conditions were outside of your influence?

Most.

What was in your control (according to thought)?

Getting educated about this to prepare before starting for example.

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.

I have repeated it a couple of times, but as mentioned, the deciding entity is not found. It is more the seeing/perceiving thing that has me locked in still.

*Example of experience broken down into DE
Going for a run this afternoon
Seeing the sun shine on the trees = light/shapes/colour (seeing)
Hearing the cars driving by = sound (hearing)
Smelling the cold air and wood burning = smell (smelling)
Feeling my feet hit the ground as I run = sensation (feeling)
Thought about what I am going to do this weekend = thought (thinking)

Love,
Marina

[poppyseed]

Hi Marina

Its just my analytical mind that is just always trying to understand everything. I know that it is not possible to understand THIS truly.

Hehe, even not truly, it’s just not possible at all. Whatever understanding you get, it is a conditioned use of concepts. They can never contain a new concept that was not used before – your “knowledge” backpack. So even learning new information is interpreted within the context of the older knowledge – dependent origination. Furthermore, understanding is about apples and awareness, where all there is just THIS!! (blank!) (the famous Zen stick - the stick was used to strike disciples to help them cut attachment to delusions.)

Can you make peace with that?

My mind is having trouble with it… but “I” doesn’t really exist so only peace should remain.

Should?! That is the bypassing I was warning you about. There wasn’t a self/I not to have peace before, it’s not like the self died and now there is peace. Illusion is still here but it is not a delusion any more once the absence of a self is noted (by thought). However, the illusion needs to be seen too, and that does not happen automatically – you need to go see that the mirage is a mirage and it can happen only by walking the distance, not by deciding that mirages don’t exist - intellectual understanding. It is an effortless effort, an actionless action :). So if "the mind is having trouble with...", that is what is happening until it isn't. That doesn't need an "I" to happen or not. Clarity can happen only through LOOKING over and over again, while not looking at the old stories that usually come along. Clear??!

Yes it is easy when the belief is seen as a belief, but the problem is that sometimes it is difficult to recognise it as belief, and not truth.

And that is why it takes time. Beliefs are based on other beliefs and some are not that problematic (until they are). So any push or pull should be a warning sign for a belief in progress :)

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities?

No they belong to them.

Or did they kind of appear by themselves?

They warm/hot quality is inherent to the drink as it was at that time.

Is it now? Does an apple have qualities? Does seeing, smelling, …, have inherent qualities? How do you know that “red” that you see is the same for me? Are the qualities inherent or they are just labels? Furthermore, is THIS devisable into parts that have qualities or that happens only in thought content?

If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

The preference is already there, as I really don’t like winter, and being cold so a warm drink is preferred by default.

What is a preference? What is this “I” that doesn’t like “cold”? And how is it known that it doesn’t like cold? How is it known that the preference was already there? Are memories, talking about before, true? How is this known? Can you experience “last year”, “yesterday”, or “30 seconds ago”?

The part of an entity choosing or doing stuff is not there. I don’t think this was ever very strong for me, so any remnant of this has really faded in the last period. But what is still remaining is this awareness feeling that is just observing/aware and not causing or doing anything. Just witnessing everything. I wouldn’t say this is an entity, but more an active seeing/perceiving.

Yup, “I” is still there, hanging by a thread to the witnessing :). Is it possible that this “awareness feeling” is just a feeling, and the “aware” part is just a label for it (far away from reality)??? Can you see it in that light? I warned about “seems like” and “feels like”, didn’t I?
Again are there separate perceiving/witnessing AND tasting, smelling, thinking, hearing, seeing, and feeling? Do you see borders where the one stops? What is there to be witnessed – THIS? So there are this! AND witnessing? And before you start philosophising with “ THIS is appearing in awareness” and all this spiritual rubbish, tell me what you can actually SEE (not think about). I know it is difficult to shake off these precious beliefs, but were they always there, are they yours – did you always know that you were awareness, or is it an acquired belief? Did you know that you are aware and witnessing when you were 1 year old? Did you know anything???

Stay with that feeling. Have you ever tried that game when you start repeating a word over and over again and the meaning starts dissolving, and then you wonder why exactly that word was selected instead of another? So stay with the feeling without any interpretations. What happens??
This is why the words are just pointers, and the “witness” a stepping stone…

It would have maybe happened sooner or later but it would have happened. Or maybe if I had gotten into a serious accident and could not use my hands, then it might not have happened.

Exactly! You never know if would have happened or not – you can make only an educated (or not) guess. And this is what a thought does – autocomplete. All that thought “knows” is based on previous experience, it cannot “know” stuff that hasn’t happen yet (otherwise you are a real fortune teller). Just consider that just as you don't know what you don't know, you also don't know what you do know (until you do - there is no container of thoughts that you can go and choose from, thoughts just appear…)
Also, consider that the world “out there” is a projection over experience. What seems to be “Marina’s world,” the totality of your experience of all that is happening, is a creation of language, and words are the building blocks that create the story about it. The world is built of “apples” and “cups of coffee” :). The world is like a dream, an illusion, a bubble, or a shadow, imposed over DE. The world as perceived by Marina is unique to her – her bubble of reality. Marina’s world is entirely inside her “head”. Take it further and to look AT.. you are only looking at what exists… in your imagination. That is everything seen is an interpretation unique to you. It is seen from a perspective that is shaped by your history and DNA. So what makes you dare think that there is even a slight chance that you can ever know what will happen next and should or shouldn’t happen in DE?? Just because you guessed what you will have for breakfast made you cocky enough ;)?

What was in your control (according to thought)?

Getting educated about this to prepare before starting for example.

Was that really in your control??
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/sticky notes 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” just are. Is the description/explanation/label needed for things to happen?
Love
Rali

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

Its just my analytical mind that is just always trying to understand everything. I know that it is not possible to understand THIS truly.

Hehe, even not truly, it’s just not possible at all. Whatever understanding you get, it is a conditioned use of concepts. They can never contain a new concept that was not used before – your “knowledge” backpack. So even learning new information is interpreted within the context of the older knowledge – dependent origination. Furthermore, understanding is about apples and awareness, where all there is just THIS!! (blank!) (the famous Zen stick - the stick was used to strike disciples to help them cut attachment to delusions.)
Can you make peace with that?

Answering from my mind/thought - the answer is most like No… because this mind always is trying to understand everything, even though it also knows its impossible. But that’s ok, I can live with that. Or the “I” that can live with that is nowhere to be found. That solves all the problems I guess.

My mind is having trouble with it… but “I” doesn’t really exist so only peace should remain.

Should?! That is the bypassing I was warning you about. There wasn’t a self/I not to have peace before, it’s not like the self died and now there is peace. Illusion is still here but it is not a delusion any more once the absence of a self is noted (by thought). However, the illusion needs to be seen too, and that does not happen automatically – you need to go see that the mirage is a mirage and it can happen only by walking the distance, not by deciding that mirages don’t exist - intellectual understanding. It is an effortless effort, an actionless action :). So if "the mind is having trouble with...", that is what is happening until it isn't. That doesn't need an "I" to happen or not. Clarity can happen only through LOOKING over and over again, while not looking at the old stories that usually come along. Clear??!

Yes

Yes it is easy when the belief is seen as a belief, but the problem is that sometimes it is difficult to recognise it as belief, and not truth.

And that is why it takes time. Beliefs are based on other beliefs and some are not that problematic (until they are). So any push or pull should be a warning sign for a belief in progress :)

Yes noted.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities?
No they belong to them.
Or did they kind of appear by themselves?
They warm/hot quality is inherent to the drink as it was at that time.

Is it now?

Yes to the label hot drink the label warm or hot is inherent.

Does an apple have qualities?

well yes, if we’re talking about the label “apple” there are certain qualities that usually come with this label, like shape, colours, tastes etc.

Does seeing, smelling, …, have inherent qualities?

No, the direct experiences don’t have inherent qualities, other than that they ARE.

How do you know that “red” that you see is the same for me?

No this is impossible.

Are the qualities inherent or they are just labels?

Yes yes, when I said inherent quality of the drink I was referring to the level of labels/thought.

Furthermore, is THIS devisable into parts that have qualities or that happens only in thought content?

Only with thought there is division.

If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

They were already there, I didn’t choose them.

The preference is already there, as I really don’t like winter, and being cold so a warm drink is preferred by default.

What is a preference?

Its just a collection of thoughts/behaviours/beliefs.

What is this “I” that doesn’t like “cold”?

Just a collection of habits, resistances, sensations and beliefs associated with those.

And how is it known that it doesn’t like cold?

This is just a layer of thought/belief/deduction.

How is it known that the preference was already there?

A repeated feeling/thought/belief based on prior feelings/thoughts/beliefs.

Are memories, talking about before, true?

Memories are thoughts and thoughts are not ultimately truth. They are real but not true.

How is this known?

They can’t bee seen by LOOKING, only by thought.

Can you experience “last year”, “yesterday”, or “30 seconds ago”?

No these are just thoughts.

The part of an entity choosing or doing stuff is not there. I don’t think this was ever very strong for me, so any remnant of this has really faded in the last period. But what is still remaining is this awareness feeling that is just observing/aware and not causing or doing anything. Just witnessing everything. I wouldn’t say this is an entity, but more an active seeing/perceiving.

Yup, “I” is still there, hanging by a thread to the witnessing :). Is it possible that this “awareness feeling” is just a feeling, and the “aware” part is just a label for it (far away from reality)???

Yes this is possible.

Can you see it in that light?

Yes I can. The awareness part was indeed the last thread that “I” was hanging on to and letting go of that just leaves nothing, which my mind is having trouble with (which is understandable). But I am able to be there just without anything to hang on to, and without a “Me” that is hanging on aswell.

I warned about “seems like” and “feels like”, didn’t I?

Yes you did :)

Again are there separate perceiving/witnessing AND tasting, smelling, thinking, hearing, seeing, and feeling?

There is nothing

Do you see borders where the one stops?

No its not there, no borders, just THIS.

What is there to be witnessed – THIS? So there are this! AND witnessing? 

There is just THIS.

And before you start philosophising with “ THIS is appearing in awareness” and all this spiritual rubbish, tell me what you can actually SEE (not think about). 

Just THIS, if I start using thought to explain its already not what it is.

I know it is difficult to shake off these precious beliefs, but were they always there, are they yours – did you always know that you were awareness, or is it an acquired belief?

No I didn’t “know” anything in the sense of knowledge, but the witnessing/awarenss part, I cannot say for sure.

Did you know that you are aware and witnessing when you were 1 year old?

I cannot say this for sure, because I don’t have memory of this. Possibly there was an awareness of being. But this is just speculation. If awareness of being is just thought and ideas then No this was not there.

Did you know anything???

I was definitely sensing, seeing, hearing etc. That’s for sure.

Stay with that feeling. Have you ever tried that game when you start repeating a word over and over again and the meaning starts dissolving, and then you wonder why exactly that word was selected instead of another? 

Yes the word loses meaning and sounds strange.

So stay with the feeling without any interpretations. What happens??

Nothing is sticking to any concept, it is just seen as it is without interpretation.

This is why the words are just pointers, and the “witness” a stepping stone…

Yes I see.

It would have maybe happened sooner or later but it would have happened. Or maybe if I had gotten into a serious accident and could not use my hands, then it might not have happened.

Exactly! You never know if would have happened or not – you can make only an educated (or not) guess. And this is what a thought does – autocomplete. All that thought “knows” is based on previous experience, it cannot “know” stuff that hasn’t happen yet (otherwise you are a real fortune teller). Just consider that just as you don't know what you don't know, you also don't know what you do know (until you do - there is no container of thoughts that you can go and choose from, thoughts just appear…)

Yes, understood.

Also, consider that the world “out there” is a projection over experience. What seems to be “Marina’s world,” the totality of your experience of all that is happening, is a creation of language, and words are the building blocks that create the story about it. The world is built of “apples” and “cups of coffee” :). The world is like a dream, an illusion, a bubble, or a shadow, imposed over DE. The world as perceived by Marina is unique to her – her bubble of reality. Marina’s world is entirely inside her “head”. Take it further and to look AT.. you are only looking at what exists… in your imagination. That is everything seen is an interpretation unique to you. It is seen from a perspective that is shaped by your history and DNA. So what makes you dare think that there is even a slight chance that you can ever know what will happen next and should or shouldn’t happen in DE??

No, this is clear. It is unknowable.

Just because you guessed what you will have for breakfast made you cocky enough ;)?

Haha

What was in your control (according to thought)?

Getting educated about this to prepare before starting for example.

Was that really in your control??

It was in the control of the label “Marina” but ultimately it wasn’t in control of anything cause in reality there is no Marina, there is just THIS.

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/sticky notes of what has happened before.

Yes this is clear.

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.

 Yes this is clear.

What is “moving of the hands” in DE? 

sensation/sensing.

We’ve seen that it’s just a sensation, labelled “hands moving” + colour/shape labelled “hands moving”. So, what makes the sensations to appear?

Nothing, it just appears.

What makes seeing to appear? 

Nothing that I can find.

LOOK! Is there anything that causes anything to appear?

No not that I can see.

Do cause and effect exist outside of thought content? 

No

Thought comes to describe that things are happening and why they are happening, but in DE “things” just are. Is the description/explanation/label needed for things to happen?

No they are just happening, whether there is a label or not.

*Example of experience broken down into DE
Walking the dog this morning
Seeing the clouds and the beautiful colours = light/shapes/colour (seeing)
Hearing the wind through the trees = sound (hearing)
Smelling the wet ground from last nights rain = smell (smelling)
Feeling the leash in my hand = sensation (feeling)
Thought about how cold it is = thought (thinking)

Love,
Marina

[poppyseed]

Hi Marisa

Answering from my mind/thought - the answer is most like No… because this mind always is trying to understand everything, even though it also knows its impossible. But that’s ok, I can live with that. Or the “I” that can live with that is nowhere to be found. That solves all the problems I guess.

Yes I can. The awareness part was indeed the last thread that “I” was hanging on to and letting go of that just leaves nothing, which my mind is having trouble with (which is understandable). But I am able to be there just without anything to hang on to, and without a “Me” that is hanging on aswell.

The “I” wasn’t there when the illusion was created (“thoughts being able to figure everything out”), so the discovered absence of an “I” shouldn’t be a solution either (bypassing). What I point to, when I say “Can you live with that”, is a sensation. There is a certain pull/push (sensory experience) when the idea of uncertainty is present. Notice that! So when I say “can you live with that” I’m referring to not making a story about the uncertainty (plans, contemplating, theorising, philosophising etc) but just noticing the sensation (avoid the distraction of storytelling). Stay with the sensation! Thoughts eventually make peace with the fact after going in circles for a while trying to figure out/know the unknowable:). So definitely no “I” is needed to do that – just a instruction to thoughts to notice experience and not the usual thought patterns cycle – effortless effort :) (no entity doing anything, just using words as tools). Call it a CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy), if you want. These thought patterns are there for a reason – to make the “unpleasantness” of ‘uncertainty’ sensations more bearable (a distraction/ avoidance). It's much more enjoyable to contemplate existence/non-existence then to experience the contractions/sensations around the idea of "uncertainty". That's a pattern that might not be relevant anymore (sensations are just sensations), but it still appears until it is seen as unnecessary. Can you see that? Can you be with just the sensations? And I don't mean "you" - just words as tools :) )
On that topic, there is a Buddhist saying: At the beginning, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers; then, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers; finally, mountains are once again mountains and rivers once again rivers". What do you think it means?

Yes to the label hot drink the label warm or hot is inherent.

Even labels are not inherent, they are conditioned. They have different meaning from person to person and in different situations. “Hot” can also mean spicy, or attractive :)

well yes, if we’re talking about the label “apple” there are certain qualities that usually come with this label, like shape, colours, tastes etc.

Even these are still labels. Shape and colour are still conditioned labels. For example “Chinese pear” looks more like our “apple”, so obviously there they associate pear with that shape :). So there is nothing intrinsic about labels – it’s all learned stuff.

Seeing the clouds and the beautiful colours = light/shapes/colour (seeing)

Do shapes really exist?
Seeing can be likened to an abstract painting and if you look at an abstract painting you start to see shapes etc within the painting itself. Those shapes aren’t really there…but they SEEM (appear) to be. Thought is very much a pattern detector. It is thought that divides experience into different abstractions and gives them objectivity via labels (colour, sound, thought, smell, taste, sensation), dimensions, meaning and purpose and then further overlays these with stories about them.
So from that perspective...do the shapes really exist?


Different colours in seeing create the illusion of things but all that is there is seeing. Are there many colours? Or is there simply colour (just seeing)? Look at the view through your window. Thought automatically divides and labels colour into many different colours, then further names those colours into specific objects. IGNORE ALL object labels and colour labels.
Is there an actual gap between the ‘trees’ (presuming that there are trees)? Or is the gap actually colour?
Where does colour begin and end? In other words, can an actual dividing line be found between where one colour ends and another begins, or is that just a mental construct?

Exactly! You never know if would have happened or not – you can make only an educated (or not) guess. And this is what a thought does – autocomplete. All that thought “knows” is based on previous experience, it cannot “know” stuff that hasn’t happen yet (otherwise you are a real fortune teller). Just consider that just as you don't know what you don't know, you also don't know what you do know (until you do - there is no container of thoughts that you can go and choose from, thoughts just appear…)

Yes, understood.

Undesrtood? Or realised/experienced? There is a difference...

Did you know anything???

I was definitely sensing, seeing, hearing etc. That’s for sure.

But did you know that you are “sensing, seeing, hearing etc”?

I cannot say this for sure, because I don’t have memory of this. Possibly there was an awareness of being. But this is just speculation. If awareness of being is just thought and ideas then No this was not there.

A speculation indeed! :) I’m sure your first word was not “awareness of being”, probably more like “mama” or “dada” :))). Or am I wrong?
Love
Rali

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

Apologies, replying a bit late. Read your feedback Wednesday and have tried to focus on the sensations only... like you mentioned.

The “I” wasn’t there when the illusion was created (“thoughts being able to figure everything out”), so the discovered absence of an “I” shouldn’t be a solution either (bypassing).
What I point to, when I say “Can you live with that”, is a sensation. There is a certain pull/push (sensory experience) when the idea of uncertainty is present. Notice that!

Yes I can notice that feeling or sensation.

So when I say “can you live with that” I’m referring to not making a story about the uncertainty (plans, contemplating, theorising, philosophising etc) but just noticing the sensation (avoid the distraction of storytelling). Stay with the sensation!

Ok got it.

Thoughts eventually make peace with the fact after going in circles for a while trying to figure out/know the unknowable:). So definitely no “I” is needed to do that – just a instruction to thoughts to notice experience and not the usual thought patterns cycle – effortless effort :) (no entity doing anything, just using words as tools). Call it a CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy), if you want. These thought patterns are there for a reason – to make the “unpleasantness” of ‘uncertainty’ sensations more bearable (a distraction/ avoidance). It's much more enjoyable to contemplate existence/non-existence then to experience the contractions/sensations around the idea of "uncertainty".

Yes indeed, it is a distraction.

That's a pattern that might not be relevant anymore (sensations are just sensations), but it still appears until it is seen as unnecessary. Can you see that?

Yes.

Can you be with just the sensations? And I don't mean "you" - just words as tools :) )

Yes this is possible, although it is not always possible to stay there for long as distraction still happens.

On that topic, there is a Buddhist saying: At the beginning, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers; then, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers; finally, mountains are once again mountains and rivers once again rivers". What do you think it means?

Yes I know this one. What I think it means is that in the beginning there is identification and “objects” like mountains and rivers are assumed to have their own existence. Then a realisation happens and it is seen that there are no “objects” with their own existence, that it is all one, but still viewed from a place of subtle identification (this is where I have been stuck). And at the end what remains is all the Direct experiencing and nothing else, no identification, just THIS.

Even labels are not inherent, they are conditioned. They have different meaning from person to person and in different situations. “Hot” can also mean spicy, or attractive :)

Yes of course, this is true.

well yes, if we’re talking about the label “apple” there are certain qualities that usually come with this label, like shape, colours, tastes etc.

Even these are still labels. Shape and colour are still conditioned labels. For example “Chinese pear” looks more like our “apple”, so obviously there they associate pear with that shape :). So there is nothing intrinsic about labels – it’s all learned stuff.

Indeed, I think I have been interpreting the word “inherent” a bit wrong.

Seeing the clouds and the beautiful colours = light/shapes/colour (seeing)

Do shapes really exist?

No shapes are derivatives of light and colour.

Seeing can be likened to an abstract painting and if you look at an abstract painting you start to see shapes etc within the painting itself. Those shapes aren’t really there…but they SEEM (appear) to be. Thought is very much a pattern detector. It is thought that divides experience into different abstractions and gives them objectivity via labels (colour, sound, thought, smell, taste, sensation), dimensions, meaning and purpose and then further overlays these with stories about them.
So from that perspective...do the shapes really exist?

No this is clear.

Different colours in seeing create the illusion of things but all that is there is seeing. Are there many colours?

I want to say yes, because even before thought appears and labels the different colours it is clear there are differences within colour.

Or is there simply colour (just seeing)? 

Yes there is just colour and thought is needed to label them as different, I do see that.

Look at the view through your window. Thought automatically divides and labels colour into many different colours, then further names those colours into specific objects. IGNORE ALL object labels and colour labels.

OK

Is there an actual gap between the ‘trees’ (presuming that there are trees)? Or is the gap actually colour?

It is just colour (or actually it is just light as here in the Netherlands there is no colour in the winter, everything is gray now that the leaves have fallen).

Where does colour begin and end? In other words, can an actual dividing line be found between where one colour ends and another begins, or is that just a mental construct?

No dividing line can be found. It is a continuation of colour.

Exactly! You never know if would have happened or not – you can make only an educated (or not) guess. And this is what a thought does – autocomplete. All that thought “knows” is based on previous experience, it cannot “know” stuff that hasn’t happen yet (otherwise you are a real fortune teller). Just consider that just as you don't know what you don't know, you also don't know what you do know (until you do - there is no container of thoughts that you can go and choose from, thoughts just appear…)

Yes, understood.

Undesrtood? Or realised/experienced? There is a difference…

Well both, I intellectually can follow what you mean, and I have also experienced this. Thoughts just appear.

Did you know anything???

I was definitely sensing, seeing, hearing etc. That’s for sure.

But did you know that you are “sensing, seeing, hearing etc”?

I don’t know like I said, I don’t have memory of being that young so I cannot confirm in that way. But I was just thinking about this… does memory only happen when the mind can conceptualise things, and hence remember them in that way as concepts? If that is the case then I probably did not know anything in the sense of knowing as a concept. But awareness is not knowing as concept, it is just seeing/witnessing without holding on to anything. So cannot say for sure if this was the case when I was that young.

I cannot say this for sure, because I don’t have memory of this. Possibly there was an awareness of being. But this is just speculation. If awareness of being is just thought and ideas then No this was not there.

A speculation indeed! :) I’m sure your first word was not “awareness of being”, probably more like “mama” or “dada” :))). Or am I wrong?

But mama or dada are pointing to objects, not pointing to awareness.

*Example of experience broken down into DE
Sitting in a guided meditation focussing on the body
Seeing the candle flicker = light/colour (seeing)
Hearing the voice of the lady who is guiding = sound (hearing)
Smelling the scented candle = smell (smelling)
Feeling different parts of my body as I focus on them = sensation (feeling)
Thought about how relaxing it is = thought (thinking)

Love,
Marina

[poppyseed]

Hi Marina

Y

es I know this one. What I think it means is that in the beginning there is identification and “objects” like mountains and rivers are assumed to have their own existence. Then a realisation happens and it is seen that there are no “objects” with their own existence, that it is all one, but still viewed from a place of subtle identification (this is where I have been stuck). And at the end what remains is all the Direct experiencing and nothing else, no identification, just THIS.

Yeah :). In the beginning objects are taken as really existing, then later it is seen that objects are just labels (empty of inherent existence), and at the end it’s going back to the market, where words are still used but just as tools for communication and their emptiness is known.

It is just colour (or actually it is just light as here in the Netherlands there is no colour in the winter, everything is gray now that the leaves have fallen).

Grey is still a colour (seeing) :)

I don’t know like I said, I don’t have memory of being that young so I cannot confirm in that way. But I was just thinking about this… does memory only happen when the mind can conceptualise things, and hence remember them in that way as concepts? If that is the case then I probably did not know anything in the sense of knowing as a concept.

What is a memory?

Past and memory go hand-in-hand as a memory thought (words or mental images) is believed to be referring to something that has happened in the past. Memory thoughts are also thoughts about a future that may or may not happen based on past experiences. A future thought is a thought that projects an idea about a future based on past memory. The majority of us ‘live’ in past or future, but when are those seeming memory thoughts actually taking place?

Sit quietly somewhere for 10 or so minutes and watch the arising thoughts. Notice the thoughts that contain content that refer to a past or future. Please don’t go to thought explanation, but just look at what the direct actual experience is.

What is memory exactly? What is the memory ‘made of’?
Is there any difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
WHEN does the memory actually appear?
How is it known that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?
Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?
WHEN does the future thought appear?
Is there a difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?
Then let’s compare a thought about the past and a thought about the future.
What is the difference between the thoughts about past and future in actual experience? If there is a difference, how is that difference known exactly?
Can a past or future be known? Or all that is known are the AE of thoughts labelled as ‘memory’ that are appearing now?

In actual experience:-
Where is last week?
Where is yesterday?
Where is this morning?
Where is five minutes ago?
Where is one minute ago?
Where is last night?
Where is midnight?
Where is tomorrow morning?
Where is next week?
Where is next month?
Can you find any of these? Or only ‘memory’ thoughts about these appearing now?

So if a memory is nothing but a generic thought, how can you know for sure that you have been a baby, that you had or had not experiences and that you were aware, OR that is an assumption?

But awareness is not knowing as concept, it is just seeing/witnessing without holding on to anything.

Let’s play language as it seems that you can’t make the difference between language and direct experience.
If there is no perceiver and nothing to be perceived, is there perceiving at all?
If there is no awareness as an entity, and no-thing to be aware of, is there being aware/awareness at all? Awareness of nothing is an oxymoron, a play of language :)

To know something is merely to attach a word to it – even if it is just “witnessing” (you have to know what you are witnessing and that you are witnessing, witnessing is still a concept, and don't start me on the duration of witnessing, which suggest continuation). To be aware means "to know about", some common synonyms of aware are cognizant, conscious, and sensible. So let's look at all of these words - consciousness, awareness, cognition.
By using a word, you create something out of nothing (concepts, objects, reality, conditions, qualities, etc). Without words, there is no knowing. To know that you are aware is knowledge. Without words, there is no framework to separate, categorize, interpret, or define. Awareness is a word that is just attached to nothing.
Consciousness is not a mystical entity but a by-product of memory. It arises only when memory supplies the words needed to categorize and interpret raw "experience". Without memory, there can be no consciousness as you understand it. And what is memory? A repository of words, mental images and mental constructs.
Consciousness, then, is not an awareness of the present but a narration of the present built on the words stored in memory. The so-called “conscious mind” is merely a storyteller, drawing on memory (thought) to weave the illusion of an observer/witness.
Awareness is not some innate, universal truth but a mental construct. It is the mind’s ability to narrate its own sensations. Strip away the words, and there is no awareness—only the raw, unprocessed flux.
The idea of “awareness” is rooted in the same linguistic delusion as the concept of self. You are aware of something only because language supplies the framework to distinguish it from everything else. Without words, there’s no “I” to be aware, no “thing” to be aware of, and no “awareness” to connect them.
I gave you the baby analogy to force mind’s logic to see the emptiness of ALL concepts (awareness included). A baby simply exists. Before acquiring language, a baby doesn’t distinguish between self and environment, between sensations and objects, between peaks and troughs in experience. Awareness emerges only as words are learned, carving the flux of existence into categories and relationships – something to be aware of. In the begining it could be very basic - before the development of mental concepts there is still pattern recognition in various shapes, and once the concepts are attached to that, its' game on. That’s why you don’t have memories of anything, but you are presuming that you were aware (you are imposing a quality so you can justify the idea - basically a thought). Furthermore, as the baby’s name has been repeated that many times, the self-awareness starts "forming". That’s why babies experience separation anxiety at the age of about 18m – they become separate from the whole. To be aware of oneself is to be burdened by the illusion of separation, to carry the weight of a fabricated identity. Without awareness, there is no conflict—only the natural flow of life.
Awareness is simply the mind narrating sensations. Consciousness is the memory bank of those narrations. Thought is the manipulation of those narrations into new forms. Without words, these phenomena do not exist. Strip away language, and what remains is pure biological functioning, devoid of self, meaning, or narrative. Thought, awareness, consciousness, and memory are one and the same. They are mental constructs, dependent entirely on words. Without words, they collapse into nothingness. Cases like dementia expose the mental nature of these constructs, proving that without words, there is no self, no thought, no awareness, and no consciousness. Life operates without the need for words, knowledge, or awareness.

Love
Rali