Unknowing

[warissem]

Good morning

I don’t know how to reply, because I look, but do not see. I can't find a separate self saying them, but I couldn't find a separate self when we began this dialog.

Yes, something which does not exist cannot be found. it is like looking for a unicorn or a ghost.

It seems that nothing has changed.

There is no dramatic change after seeing through the illusion of a separate self.

I will continue looking for the answer without a doubt. Meanwhile, can we continue the dialog?

We are at the beginning of our dialog. The process is unfolding step by step. Give faith to what is going on here, be patient and leave aside all what you read about spirituality and enlightenment.

Look around and see what is here : a table, a laptop, a cup, a painting on the wall, etc ... Look at the table and notice what is arising (thoughts, feelings, sensations) then put your gaze on your body and notice what is arising. Do this back and forth to all the objects and the body.

Let me know about the arisings when the focus is on the object and the arisings when the focus is on the body.

Is there a difference between the object and the body?

Does a body need a name, a label to be ?

Is there you, a separate self among the objects seen in the room?

Nour

[aloracalorac]

Let me know about the arisings when the focus is on the object and the arisings when the focus is on the body.

Is there a difference between the object and the body?

There is a difference between the object and the body. The body seems mine: it generates feelings and allows me to see and hear. I feel a dependence on the body. If it is damaged, I feel pain. It feels like “my” body.

Although the clock, on the other hand, is “my” clock, I don’t feel the same emotional attachment. If the clock breaks, I can replace it.

Does a body need a name, a label to be?

No.

Is there you, a separate self among the objects seen in the room?

No, if there is a separate self, it is not a physical object.

Thank you for this continuing dialog.

[warissem]

Good morning

There is a difference between the object and the body. The body seems mine: it generates feelings and allows me to see and hear. I feel a dependence on the body. If it is damaged, I feel pain. It feels like “my” body.

I don't want a discourse about the body : do you see that what is said above is far away from direct experience (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching or sensations)?
Now, look at the objects then look at the body and return to the question of the last post.
Please be 100 % sure of the answer. Don't go to thoughts.

Does a body need a name, a label to be?

No.

It is life expressing as the body. It does not need the label "my body" or "this is me" to be : do you see clearly this truth?
Look at babies, how they live without a concept.

Is there you, a separate self among the objects seen in the room?

No, if there is a separate self, it is not a physical object.

Do you see once again that your answer is not given through direct experience?
I want an answer like this : a big YES or a big NO.

Here is an exercise which will help to familiarize more with direct experience :

Have a look at an apple or another fruit at the hand.
When looking at an apple, there's colour; a thought saying ‘apple’; and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."
What is known for sure? Colour is known and thoughts are known.

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?
Actual experience does not refer to thoughts ABOUT something…because that is only just more thought. Actual experience is sound, thought, colour, smell, taste, sensation.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?
Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in actual experience.

This is what is meant by ‘looking in actual experience ‘. What you know for sure, and, is always here.

Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known
However, is an apple actually known?

Thank you for this continuing dialog.

You are much welcome

[aloracalorac]

I don't want a discourse about the body: do you see that what is said above is far away from direct experience (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching or sensations)?
Now, look at the objects then look at the body and return to the question of the last post.
Please be 100 % sure of the answer. Don't go to thoughts.

Yes. You are right. I see that what I said was far away from direct experience. Let me try again.

Let me know about the arisings when the focus is on the object and the arisings when the focus is on the body.
Is there a difference between the object and the body?

In terms of seeing, hearing, smelling, taste, and touch, there is no difference. But also arising when the focus is on the body is an emotional experience: an undefinable sense of familiarity and identity.

Is there you, a separate self among the objects seen in the room?
Do you see once again that your answer is not given through direct experience?
I want an answer like this : a big YES or a big NO.

NO.

Is there really an 'apple' here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT 'apple'?
Can 'apple' be found in actual experience?

NO.

However, is an apple actually known?

NO.

[warissem]

Good evening

Thanks for your answers. I invite you to ponder on these :

Can you find the "one" who is experiencing questions and answers, or is it only the experience unfolding by itself?

When you look at your thoughts, are they separate from the experience of looking, or are they part of it?

Is there a boundary between the "object" you see and the experience of seeing it? What is actually "out there"?

Does the idea of "ownership" (i.e., "my body" or "my thoughts") have any real basis in direct experience?

Waiting for your insights

Nour

[aloracalorac]

Can you find the "one" who is experiencing questions and answers, or is it only the experience unfolding by itself?

I cannot find the “one” who is experiencing questions and answers, but there seems to be one.

When you look at your thoughts, are they separate from the experience of looking, or are they part of it?

I don’t understand this question. Thoughts seem to arise and disappear spontaneously. Thoughts sound like an inner voice: my voice talking to me. Sometimes, I subvocalize my thoughts, and sometimes I speak them aloud. When I consciously attend to them, they seem lighter and less significant.

Is there a boundary between the "object" you see and the experience of seeing it?

I cannot know for sure, but there appears to be a boundary: My computer screen is out there and the experience is in here.

What is actually "out there"?

I have often pondered this question. There definitely appears to be an “out there.” But in my direct experience, there is only my direct experience. I cannot fathom living without the belief in some external reality, but suspect that such external reality is far different from my perception of it because my perception is limited by the sensitivity of my five senses and distorted by my conditioning.

Does the idea of "ownership" (i.e., "my body" or "my thoughts") have any real basis in direct experience?

Yes, an undefinable sense of familiarity and identity.

[warissem]

Good morning

I cannot find the “one” who is experiencing questions and answers, but there seems to be one.

What do you think is experiencing them?

When you look at your thoughts, are they separate from the experience of looking, or are they part of it?

I don’t understand this question.

The question is clear : are thoughts separate from the knowing (noticing) of them?

Thoughts seem to arise and disappear spontaneously. Thoughts sound like an inner voice: my voice talking to me. Sometimes, I subvocalize my thoughts, and sometimes I speak them aloud. When I consciously attend to them, they seem lighter and less significant.

You have to look at thoughts for a second time, go back to the exercise about thoughts given in a previous post, do it again and be 100% sure of the answers. Using "It seems" and "it sounds" is an indicator that what is said is not SEEN.

Is there a boundary between the "object" you see and the experience of seeing it?

I cannot know for sure, but there appears to be a boundary: My computer screen is out there and the experience is in here.

During our dialog, give answers when there is SEEING of the answer without any doubt. Always refer to Direct experience (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching/sensations).
Now again is there a line separating the computer and the seeing of it?
Is there a separation between a sound and a hearing of it?

What is actually "out there"?

I have often pondered this question. There definitely appears to be an “out there.” But in my direct experience, there is only my direct experience.

You said "it appears to be an out there" : this infers that there is an "in here", doesn't it? Where is the line separating "out there" from "in here"?

Yes, there is only experience but it is not YOUR experience. There is no you at the first place, there never was a you to whom experience happens. LOOK AT the experience and SEE (for sure) what is going on : seeing colors and shapes, hearing sounds, voices, smelling, tasting, feeling sensations, thinking. Outside of this immediate experience there are only thoughts and imagination about other places, other cities, a world, a universe, a date of birth, a name, a country, a tongue, a culture, a gender, a story, etc ...All what is behind the mountain (all what is not seen now) is pure imagination.

I cannot fathom living without the belief in some external reality, but suspect that such external reality is far different from my perception of it because my perception is limited by the sensitivity of my five senses and distorted by my conditioning.

It is a good knowledge but it does not help to go through the illusion of a separate self.

Does the idea of "ownership" (i.e., "my body" or "my thoughts") have any real basis in direct experience?

Yes, an undefinable sense of familiarity and identity.

Look at your answer : is it given through direct experience?

Direct experience, once again, is to look at what is HERE NOW without adding on it, stories and thoughts. As I said in the beginning of our dialog, thoughts are used only to communicate. Go back to the question and LOOK AT the pointers. Is it YOUR body, YOUR thoughts. In direct experience you SEE a body (colors and shapes), do you SEE to WHOM it belongs, this YOU, this I? When you were a baby, was the little body belonging to your mother when she says "MY baby"? Then when the body grew up, it changed its ownership. Can you see an I, a ME owning thoughts, owning a body, a car, a house, ...?
I don't want stories but answers given through direct experience. LOOK till the truth answer is seen without any doubt.

Best for you

[aloracalorac]

I cannot find the “one” who is experiencing questions and answers, but there seems to be one.
What do you think is experiencing them?

I think that I am experiencing them, not you, and not my uncle. But I cannot find that “I” in direct experience.

When you look at your thoughts, are they separate from the experience of looking, or are they part of it?
I don’t understand this question.
The question is clear: are thoughts separate from the knowing (noticing) of them?

No.

During our dialog, give answers when there is SEEING of the answer without any doubt.

How shall I answer when there is doubt? Do you prefer that I not answer, or that I communicate my doubt by saying “It seems that,” or perhaps “I don’t know?”

Always refer to Direct experience (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching/sensations).

What about body sensations? Emotions? Are they not also direct experience?

Now again is there a line separating the computer and the seeing of it?

No.

Is there a separation between a sound and a hearing of it?

No.

You said "it appears to be an out there": this infers that there is an "in here", doesn't it? Where is the line separating "out there" from "in here"?

There is no line.

Does the idea of "ownership" (i.e., "my body" or "my thoughts") have any real basis in direct experience?
Yes, an undefinable sense of familiarity and identity.
Look at your answer: is it given through direct experience?

Only if body sensations are included as direct experience.

LOOK till the truth answer is seen without any doubt.

I will continue looking.

Can you see an I, a ME owning thoughts, owning a body, a car, a house, ...?

No.

Thank you for this continuing dialog.

[warissem]

Good morning

I think that I am experiencing them, not you, and not my uncle.

Look at direct experience as it is presented in previous posts (seing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching or sensations).
Now let me know where is "I", you, me, uncle in direct experience. See definitively that concepts are only concepts and what is here is direct experience. Anyway, there is no you, no me, no your uncle to experience things. Do you see that things are just happening as you have seen that thoughts are just happening? No thinker, no doer?

When I ask a question, please follow it and look at what is pointing to then see the truth of the answer. Example : I am smiling, is it true? Is there a me, someone,an entity, a self doing the smiling? Or is it just happening?

But I cannot find that “I” in direct experience.

Yes, we cannot find something which does not exist. When I ask to take a photo of a unicorn, you won't make a try because you know for sure it does not exist. The same goes for I, me, you, ...

During our dialog, give answers when there is SEEING of the answer without any doubt.

How shall I answer when there is doubt? Do you prefer that I not answer, or that I communicate my doubt by saying “It seems that,” or perhaps “I don’t know?”

When it is really SEEN there will be no doubt. Have you a doubt about the screen in front of you. When I ask a question, I don't wait an answer from an accumulated knowledge (philosophy, spirituality, science, logic or whatever), I am waiting answers given through direct experience : seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching or sensations. It is so simple.
When you don't know (you don't have the knowledge of something) it is a good start to begin to LOOK AT direct experience and discover, investigate, inquire for yourself instead of BELIEVING what others have said. The clue in this inquiry is to confront beliefs with what is here now in direct experience. I don't deny the utility of concepts, thoughts, knowledge in day to day life, it is helpful but during our dialog, please rely only on direct experience to see through the illusion of a separate self.

Always refer to Direct experience (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching/sensations).

What about body sensations? Emotions? Are they not also direct experience?

Yes. They are also feelings (= thought + body sensation) and emotions (= thought + energy in motion)

Can you see an I, a ME owning thoughts, owning a body, a car, a house, ...?

No.
How does it feel to see that there is no you as an owner?

Thank you for this continuing dialog.

You are much welcome.

[aloracalorac]

Do you see that things are just happening as you have seen that thoughts are just happening? No thinker, no doer?

No. I see that thoughts are just happening. I do not see that there is no doer. I cannot find an I in direct experience, but I do not see that there is no I. How can I see the absence of something? How can I see that there is no unicorn?
Even worse, the unicorn, if it exists, would be a physical object apparent to the senses, whereas the I, if it exists, is not a physical object and could not be found by direct experience. A better example is angels. If I were brought up and conditioned to believe in angels, how could I see through the illusion that angels are real?

How does it feel to see that there is no you as an owner?
It feels fine to know that ownership only exists in thoughts and agreements. I see that there is no I as owner. I do not see that there is no I.

[warissem]

Good evening

Thanks for the honesty in your answers.

In direct experience you don't see "I". Good. It is a thought and it is seen as a thought. Look at what is here now with eyes open :

- there is seeing
- there is hearing
- there is smelling
- there is tasting
- there is feeling sensations
- there is thinking
- there is knowing (being aware) of the experience and this knowing is not separate from the experience.

So simple.

Do you agree with what is said above?

Is there more to this experience (what is listed above) ?

Is there a you in the experience outside of thoughts?

Do you see that everything happens without an actor, without a subject? Raining, snowing, thinking; speaking, seeing, hearing, moving.

here is an exercise, I wish it will help :
1. Hold a hand in front of you; palm turned down.
2. Now turn the palm up. And down...and up and so on.

Watch like a hawk.

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

How is the movement controlled?
Does a thought control it?
Can a ‘controller’ of any description 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 and the hand turns over immediately.
Who or what chose which hand - the left or right hand for the exercise?
Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?

Nour

[aloracalorac]

Do you agree with what is said above?

Yes

Is there more to this experience (what is listed above)?

No

Is there a you in the experience outside of thoughts?

Cannot find one.

Do you see that everything happens without an actor, without a subject? Raining, snowing, thinking; speaking, seeing, hearing, moving

Raining-yes. Snowing-yes. Thinking-yes. Speaking-no. Seeing-yes. Hearing-yes. Moving-no.

How is the movement controlled?

Don’t know

Does a thought control it?

No.

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

No

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 and the hand turns over immediately.

Sometimes, I have the thought to turn the hand over, but I know that the thought did not make the decision. Also, I didn’t choose the thought

Who or what chose which hand - the left or right hand for the exercise?

Don’t know. Cannot find a chooser.

Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?

No.

Three points:
First, my delay in responding was caused by loss of internet, which was caused by a storm (if you believe in causation).
Second, I will repeat the hand-turning exercise several more times and watch closely.
Third, I would like to see that "I," the separate self, doesn't exist. All I know now is that it hasn't been found.

[warissem]

Good morning

You have done good observations about the exercise.
Now, after this exercise, have you seen that there is no doer?

You agreed for some functioning happening without you, without an actor but you said NO for speaking and moving.
Speaking : say "I" loudly and look if there is someone saying it?
is there a you, someone choosing the words to be said?
Do you choose thoughts?

Moving : you have done the exercise about moving the hands. Is there still moving done by someone, a you?

First, my delay in responding was caused by loss of internet, which was caused by a storm (if you believe in causation).

No worry about this. This happens here sometimes.

Second, I will repeat the hand-turning exercise several more times and watch closely.

Yes, great.

Third, I would like to see that "I," the separate self, doesn't exist. All I know now is that it hasn't been found.

Yes, the separate self cannot be found in direct experience. OK.
Do you agree with this statement ? All that is not here now in direct experience exist only as thoughts.
When you are at home in front of the screen, you cannot see that I (Nour) exist, it exists only as imagination, a thought story. Yes? Is it not the same with you, a separate self : does it exist outside of thoughts?

Here is another investigation of thoughts, I wish it will help :

1. Can you find an inherent self anywhere, outside of thought?

2. Can thought experience thought? Can thought experience anything? (Thought is so very overrated - by thought).

3. Does thought make any contact with other kinds of sense experience, such as sounds or sensations – or are they totally separate from each other?

4. For a moment take note of exactly what is being experienced in this moment: 
Notice all sound, all sensation, all smell, all taste, all colour.
Notice how you're making absolutely no effort to be aware of them.
And notice that you're not making them happen.
You're not conducting the orchestra of experience that you're aware of.
And notice that thought is exactly the same as the rest of experience.
You're effortlessly aware of it, but you're not orchestrating it. You're not even orchestrating the thoughts which say that you're able to orchestrate thoughts.

5. The story of "me’ can seem to have continuity. Is it really continuous? Or are there simply isolated thoughts that never can truly touch each other, some of them claiming that there's one continuous story?

6. When we look very closely and precisely we come to see that “me” thoughts only refer to other “me” thoughts, not to an actual abiding “me.” Observe thoughts with precision; can you ever find a ‘me’ within the “me” thoughts and feelings, or just a sense of me?

Best for you

[aloracalorac]

1. Can you find an inherent self anywhere, outside of thought?

Yes. If I close my eyes, relax, and get into a meditative state, I can sometimes ignore my thoughts, but I still exist. I exist between my thoughts. That sense of self is not mediated by any of the five senses nor by thought, but it exists.

2. Can thought experience thought? Can thought experience anything? (Thought is so very overrated - by thought).

No. No.

3. Does thought make any contact with other kinds of sense experience, such as sounds or sensations - or are they totally separate from each other?

Thoughts cannot make any contact with anything, except that I often believe my thoughts and seem to act on them. I say "seem to" because I know intellectually that the impulse to act precedes the thought.

4. For a moment take note of exactly what is being experienced in this moment: ?Notice all sound, all sensation, all smell, all taste, all colour.?Notice how you're making absolutely no effort to be aware of them.?And notice that you're not making them happen.?You're not conducting the orchestra of experience that you're aware of.?And notice that thought is exactly the same as the rest of experience.?You're effortlessly aware of it, but you're not orchestrating it. You're not even orchestrating the thoughts which say that you're able to orchestrate thoughts.

Yes. Quite true.

5. The story of "me' can seem to have continuity. Is it really continuous? Or are there simply isolated thoughts that never can truly touch each other, some of them claiming that there's one continuous story?

I don't know. All I can ever experience is the present, but the present contains memories of the past. When I consider the past, there seems to be a continuous me. My experiences change and my body changes, but I seem to be the same me as I've always been.

6. When we look very closely and precisely we come to see that "me" thoughts only refer to other "me" thoughts, not to an actual abiding "me." Observe thoughts with precision; can you ever find a 'me' within the "me" thoughts and feelings, or just a sense of me?

The sense of me does not seem to be a thought. If I close my eyes, relax, and get into a meditative state, I can sometimes ignore my thoughts, but I still exist. I exist between my thoughts. That sense of self is not mediated by any of the five senses nor by thought, but it exists.

I may be wrong, but I think the key questions for me are:
0. The sense of sense clear exists, but does that self which is sensed exist? If so,
1.What is the nature of that self?
2. Can it do anything?
3. Can it make choices?
4. To what extent is it "separate?"
I had hoped that the hand exercise would answer Questions 2 and 3.

Thanks again for this continued dialog.

[warissem]

Good morning

You have missed this part of the previous post :

You have done good observations about the exercise.
Now, after this exercise, have you seen that there is no doer?

You agreed for some functioning happening without you, without an actor but you said NO for speaking and moving.
Speaking : say "I" loudly and look if there is someone saying it?
is there a you, someone choosing the words to be said?
Do you choose thoughts?

Moving : you have done the exercise about moving the hands. Is there still moving done by someone, a you?

Here are my commentaries and questions about your answers :

Yes. If I close my eyes, relax, and get into a meditative state, I can sometimes ignore my thoughts, but I still exist. I exist between my thoughts. That sense of self is not mediated by any of the five senses nor by thought, but it exists.

I hear you. There is awareness (being aware) but it is not you as you think yourself to be, a separate self.

Thoughts cannot make any contact with anything, except that I often believe my thoughts and seem to act on them.

What is this “I” believing thoughts? Can a thought believe another thought?
You have done the exercise about thoughts : do thoughts belong to you ?
Go back to the hand exercise and SEE if thoughts are really a trigger for actions.

I don't know. All I can ever experience is the present, but the present contains memories of the past.

See definitively that there is no you to experience anything, there is just experiencing happening.

When I consider the past, there seems to be a continuous me. My experiences change and my body changes, but I seem to be the same me as I've always been.

You are speaking about a “me” which does not change : does this “me” exist in direct experience?
That which does not change is not in the past nor in the future : it is only here now and it is not you. Do you see that past and future are only in thoughts (memories and expectations) ?
Does being aware need a me, a you, an I, a story ?

I may be wrong, but I think the key questions for me are:
0. The sense of sense clear exists, but does that self which is sensed exist? If so,
1.What is the nature of that self?
2. Can it do anything?
3. Can it make choices?
4. To what extent is it "separate?"
I had hoped that the hand exercise would answer Questions 2 and 3.

These are good questions to LOOK AT. I am waiting the answers for them.

Thanks again for this continued dialog

You are much welcome and take your time to ponder on the questions.

I wish you the best