The Gate

Hi Chris,

These last two exercises are well beyond the investigation of seeing no-self. It belongs to further looking. So it’s not essential to see them clearly.

But, there is something important we have to talk about.

It seems that you believe that separation and non-separation is about what you see in the visual field. It seems that by non-separation you believe that somehow the objects in the world becomes one big mash-up. As if you believe that in the visual filed there won’t be any more distinguishable objects, like chair, table, body, cat, spoon.

But if you think that this is about separation or non-separation, then you are missing the point.
Since non-separation is NOT about what you see in the visual field. It has NOTHING to do with it.

So I have to divert our inquiry back to the important things.

Non-separation is not about the number of objects you can identify.
There will always be thousands of object you can identify: a cat, the body, other bodies, tables, chairs, thoughts, sensations.

Separation is NOT about the AMOUNT of OBJECTS.
It’s not about having a different vision where there are no many objects seen, rather just one single mash-up color.
Separation is between SUBJECT (singular) and OBJECTS (plural).
So it’s not about how many objects are there. Object will always be plural.
Rather it’s about a subject-object split.

And the subject is always one, and it’s always the same thing, it’s ME or I.

So the separation is not between objects, it’s not between the body and other bodies, or the body and the chair. These are all objects.

Rather separation is between ME (subject) and NOT-ME (objects).
So non-separation is not realized by not seeing many objects in the visual field. Not at all.
It’s about seeing that although there are millions of different objects (including the body), but there is ZERO subject.

So the separation of the subject-object split arise like these:

I (subject) aware or know the world (object)
I (subject) am experiencing the experience (object).
I (subject) am experiencing what is happening (object).
I am (subject) the experiencer, and I am experiencing everything that is not-me (objects).
I (subject) am thinking thoughts (objects).
I (subject) see with my eyes the word out there (objects). I (subject) see everything that is not-I (objects).
I (subject) feel the body (object).
I (subject) see my hands (objects).
I am (subject) inside, and everything else that is not me (objects) are outside.

Please read this comment several times and let it really sink in.

Can you see that your idea about separation is not what it actually is?

Which ones of the above examples of subject-object split feel to be true?

Vivien

Non-separation is not about the number of objects you can identify.
There will always be thousands of object you can identify: a cat, the body, other bodies, tables, chairs, thoughts, sensations.

Never considered thoughts or sensations as objects before.

Can you see that your idea about separation is not what it actually is?

Sure. Without a subject, "me", how could there be a split. I guess I was just expecting everything to suddenly snap into some kind of perceivable unity field somehow. Or just expected something to change in the way things are seen.

Which ones of the above examples of subject-object split feel to be true?

"I (subject) see with my eyes the word out there (objects). I (subject) see everything that is not-I (objects)."

This statement is the closest to what I was trying to express. Although, if all we're saying is that without "me" how could there be "not me" then that makes sense.

Everything that's been looked at seems like it's understood (except the last 2 exercises). No separate manager anywhere running things that can be found. "Seeing with my eyes" is understood to be assumed as the visual field of "colors" is experienced directly with no findable separate "seer" receiving or watching the image. Thoughts are automatic and are known instantly and then gone the next moment. Thought content is all conceptual. Most of current experience is overlayed with this conceptualization that comes from referring to past experience/conditioning. Body sensations are felt as one sensation regardless of what the description is. Looking at this closer, "sensation" is a concept/label as well as the words we use for any and all experience (including the word experience). Actions and decisions don't need a separate entity to explain them. Although "the brain thinking" is assumed as you never directly experience the brain...it makes sense that it wouldn't need any help doing it's job thinking and putting things together...firing synapses and whatnot. But all that is experienced directly are the thoughts themselves so the brain thing is a conceptual way to understand.

In short, all of this is happening. No required "doership" or "experiencer".

Don't know what to expect from "seeing clearly". How do you "see" something that isn't there? So I keep looking to see what IS there throughout the day like a newborn would. Just the rawness of experience. Mind conceptualizes and labels LOUDLY. Maybe there's a subtle shift that'll deepen. Maybe right now it's only understood logically. I'm really not sure lol. (who's to be sure?) . There's not an expectation that I'm supposed to be seeing like a baby. Or like Neo. Or like I'm on acid or something.

Whatever it takes to find something true.

Hi Chris,

Never considered thoughts or sensations as objects before.

Not as physical, tangible objects, but objects being known.
Everything that is not the subject (knower), is object (known).

Sure. Without a subject, "me", how could there be a split. I guess I was just expecting everything to suddenly snap into some kind of perceivable unity field somehow. Or just expected something to change in the way things are seen.

But what does the visual field have to do with the notion of a self? Just because the self is seen to be an illusion, why should the visuals change?

No self means points to the actuality of everything being a happening, not a doing, that life is flowing freely, without you (subject) as a manager.

So please investigate this above sentence.

Is it utterly clear without any doubt that everything is a happening and not a doing?

Is it clear without doubt that life is flowing freely, without a manager / doer / I / self / Chris / subject?

Is it clear that the words doer, I, me, Chris, subject, thinker, decider, feeler, knower, experiencer, perceiver, watcher, observer – these all point to the same illusion?

Don't know what to expect from "seeing clearly". How do you "see" something that isn't there? So I keep looking to see what IS there throughout the day like a newborn would.

Exactly.

Or rather you expect to see a no-self, or no-me?

Isn’t the realization come from seeing what IS here now, and what is just a thought-fluff?

Maybe there's a subtle shift that'll deepen.

What kind of shift do you expect to happen? - ponder on this deeply

Hasn't there already been a shift from believing in a separate self to seeing that the self is just a concept, not a reality?

Or would you say that nothing has happened since the beginning of our conversation?

How does it FEEL to see that the separate self you believed yourself to be is not a reality?

Vivien

But what does the visual field have to do with the notion of a self? Just because the self is seen to be an illusion, why should the visuals change?

I see this. I was saying that before understanding separation is about the illusion of "me" and "not me" the idea was that somehow things would look different somehow.

Is it utterly clear without any doubt that everything is a happening and not a doing?

Yes. Nothing separate is present managing life.

Is it clear without doubt that life is flowing freely, without a manager / doer / I / self / Chris / subject?

Yes it's clear it's all just "life" doing what life does. There is witnessing but no witness.

Is it clear that the words doer, I, me, Chris, subject, thinker, decider, feeler, knower, experiencer, perceiver, watcher, observer – these all point to the same illusion?

Yes. They point to something that is assumed to be separate from what is happening. Not sure when this became clear even. One day we were carrying on with this convo and it's like it was already understood.

Or rather you expect to see a no-self, or no-me?

Lol no. Maybe there was an expectation of feeling like something was missing or gone...but it just seems very...natural. No big explosion.

Isn’t the realization come from seeing what IS here now, and what is just a thought-fluff?

Yes. It's so obvious that it's overthought. It's a crazy statement to hear initially until you look and it's like, "oh, this is it". Meaning like looking around and seeing that everything IS everything...nothing hiding pulling the strings.

What kind of shift do you expect to happen? - ponder on this deeply

Clarity I suppose. But what I actually meant was "maybe there's BEEN a subtle shift that'll deepen." As you said, it's a first step. I've spent some time talking over this with my wife here and there and found there has been some clarity that has shined through it other areas of life because of this inquiry. However, it's just noticed now after the fact that there are and have been stories being told and believed.

Hasn't there already been a shift from believing in a separate self to seeing that the self is just a concept, not a reality?

Yes. And like I said that movement from belief to seeing through was almost imperceptible. Not sure when that happened. Piece by piece I guess. You take out enough of the "belief pillars" then there's nothing left to hold it up.

Or would you say that nothing has happened since the beginning of our conversation?

No ma'am. You have definitely made some essential things clear. Enough to notice that whenever I'm talking about "myself" that it's seen that it's all thought stuff.

How does it FEEL to see that the separate self you believed yourself to be is not a reality?

Honestly? Underwhelming LOL. No halo. But so helpful. I've been on this forum for the better part of a year. Just not getting it. Frustrated through some of it. It's really granted some clarity about the work done in recovery and what actually happened there. I think that work is probably what made this a "soft pop" as the LU book puts it. I'd be interested in helping others through this. Think doing so would probably deepen the understanding and maybe I could offer a helpful perspective.

I notice that reactions like frustration are more observed now. Things that used to feel definitive or sticky aren't hanging around as long. Beliefs are the roots of reactions and perspective. That was something you said that really snapped things into perspective.

What an experience this has been. Can't tell how much I appreciate your time and help Vivien. Thank you so much.

Hi Chris,

What an experience this has been. Can't tell how much I appreciate your time and help Vivien. Thank you so much.

You are welcome :)

I’m going to be honest with you. Somehow your replies don’t add up. It seems to me that something is off. That the seeing is not complete.

There is witnessing but no witness.

And how witnessing is experienced?
Is this witnessing something different than experience itself?

Yes. They point to something that is assumed to be separate from what is happening. Not sure when this became clear even. One day we were carrying on with this convo and it's like it was already understood.

Understood? Or it’s clearly seen (as clearly as you can see the sky if you look up), that there is no I, me, Chris, self, watcher, observer, perceiver, etc.?

What is the difference between understanding and clearly seeing it to be the fact of reality?

Yesterday, I asked this:

V: Which ones of the above examples of subject-object split feel to be true?

C: "I (subject) see with my eyes the word out there (objects). I (subject) see everything that is not-I (objects)."

Let’s look into this.
Look at whatever is in front of you.

How is it known that the eyes see?
Focus on the sensation labelled ‘eyes’. Is this sensation doing the seeing?
What is actually known right now about eyes, except thought about them?

Can you find anything behind the eyes that is seeing?
Is there anything that is seeing?

Now zoom back in and try to find the act of seeing. Is there an actual act of seeing going on, or is there just what’s seen (color)?

Can the act of seeing be experienced at all?
Or only color can be experienced?

Vivien

I’m going to be honest with you. Somehow your replies don’t add up. It seems to me that something is off. That the seeing is not complete.

Thank you. This is why I asked you personally.

And how witnessing is experienced?
Is this witnessing something different than experience itself?

No I suppose witnessing would imply that there is something separate.

Understood? Or it’s clearly seen (as clearly as you can see the sky if you look up), that there is no I, me, Chris, self, watcher, observer, perceiver, etc.?

No it isn' clear like that. Not yet.

Got to actually sit and be silent today. Weeks go by where every single day is jam packed with chainsaws and heavy machinery every work day in the heat then home with a 3 year old toddler who is an animal and does not stop till she drops. I'm not complaining there is so much to be grateful for but it is exhausting and lends no time whatever for being able to sit and reflect. It is just constant running and problem solving and entertaining. Trying to focus on this during these days is often during lunch at work or late at night when everyone goes to bed and my head is nodding. Last nights message to you was like this.

Thoughts. Thinking. Relying on thinking. Sitting quietly for the first time in God knows how long showed how thoughts are still being relied on. There's no problem in "understanding" what's being pointed at with sense perceptions. But this constant thinking still feels like "me". It sounds like "me". It gives the impression that "I" am trying to figure this out. Like effort in thinking is being employed. All of it. Sitting today and just looking at what is here. So much thinking just rudely jams in and is believed probably 90% of the time. There is a thought that comes and goes that says, "it's not you". Or there's thoughts about ignoring thoughts. It was noticed again thoughts being the focus. Thoughts trying to fit reality into concepts. This is the issue.

Right now I don't have as much time as I wish to sit. More to do. People waiting.

I'll tell you, I read all of the questions regarding sight and seeing and eyes. All of that isn't a confusion. It's just direct color that is seen.

If you'd like me to go through and answer them anyway, I'll do that tomorrow. I'm supposed to have a whole day alone.

Thoughts are the issue here though...and no rest lol.

Got a little more time here.

What is the difference between understanding and clearly seeing it to be the fact of reality?

Understanding implies thinking.

How is it known that the eyes see?

It's learned early. Accepted as the story of explanation for what is seen since childhood.

Focus on the sensation labelled ‘eyes’. Is this sensation doing the seeing?

No. There is a sensation present and there is what is seen present. (colors)

What is actually known right now about eyes, except thought about them?

Absolutely nothing. There are sensations labeled as eyes in thought and the story about how eyes work but nothing in direct experience has anything to do with "eyes".

Can you find anything behind the eyes that is seeing?

Nothing found behind the eyes. Only sensations labeled "head" in thoughts.

Is there anything that is seeing?

Nothing there apparently "doing" seeing or "receiving" sights or colors.

Now zoom back in and try to find the act of seeing. Is there an actual act of seeing going on, or is there just what’s seen (color)?

No apparent "act" of seeing. Just the immediacy of colors present. Nothing to be found splitting what is seen into "seeing and seen" or "seer and seen".

Can the act of seeing be experienced at all?

No. Only a boundary-less image of color.

Or only color can be experienced?

just color is seen.

Hi Chris,

V: And how witnessing is experienced?
Is this witnessing something different than experience itself?

C: No I suppose witnessing would imply that there is something separate.

Have you actually looked with these questions, our you just wrote down your thoughts about it?

V: What is the difference between understanding and clearly seeing it to be the fact of reality?
C: Understanding implies thinking.

I ask what is the difference between understanding and seeing. But you only talked about understanding, but you didn’t say anything about seeing. So what is seeing then?

V: How is it known that the eyes see?

C: It's learned early. Accepted as the story of explanation for what is seen since childhood

Are you sure that you are investigating experience and not just writing what you THINK ABOUT the questions?

I'll tell you, I read all of the questions regarding sight and seeing and eyes. All of that isn't a confusion. It's just direct color that is seen.

So if there is no confusion, then how come that there is a confusion with "I (subject) see with my eyes the word out there (objects). I (subject) see everything that is not-I (objects)."?

Is it possible that when sit and do nothing but look, then it’s clear? But as soon as your ‘session’ is over, everything goes back to ‘normal’, but with conclusion that I understand now all of this. So what’s next? And you don’t really look at it again, since you ALREADY KNOW how it is

There's no problem in "understanding" what's being pointed at with sense perceptions.

That’s the problem. We are not aiming for understanding. We are aiming for seeing. And maybe you are not clear the difference between the two.

But this constant thinking still feels like "me". It sounds like "me". It gives the impression that "I" am trying to figure this out. Like effort in thinking is being employed.

This is very you have to focus.

I understand that you have a busy life, but unfortunately, it’s not enough to look when sitting in silence, undisturbed. That way you can have glimpses, but what is seen is mainly remain on the intellectual understanding level.

You have to incorporate looking into your busy life. Looking is not just when you sit for 10-30 minutes. Looking can happen in any moment. Just as you have thoughts in any moment, looking can happen any moment as well. Even if it’s just 10 seconds, you have to look 50-100 times a day, again and again.

Just with the above seeing exercise. It’s not enough to do it once or twice or even ten times, and then conclude that it’s clear, and then go on. Seeing is not a one-time event. It’s a repeated looking and seeing again and again and again. Thousands of times. If you want this to sink in deeper you have to incorporate looking into your everyday life.
There is plenty of opportunity to do that: when walking, eating, preparing food, clearing up, doing the dishes, washing your hands, having a shower, brushing your teeth, going up a staircase, opening a door, closing a door, sitting down, standing up, dressing up, etc.

If you don’t see something in this very moment, then that understanding is purely intellectual in that moment, it’s just a belief, and not an experience. We cannot rely on memories of looking. Seeing can happen only here now.

Vivien

Have you actually looked with these questions, our you just wrote down your thoughts about it?

You're right. I apologize. There was some discouragement. The last couple days. Thank you for not letting me slack.

The question was, "how is witnessing experienced?" and is "witnessing something different from experience itself?"

Mostly, the word "witnessing" is interpreted as things happening in the visual. Watching the city hustle and bustle when driving is an example. Maybe watching wildlife. Weather. In a broader interpretation, being aware of major events in the world like witnessing the global and local reactions to the current pandemic.

Using that word and interpretation implies a "me" and then "everything else".

But looking into "experience" has come to find the usual interpretation of an experiencer boundary hazy during times of looking. The last time you asked me questions about the visual field,

Is there anything that is seeing?

Now zoom back in and try to find the act of seeing. Is there an actual act of seeing going on, or is there just what’s seen (color)?

Can the act of seeing be experienced at all?
Or only color can be experienced?

there was some sharp focus. Especially with the "zoom back in and find the ACT of seeing" question.

An ACT of seeing would put space between some seer and what is seen. But what is seen is um, direct. The colors are just known. "Direct" doesn't seem like an appropriate word. More direct than direct. Saturated. Smushed. Or rather, just color.

So "witnessing" and experience of color is no different.

I ask what is the difference between understanding and seeing. But you only talked about understanding, but you didn’t say anything about seeing. So what is seeing then?

Understanding is about thinking. Seeing is the self-evident experience. Seeing negates the need for any logical figuring or defining with words.

V: How is it known that the eyes see?
C: It's learned early. Accepted as the story of explanation for what is seen since childhood

V: Are you sure that you are investigating experience and not just writing what you THINK ABOUT the questions?

Thanks again, I was doing this.

It isn't known. Not "known" in the sense that the experience of colors is "known". Not "known" directly. The story and mechanics about eyes and how they work is established in thoughts from elementary school and on.

So if there is no confusion, then how come that there is a confusion with "I (subject) see with my eyes the word out there (objects). I (subject) see everything that is not-I (objects)."?

There was frustration that day. Wasn't actually looking and was relying on "understanding" based on prior looking.

Is it possible that when sit and do nothing but look, then it’s clear? But as soon as your ‘session’ is over, everything goes back to ‘normal’, but with conclusion that I understand now all of this. So what’s next? And you don’t really look at it again, since you ALREADY KNOW how it is

There are definitely times like this. Looking like we do at the individual perceptions and finding no separate self there is seen sometimes but hasn't been seen cohesively yet. It's always in piecemeal and so far, glimpses. Focus is usually on one aspect and after this seeing, you're right, it's like "ok, moving along now". You're spot on. It was thought because of seeing that, that now it's always "understood."

There is plenty of opportunity to do that: when walking, eating, preparing food, clearing up, doing the dishes, washing your hands, having a shower, brushing your teeth, going up a staircase, opening a door, closing a door, sitting down, standing up, dressing up, etc.

There are daily opportunities that get taken to do this. When I said in previous sessions that I stayed with questions you posed all day and looked several times, I really do that. Most of the time it's in regards to whatever is currently being looked at in our conversation and not always things that were thought to have now been "seen". Not much re-looking, Like they were lesson learned and pretty much cemented.

But you are absolutely right. Even on busy days, there are opportunities for this. No excuses. Look don't think.

And in regards to "look don't think",

Was looking at sensations. The experience or knowing of sensation is only definable by words, i.e. thoughts. Or rather "experience" can't actually be defined or named. Doing so is like creating a "step back" from the actual experience and making it a "thing" (but not really, only conceptually).

This has been being looked at in every respect lately.

Looking at the experience of thoughts. The "experience" of thoughts is also this way. Calling them "thoughts" makes them seem real. Like things. The content of these non-things are the only things that describe anything. Things=Thinks as your Alan Watts picture said.

Seems like any word or description is what causes confusion about one experience. So breaking up what we've simplified best we can using language (concepts) i.e. color, sensation, thoughts...is only separated by "thinks".

Still looking into this. Not quite clear.

Hi Chris,

Understanding is about thinking. Seeing is the self-evident experience. Seeing negates the need for any logical figuring or defining with words.

Yes.

There was frustration that day. Wasn't actually looking and was relying on "understanding" based on prior looking.

Frustration is part of the process. It happens to almost everybody.

With looking, you always have to look afresh and never rely on memory of previous looking. Why? Because if you rely on the memory of a previous looking in a form of a thought: “I know there is no self” without actually looking afresh for a self, then in that moment the no-self is just a belief. So every time it seems like or feels like as if there were a self, but you just remind yourself with the thought “there is no self”, then you just covering up one belief (the seemingly perceived self) with another belief (there is no self).

It’s the constant are repeated looking and looking and looking and more looking and seeing the same thing again and again that brings about the realization.

So every time I ask a question, you always have to look afresh, to see it again and again what is being pointed it. Can we agree on this?

It's always in piecemeal and so far, glimpses. Focus is usually on one aspect and after this seeing, you're right, it's like "ok, moving along now". You're spot on. It was thought because of seeing that, that now it's always "understood."

But understanding is not equal to seeing it in this very moment.
When something is just understood, that is just a belief in this moment, not an experience.

Reality (what IS) doesn’t require any understanding, since it’s directly available here now.
Understanding is not here now, since understanding is just the content of a thought, which is only the experience of a thought, but not understanding.
Can you see this?

Knowing what is here now, doesn’t require any thought based information. Is this clear?

Most of the time it's in regards to whatever is currently being looked at in our conversation and not always things that were thought to have now been "seen". Not much re-looking, Like they were lesson learned and pretty much cemented.

This is important. This is not a lesson to be learned. This is something to SEE in your everyday life. And in order for this to be an everyday experience (seeing no self), you have to look again and again. Looking is not a one-time event. It’s all about the repetition. In order to have a shift in perception, looking has to go on.

So, I would like to ask you to look for an experiencer in the midst of the business of life. Notice, whenever it seems like that I am thinking, I am doing this or that, I am deciding, I am experiencing, I am feeling, I am watching, etc.

Just notice when these appear, and just stop for a moment, and just look if there is actually a thinker, doer, noticer, watcher, experiencer.

Do this as often as possible during the day, even if just for 10 seconds each.
Let me know what you find.

Vivien

So every time I ask a question, you always have to look afresh, to see it again and again what is being pointed it. Can we agree on this?

Yes.

Understanding is not here now, since understanding is just the content of a thought, which is only the experience of a thought, but not understanding.
Can you see this?

Yes. Understanding is relying on thought.

Knowing what is here now, doesn’t require any thought based information. Is this clear?

Yes this is clear.

So, I would like to ask you to look for an experiencer in the midst of the business of life. Notice, whenever it seems like that I am thinking, I am doing this or that, I am deciding, I am experiencing, I am feeling, I am watching, etc.

Just notice when these appear, and just stop for a moment, and just look if there is actually a thinker, doer, noticer, watcher, experiencer.

Do this as often as possible during the day, even if just for 10 seconds each.
Let me know what you find.

Several times throughout today, during driving or during a small break, would stop and just look around. Vibrations idling in traffic. The colors moving while actually driving. Heat from the sun out working. Then sensations in the body after heavy lifting. Breathing.

Stopping throughout the day, sometimes a thought would come, "there is only the experience" and it would help to focus on just the experience. Noticed that when focus is dialed in,subtle sensations become more noticeable.

Thoughts are rude. They can be impossible to ignore. They just barge in and steal attention. It's aggravating. But even then, it's like, "who's noticing?"

This is gonna take practice. Gonna try again tomorrow and see if I have something a little more insightful to report.

Hi Chris,

This is gonna take practice. Gonna try again tomorrow and see if I have something a little more insightful to report.

All right. Especially pay attention to those moments when it FEELS or SEEMS like that I am thinking, doing, deciding, watching, experiencing.

Vivien

Made it a point to stay in this "mindset" so to speak since waking up this morning about paying attention to what is ACTUALLY present during times of thinking I'm doing or thinking etc. Tried to stay relaxed today.

One thing noticed this morning was talking. It was noticed after the fact at first and then later in the day little experiments were carried out.

It's pretty strange. The first time was a simple question to my friend/boss driving the truck. Just said, "how's your feet?" (he went on a crazy hike last weekend). Right after it was realized that what was present was vibration in the chest (just sensation) and hearing "my" voice...but just what was heard. Then there were thoughts present about it afterward. Whether there were thoughts preceding that question, isn't recalled.

Same with clearing the throat. It's not premeditated. There's a sensation and noise. There was no conscious decision deliberated about it. Just happened and was noticed.

Tried some humming...kinda like om...just to observe. This was spontaneous. Standing next to the truck trying to keep focused and just started humming. There was a sensation in the chest and the sound. A "doer" isn't a sensation and isn't a sound. Thoughts came during and after.

After work was telling a story in the truck. The talking seems like it has no problem being faster than the thought stream sometimes.

Walking. So much movement on my feet at work. It's crazy to believe that every leg movement is decided upon. Even to believe every little destination is decided upon. But the "act" of walking. This was looked at all day. There are sensations present and the image present (color), changes. The noise from the machinery may vary in intensity. Very often, if there are thoughts, they are completely unrelated to moving around. It's automatic. Almost like being pushed or pulled around.

This led to looking at decisions. Simple things like grabbing a rake. What is present at the moment of grabbing is simply the sensations of what is labeled "movement" and the sensations picking it up and the visual image. Things like this are never considered by thoughts to be "decisions" in the moment on any normal day. What's actually present during the raking itself is just sensations and what is seen (and for some reason I get awful pop music from the 90's playing in thoughts). Maybe thoughts come before to suggest grabbing a rake. Maybe not. But the experience of picking it up...just the sensations and visual change. Can't pinpoint when that so called "decision" is made and carried out. Kind of a thought illusion there.

Also it started raining. I have rain boots in the truck. Put those on. Wasn't paying attention AS that happened or what, if any, thoughts were present beforehand. This may be venturing into intellect land but, what choice is it really when working, to put on rain boots when it's pouring rain outside? The rain boots are there, the rain is there...voila. Conditions are present that offer that alternative. Nevertheless, unique sensations, changing image.

Thoughts...and thoughts about them.

Watching thoughts is tricky. A thought would be noticed and another thought would go "there is just the knowing of the thought" or "where did it come from?"...or inevitably, "whose watching?"

They are just there. Present. Then gone. That's it. Saying that "there is just the knowing of" makes it seem like there is a knower. So...there it is...and there it goes. Just present and gone.

For some reason, sound is easier to see as just being here. No need to explain it with ear story. Same with smell. It's just part of the present experience and doesn't need a bunch of explanation. They aren't really difficult to "disorient" from if that makes sense.

So was basically trying that approach with thoughts too. Just being here. Like you said, they aren't tangible "things" but nevertheless they are experienced. So thoughts come and are part of the experience...but their content is not the ACTUAL. Only ABOUT experience.

The decisions thing is pretty wild. Been looking at that since getting home. The experience of "little decisions" are just sensory and a choice can't be pinpointed exactly as to when this thought will be or was carried out. In the moment, there are just sensations and color...maybe thoughts about a decision. But no apparent "chooser".

Hi Chris,

You did an excellent investigation :)

I would like to ask you to continue with this for a few days with the same intensity. Just notice what is going on in each moment. Also notice if there is actually something watching or noticing.

Meet every moment as it is, here now. See what is here, and what isn’t. See if there is a me, a self, Chris, a doer, a thinker, a decider, or just this experience as it is here now. Just what is happening in present moment experience.

Stay with this for a few days, to let it really sink in that all there is is what is. This present moment experience, existence existing.

Vivien

Hi Vivien

just this experience as it is HERE NOW. Just what is happening in present moment experience.

This is something that is becoming focused. An intense awareness of nowness. All experience HERE NOW and gone...moving. Experience and time can't coexist. Only now is there experiencing.

The idea of free will. This boils down to the idea of autonomous decision making. It doesn't hold up under focused presence. Time has to be believed in order that there is a decision then followed by action. Moments. Take doing the dishes for example. Dishes are seen as "dirty" now. A thought comes now. "I need to do the dishes". By the time the action is being experienced it is now and the thought and original image of dirty dishes have vanished. The action is just being experienced.

Moments and stories (and ultimately the "story of me") have been vaguely conceptualized into a timeline by using "different" experiences as boundary markers. There aren't actually compartmentalized "different" experiences as far as time goes. Experience is constantly unique. The "farther back" the timeline is thought of, the wider the conceptual "periods of time" get. "Childhood, adolescent, young adult (drunk), adult...now. Even NOW, when not looking, the tendency, is to call that "Today". And even then, "today" is broke up into experiential moments conceptually. Breakfast, mowing, movie,...whatever. You get it. It's all happening now and never not now. The telling of the story probably isn't ever the same either.

This might sound like back to basics. It's something that was being overlooked.

Meet every moment as it is, here now. See what is here, and what isn’t. See if there is a me, a self, Chris, a doer, a thinker, a decider, or just this experience as it is here now. Just what is happening in present moment experience.

There is this constant process or awareness of experiencing. There is only the knowing...the k-NOW-ing of a thought, an action, an image, a sound, sensation.

Honestly, there is still the seeming 'awareness of...' so focus will be going here in the coming days.