Feel like I'm close but need a push

[Vivien]

Hi Dave,

Experientially, it is coming from the information being communicated by passing thoughts.

But what a thought is about is NOT an experience.

Experience: color, sound, taste, smell, sensation
Or in other words, experience is what can be perceived with the 5 senses.
Is this clear?

What we are doing here is to see the difference between experience (reality) and imagination (thought).
Since this whole illusion is created by thoughts.

Thoughts ‘talk’ about all sorts of things, and we take thoughts for granted, and hardly ever question their validity.
With this inquiry this is exactly what we do. We investigate if thoughts, what we believe how things are, are actually in line with reality/experience or not.

So let’s see if a thought-content (what the thought is about) can be actually experienced or not.

Can you FEEL the thought/word ‘hot’? Not imagining hotness, but actually feeling the word/thought itself?

Can you TASTE the word/thought ‘sweet’? Not imagining sweetness, but actually tasting the word ‘sweet’?

Can you SMELL the word ‘fragrant’?

It’s very important that you don’t just think about these questions, but actually try to feel the word ‘hot’, and try to smell the word/thought ‘fragrant’.

This is not an intellectual investigation, it’s an experiential one.

Do you see that no matter what a thought is about, that is NOT experienced?

The thought is there, but what the thought is about is not.
Is this clear? Or is there any doubt?

Similarly, mind can be perceived but not felt.

So if the mind cannot be felt, cannot be seen, cannot be heard, tasted or smelled, then HOW is it experienced?

Try to experience the mind outside of the 5 senses. Can you do that?

Take a cup or any object into your hands.

And investigate if the cup can be experience in any other way then with the 5 senses. Can you?

Can anything be experience in any other way than with the 5 senses?

Look carefully. Don’t just think, but really try to experience outside the 5 senses. Can this be done?

So how is the mind experienced?

Please be very careful not just think about these questions, but actually investigate experience itself.

Vivien

[Ainonia]

Experience: color, sound, taste, smell, sensation
Or in other words, experience is what can be perceived with the 5 senses.
Is this clear?

Yes.

Can you FEEL the thought/word ‘hot’? Not imagining hotness, but actually feeling the word/thought itself?

Can you TASTE the word/thought ‘sweet’? Not imagining sweetness, but actually tasting the word ‘sweet’?

Can you SMELL the word ‘fragrant’?

No, there are no sensations attached to the words and thoughts that represent them.
.

Do you see that no matter what a thought is about, that is NOT experienced?

Yes, that's becoming clearer. I can see that a thought about heat, for instance, does not lead to the experience of heat.

So if the mind cannot be felt, cannot be seen, cannot be heard, tasted or smelled, then HOW is it experienced?

It seems the mind can be perceived through non-experiential things such as emotions and through acts of contemplation and imagination. None of these things fit the criteria for experience however, so therefore the mind cannot be experienced.

Try to experience the mind outside of the 5 senses. Can you do that?

No, I don't find that possible.

Take a cup or any object into your hands.

And investigate if the cup can be experience in any other way then with the 5 senses. Can you?

This is also impossible to do.

Look carefully. Don’t just think, but really try to experience outside the 5 senses. Can this be done?

No. On trying to experience anything beyond the five senses, there is no experience to be had.

So how is the mind experienced?

It cannot be directly experienced. A quick question, though. Is it the case that emotions such as anxiety and fear, which can have physical symptoms that can be experienced (dry throat, trembling, etc), are seen entirely as bodily manifestations rather than manifestations of the mind?

[Vivien]

Hi Dave,

It cannot be directly experienced. A quick question, though. Is it the case that emotions such as anxiety and fear, which can have physical symptoms that can be experienced (dry throat, trembling, etc), are seen entirely as bodily manifestations rather than manifestations of the mind?

Saying that fear/anxiety comes from a mind, would be just an assumption, a theory, which cannot be proved when looked at reality.

A sensation labelled ‘fear’ is the experience of a sensation, and NOT the experience of a mind.
Is this clear?

If you look at reality/experience very closely, HOW do you know that a bodily sensation labelled ‘fear or anxiety’ is the manifestation of a mind?

Where is this information coming from experientially?

Isn’t this just a learned intellectual knowledge (in other words, just a thought/believe)?

And does this learned information can stand up the scrutiny of reality/experience?

Do you see that what we are doing here is to check if thoughts/beliefs can stand the scrutiny of reality?

We are looking to see how things ACTUALLY ARE, the plain facts of reality, and not what we THINK or BELIEVE how things are.
We are checking reality. We are testing our beliefs/thoughts against reality.
Is this clear?

It seems the mind can be perceived through non-experiential things such as emotions and through acts of contemplation and imagination.

What makes you thing that emotion is non-experiential?
When there is an emotion, isn’t there a sensation?
Isn’t the sensation labelled ‘anxiety’ experienced by feeling it?

And what is contemplation? Isn’t it just thinking?

So when thinking is happening, aren’t there thoughts appearing?

Thoughts are appearing, they are there, it cannot be denied.

However, what a thought is about, what the contemplation ( = thinking) is about, is not there, is not happening.
Can you see this?

So, experience, the way we use it here, is:

sound, color, taste, smell, sensation and the arising of a thought.

There is, in fact, no other way we can experience. Please check this for yourself - if you find something else, please let me know so we can look.

So, we see that thoughts as phenomena, are happening.

What about the content of thoughts (what thoughts are ABOUT)?

Can you directly experience the content of thoughts?

In the moment you have thoughts about something - is the content of these thoughts here as well?

Can the content of thoughts ever be found in reality?

Look closely and tell me what you see.

Vivien

[Ainonia]

Hi Vivien,

A sensation labelled ‘fear’ is the experience of a sensation, and NOT the experience of a mind.
Is this clear?

Yes, I understand.

If you look at reality/experience very closely, HOW do you know that a bodily sensation labelled ‘fear or anxiety’ is the manifestation of a mind?

Where is this information coming from experientially?

It's only an assumption, not definite knowledge. It has a psychological effect on us, so we assume it's a manifestation of mind. There's no experiential way of verifying this though.

Isn’t this just a learned intellectual knowledge (in other words, just a thought/believe)?

Yes, absolutely!

And does this learned information can stand up the scrutiny of reality/experience?

No, it's more like we we let ourselves be defined by those beliefs rather than define reality through experience.

Do you see that what we are doing here is to check if thoughts/beliefs can stand the scrutiny of reality?

We are looking to see how things ACTUALLY ARE, the plain facts of reality, and not what we THINK or BELIEVE how things are.
We are checking reality. We are testing our beliefs/thoughts against reality.
Is this clear?

Yes.

It seems the mind can be perceived through non-experiential things such as emotions and through acts of contemplation and imagination.

What makes you thing that emotion is non-experiential?
When there is an emotion, isn’t there a sensation?
Isn’t the sensation labelled ‘anxiety’ experienced by feeling it?

There was a little uncertainty on my part, but I've addressed this a little further down this post.

And what is contemplation? Isn’t it just thinking?

So when thinking is happening, aren’t there thoughts appearing?

Thoughts are appearing, they are there, it cannot be denied.

However, what a thought is about, what the contemplation ( = thinking) is about, is not there, is not happening.
Can you see this?

Indeed. Contemplation is just thinking about thinking. And what the thought is about is not experientially real. I can grasp that, but it still feels new and unusual.

So, experience, the way we use it here, is:

sound, color, taste, smell, sensation and the arising of a thought.

OK, re-reading this now makes things much clearer. There was a little confusion as to how to categorise emotion experientially, but this helps a lot.

So, we see that thoughts as phenomena, are happening.

What about the content of thoughts (what thoughts are ABOUT)?

Again, this makes the 'new and unusual' elements of this I mentioned above feel a bit easier to grasp, so thanks.

Can you directly experience the content of thoughts?

In the moment you have thoughts about something - is the content of these thoughts here as well?

Can the content of thoughts ever be found in reality?

No, they remain temporary and ephemeral and disperse like smoke on the wind.

Look closely and tell me what you see.

I can see that the way of perceiving thoughts outlined here is true, but as mentioned still find it a little hard to grasp in fullness sometimes. I think that is gradually changing with each conversation we have though.

[Vivien]

Hi Dave,

Indeed. Contemplation is just thinking about thinking. And what the thought is about is not experientially real. I can grasp that, but it still feels new and unusual.

All right, then let’s try this out. This investigation should be very practical :)

close your eyes, and feel the imaginary spoon.

Then, open your eyes:
Is there a spoon here, in real life?
So how did you see that there is no spoon?

What happened to the spoon?
Did it disappear or it never existed?

Now go and get a spoon from the kitchen and hold it in the same way that you imagined it.

Feel the spoon’s form, its size, its weight, its temperature. Close your eyes and feel the spoon for a while.

Now open your eyes ... is there a spoon here, in real life?

Are a visual thought of the spoon and the experience of the spoon the same?

How does imagining and experiencing differ?

Repeat this exercise with several different things, and let me know what you find.

Vivien

[Ainonia]

Hi Vivien,

close your eyes, and feel the imaginary spoon.

Then, open your eyes:
Is there a spoon here, in real life?

No, the imaginary spoon vanishes as soon as the eyes are opened.

So how did you see that there is no spoon?

Just by not thinking about it anymore

What happened to the spoon?
Did it disappear or it never existed?

I would say that it never actually existed.

Now go and get a spoon from the kitchen and hold it in the same way that you imagined it.

Feel the spoon’s form, its size, its weight, its temperature. Close your eyes and feel the spoon for a while.

Now open your eyes ... is there a spoon here, in real life?

Yes, and somehow its realness felt enhanced after feeling it for a while.

Are a visual thought of the spoon and the experience of the spoon the same?

No, they're not the same thing.

How does imagining and experiencing differ?

With imagining, the image of the spoon never lasts long before it starts to fade and grow again as the concentration dips. It's only the act of concentrating on the imagination that allows it to exist at all. Its appearance is thin and seems close to bot existing and there is no solidity to it. Experiencing, however, is real, solid and definite and remains constant and present.

Repeat this exercise with several different things, and let me know what you find.

The result is the same as above no matter what object is focussed upon.

[Vivien]

Hi Dave,

It's only the act of concentrating on the imagination that allows it to exist at all.

OK, let’s look into this.

You are saying that the concentration on the imagination allows the spoon to exist.

So basically what you are saying that when there is an imagination of a spoon, then the spoon exist.
But is this really the case?

Is the imagined spoon is experienced, or only an imagination ( = visual thoughts) experienced?

The imagination ( = visual thought) is happening, we cannot deny that.

But what the imagination (visual thought) is ABOUT, the content of the visual thought, the spoon exists?

It’s very important that you don’t just think it through logically, but that you actually investigate this in experience.

So please, image the spoon again, and while you imagine it, investigate the above questions.
Let me know what you find.

Vivien

[Ainonia]

Hi Vivien,

It's only the act of concentrating on the imagination that allows it to exist at all.

OK, let’s look into this.

You are saying that the concentration on the imagination allows the spoon to exist.

So basically what you are saying that when there is an imagination of a spoon, then the spoon exist.
But is this really the case?

No, I wouldn't say that it exists in any tangible way. Rather than it can be perceived to exist so therefore appears to have a form of existence, but this appearance is only an illusion of reality, not reality itself.

Is the imagined spoon is experienced, or only an imagination ( = visual thoughts) experienced?

The imagination ( = visual thought) is happening, we cannot deny that.

But what the imagination (visual thought) is ABOUT, the content of the visual thought, the spoon exists?

No, the contents of the thought are only imagined don't actually exist.

So please, image the spoon again, and while you imagine it, investigate the above questions.
Let me know what you find.

On reimagining the spoon while considering the above, it struck me that its reality is no different from any other product of the imagination. If you were to imagine yourself as a superhero with amazing powers, that wouldn't actually make you a superhero with amazing powers. It would be a flight of fancy only and wouldn't change a thing about your actual life, and if you believed you actually had such powers just because you imagined you did, you would be completely delusional. The idea of the imaginary spoon being 'real' is no different than the idea one's that imaginary superpowers are 'real.'

[Vivien]

Hi Dave,

The idea of the imaginary spoon being 'real' is no different than the idea one's that imaginary superpowers are 'real.'

Yes, nice discovery :)

In your everyday world, how do you judge whether something is real? What's your criteria?

Just list it. Rather than give me an explanation, try to keep your response thorough yet succinct.

Hint: how do you determine whether your wallet is in your pocket?

Vivien

[Ainonia]

Hi Vivien,

In your everyday world, how do you judge whether something is real? What's your criteria?

Just list it. Rather than give me an explanation, try to keep your response thorough yet succinct.

Hint: how do you determine whether your wallet is in your pocket?

I know what is real by feeling, smelling, seeing, tasting or hearing it. If those physical responses are activated by something, I can make a credible assumption that they are 'real.'

Dave.

[Vivien]

Hi Dave,

Great!

Now close your eyes, and sit for a few minutes. Thoughts come and go….

But what is thinking thoughts?
Where is the I, the self, the thinker of thoughts?

Remember, we are searching for a REAL I/self/thinker, not just an imagined one.

Look very carefully, and avoid any speculation, theory, or thinking about this topic, rather investigate HOW things actually are experientially.

Repeat this several times during the day before replying.

Vivien

[Ainonia]

Hi Vivien,

Now close your eyes, and sit for a few minutes. Thoughts come and go….

But what is thinking thoughts?

It doesn't feel like anything is actually thinking the thoughts. When they appear they impress themselves upon the consciousness like short bursts of film or sound.

Where is the I, the self, the thinker of thoughts?

There appears to be an observer - by which I mean the part of consciousness which is always aware of things - and there are the thoughts which are being observed. The observer is aware of the thoughts but does not produce them. Even when thought is consciously directed by an inner monologue such as 'I am going to make some tea' the 'observer' is not the sayer of those words. When I attempted to trace the speaker of these internal monologues, there is nothing apparent that they can be sourced to. Even though the voice that speaks those thoughts is perceived to be 'mine,' or belonging to 'me,' the part of the consciousness which actually issues the command - which is typically called 'me' or 'I' - cannot be located

Dave

[Vivien]

Hi Dave,

Sorry for the late reply.

It doesn't feel like anything is actually thinking the thoughts. When they appear they impress themselves upon the consciousness like short bursts of film or sound.

HOW do you know this? How do you know that thoughts impress themselves upon consciousness?
What is the experiential proof for this?

There appears to be an observer - by which I mean the part of consciousness which is always aware of things - and there are the thoughts which are being observed.

HOW do you know that there is an observer? What is the experiential proof for an observer?

The concept of observer or a consciousness behind all experience is a popular spiritual belief. But we are not trying to land on any beliefs.

So we have to investigate the concept of observer/consciousness in reality, in experience.

You have to put aside ALL learned knowledge about this topic, to become a clean slate, and investigate only the immediate experience, while ignoring any thought interpretation.

So HOW do you know there is an observer?
Does this statement match the immediate experience?
Can you actually OBSERVE the process as thoughts impress themselves upon an consciousness?
Can you even find this consciousness?
Or you can only THINK of it, and IMAGINE it?

Vivien

[Ainonia]

Hi Vivien,

No problem with the late reply! I'm grateful for your time.

HOW do you know this? How do you know that thoughts impress themselves upon consciousness?
What is the experiential proof for this?

Experientially, this is more of an impression felt by the phenomenon. Consciousness is what I feel to be my sense of awareness and the thoughts leave an impression upon that awareness.

HOW do you know that there is an observer? What is the experiential proof for an observer?

The observer is how I would describe the experience of the basic condition of awareness, being the 'thing' that is aware of sensory experiences and the rising of thoughts.

The concept of observer or a consciousness behind all experience is a popular spiritual belief. But we are not trying to land on any beliefs.

This is true. While it's not relevant to this discourse so much, I became aware of the sensation of something which could be described as an observer during meditation before I was consciously aware of the concept. It was only on reading around on the experience that I discovered that it was a popular spiritual belief. This isn't to say I defend the concept however. It may be that I leaped to the same erroneous conclusion that others before me did, then reinforced that conclusion by developing a belief system around its apparent existence.

So HOW do you know there is an observer?

There can be no certainty of its existence but I have consistently noted its apparent existence prior to this discourse and found the awareness of it arising again during the last exercise.

Does this statement match the immediate experience?

I'd say the only part of it that doesn't match the immediate experience is the lack of certainty that what is experienced is an actual observer. I know that something is being experienced, but I am not attached to the concept of it being an 'observer.' As much as anything, it feels like a fitting analogy, which I suppose is an intellectual interpretation.

Can you actually OBSERVE the process as thoughts impress themselves upon an consciousness?

No. It doesn't seem to happen in a temporal way like a regular process would, i.e. event A leading to event B. Again, that seems to make the description I used an analogy rather than a clear process.

Can you even find this consciousness?

No. The impression is that it just is. It is awareness itself, so cannot be found.

Or you can only THINK of it, and IMAGINE it?

What I am describing is the sense of being aware, or looking. When one 'looks,' the process of looking doesn't seem to be locatable either, but one knows that one is looking because of the sense of awareness that I would describe as consciousness. I know that I am conscious because I am aware of being a living entity, and if I was not conscious how could I experience life or existence at all?

[Vivien]

Hi Dave,

No problem with the late reply! I'm grateful for your time.

You are welcome :) but be prepared, you might not like my following comments.

Most of your comments came from intellectualization and learned knowledge, and not from investigating the raw experience itself.

Experientially, this is more of an impression felt by the phenomenon. Consciousness is what I feel to be my sense of awareness and the thoughts leave an impression upon that awareness.

Although, you use the word ‘experientially’, but your reply is not the description of experience, rather an intellectual interpretation, a conceptualization. Your reply is coming from thinking, and not from looking at experience directly BEFORE any interpretation.

This isn't to say I defend the concept however. It may be that I leaped to the same erroneous conclusion that others before me did, then reinforced that conclusion by developing a belief system around its apparent existence.

It’s good that you don’t have to defend this concept, since what we are going to do is to TEST this concept against experience, to see if it can stand up to scrutiny.

What I am describing is the sense of being aware, or looking. When one 'looks,' the process of looking doesn't seem to be locatable either, but one knows that one is looking because of the sense of awareness that I would describe as consciousness. I know that I am conscious because I am aware of being a living entity, and if I was not conscious how could I experience life or existence at all?

This is purely conceptual, it’s just theorizing. Thinking.

What we are doing here is to TEST our thoughts/beliefs/assumptions (which all just thoughts) against the raw, unadulterated experience.

So we won’t go to any theories, we won’t philosophize, we won’t think about these topics, we won’t imagine, we won’t speculate.

This investigation will be very simple. You won’t need your intellectual mind to figure out anything.

We are only ever searching for experiential facts of reality, but not intellectual knowledge about reality.

We are just going to investigate the simplicity of raw experience.
Are you up for it?

Are you ready to stop thinking and actually see if those assumptions can test the scrutiny of experience?

Are you ready to try out something new? To pay attention to the experience instead of THINK ABOUT the experience?

I know that something is being experienced, but I am not attached to the concept of it being an 'observer.' As much as anything, it feels like a fitting analogy, which I suppose is an intellectual interpretation.

Yes, it is. But it’s not enough to say that you are not attached to this concept, since you have to SEE it for yourself if this concept actually exists in reality.

The impression is that it just is. It is awareness itself, so cannot be found.

This explanation that “it’s awareness itself, so cannot be found” is coming only from thinning, from learned knowledge, probably heard from some teachers.

It doesn’t matter if you label this something as awareness, or consciousness or observer or whatever.
The label doesn’t matter.
Since ALL these labels point to the SAME ILLUSION.

‘Awareness is aware of being aware’ – yes, it SEEMS LIKE that, but this is the BASIS OF THE ILLUSION OF THE SEPARATE SELF.

This awareness is the ultimate illusion, it really seems very real. But nonetheless, it’s still an illusion. And for those who engaged in non-dual teachings this sometimes can be a serious stumbling block.

Can you entertain the possibility that awareness is not what it seems like?

Do you have a resistance to the notion that awareness might be an illusion too?
If yes, could you please explain why?

Vivien