The Gate

Hi Vivien,

Wow! This is getting tough!! Thank you.

This reply coming from thinking.

Yes, I’m sorry Vivien, I just find the question you asked very hard to answer!!

“Where is the I that identifies itself…………?”

I feel like we are right at the crux of this whole effort, but I’m not seeing something!!
I guess I should be looking in experience and then the answer is “there is no I found that identifies itself”, but that doesn’t say much because the statement has come from somewhere and maybe reflects a feeling or a belief that there is an I here, even when there isn't or at least not one that can be found or pointed to!

Look here now:
What is it that is making the statement “I am awareness”?

It’s important to see this clearly, so please look carefully.

I agree that it is so important to see this clearly.
I can feel that is what I need to see.
I am very glad that you are pointing so firmly here.
I am just not sure how or where to look. It seems so blank.
The statement “I am awareness” arises from nowhere just like other thoughts and is spoken or typed.

Is this coming from logical thinking and reasoning, or is it actually seen experientially?

This is my big problem. I tend to jump to understanding through concepts and thinking it.
So no, again, if I am honest, it is only seen partially experientially. It is not felt deeply or actually seen without doubt.

I invite you to investigate it closely in experience.

I am grateful, thank you, and I am trying very hard to do that.
I sense how important this is.
I am just not sure what it is I’m looking for or going to see or find in experience!!
And I have to resist the temptation to fall back into thinking about it!!

So let’s go back to this:

But if I'm honest the experience still seems to be located in or seen from the perspective of where the head is assumed to be. I can't see how that could change.

Let’s dig deep here.

Great. Yes I am very keen to dig deep here.

Try to locate the exact location, which seems to be the point where knowing is happening from. When you look for the location, look for a sensation.
Since there is a sensation being misinterpreted as the location of the knower, or aware-er.

OK. That seems like a very specific description:

" Try to locate the exact location, which seems to be the point where knowing is happening from.
When you look for a location, look for a sensation.
Since there is a sensation being misinterpreted as the location of the knower”.

I’m trying to look there…………….

Its like a clear steady being present (I don’t want to call it a thing, like presence, it is not a thing, it is an aware aliveness) right between the eyes. It feels more like a visual sensation. Just looking.

Even with the eyes closed, it is in the same location, just at the front of the head but inside. If I press my hands on the surface of my face and eyes, the sensation is just inside. It is very precise.

The sensation is one of being aware, being present, being right here. It has no noticeable qualities other than knowing. Even if I close and cover my eyes totally and it is absolutely black, the sensation is in the same place. Very solidly present. Even in the blackness, it is still like a visual sensation, a looking with no content, just blackness.

But then I notice that, with my eyes closed, if I touch the desk, the sensation of touch is not in this same place in the head. The sensations of touch are where the fingers are, but the knowing presence stays in the same position behind the eyes. Attention can switch between the figure tips and then back to the same point in the head again.

This is tough!! I’ve never looked so hard in this one place!
Its like all of life has always been seen or known right from this location.
Always from this same point of view, never different.

So is it that this sensation of looking in the head is being misinterpreted as the location of the knower?
Because vision is so primary.

I don’t know whether I am making any progress here, Vivien. It is very tough!
Thank you for pointing me so clearly at this.

Hi Ian,

This is my big problem. I tend to jump to understanding through concepts and thinking it.
So no, again, if I am honest, it is only seen partially experientially. It is not felt deeply or actually seen without doubt.

Thank you for your honesty. The thing is that intellectual understanding has no much value in seeing through the illusion. That needs to be experiential, and no ‘amount’ of thinking will help. Literally, your intellect is NOT need, actually it’s in the way of the simplicity of what is. So you can put it aside.

You did a nice big step forward. You’ve been able to identify the sensation that is believed to be the one that is aware.

Its like a clear steady being present (I don’t want to call it a thing, like presence, it is not a thing, it is an aware aliveness) right between the eyes. It feels more like a visual sensation. Just looking.

What do you mean by ‘visual sensation’? Do you mean visual thoughts (mental images) or do you mean the felt sensation? Or the mixture of the two?

Its like all of life has always been seen or known right from this location.
Always from this same point of view, never different.

Is this really true?
Yes, seeing seems to happen from the same location, due to the position of the eyes.
But is this true for knowing?

So you localized a SENSATION between the eyes. Close your eyes, and just FEEL that sensation between the eyes.
Focus on it by FEELING it.. and investigate:

But HOW do you know that this sensation is aware and knows everything?
Does the raw sensation itself suggest or communicate in any way that it’s aware and know things?
If not, what is providing this information?

Can a sensation know anything?
Can a sensation be aware, really? Or only thoughts suggest so?
What can a sensation do?

Please be careful not think about the answers, but actually investigate this in experience while you FEEL that sensation.

Is that sensation between the eyes, actually appears as the knower of experience, or that sensation is itself appears AS an EXPERIENCE?

But then I notice that, with my eyes closed, if I touch the desk, the sensation of touch is not in this same place in the head. The sensations of touch are where the fingers are, but the knowing presence stays in the same position behind the eyes. Attention can switch between the figure tips and then back to the same point in the head again.Let’s investigate this.

Let’s do it again. Close your eyes, and just pay attention to the sensations of the hands. FEEL them.

Are the sensations of the hands FELT from, or KNOWN FROM or BY the sensations in between the eyes?
Is the FEELER / KNOWER of the sensations (of the hands) are the sensations between the eyes?

No keep your eyes closed, and listen to the sound. It could the hum of the fridge, or the laptop, or any background noise.
Is the sensation between the eyes the knower of the sound?

Now focus for the taste in the mouth.
Is the sensation between the eyes are aware of the taste?


Do you know what is the trick here? Do you know what is missing from clearly seeing this?
THOUGHTS.

What you are not seeing is that all the information of the sensation being the knower is coming from thoughts.
Only thoughts make the claim “I am awareness’.

But since probably you haven’t investigated thoughts, what they are, and what they are not, you take them for face value.

What is a thought? Is thought something real?
When there is a thought, its presence is clearly there, but what about its content, what the thought is about? Is that here too?

If you have the thought ‘unicorn’, that thought is present, right?

But what about the unicorn itself? Is there an actual real unicorn when you think the thought ‘unicorn’?
No? Why not?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

Thank you for your honesty.

I know how important honesty is, because I do not want to kid myself. This is too important.

That needs to be experiential, and no ‘amount’ of thinking will help. Literally, your intellect is NOT need, actually it’s in the way of the simplicity of what is. So you can put it aside.

I totally understand. I need to be far more wary when it is thinking happening and not experience. I will try hard on that.

You did a nice big step forward. You’ve been able to identify the sensation that is believed to be the one that is aware.

Great! I did feel that for once I was actually feeling for a sensation rather than thinking about it!! At first I was puzzled by your question to look for a sensation in a location, but when I just used feeling to see what was there, I realized it was the sense of looking that was believed to be “me”. Also, that sensation was very clear and definite, certain.

It feels more like a visual sensation. Just looking.

What do you mean by ‘visual sensation’? Do you mean visual thoughts (mental images) or do you mean the felt sensation? Or the mixture of the two?

No, I do mean the felt sensation. When I sense the feeling in that place, it is not a mental image of anything. It is a felt sensation of looking. This felt sensation is solid and strong. For me visual thoughts are far vaguer and less solid. In fact, most of my thinking is verbal, not images so much.

Its like all of life has always been seen or known right from this location.
Always from this same point of view, never different.

Is this really true?
Yes, seeing seems to happen from the same location, due to the position of the eyes.
But is this true for knowing?

Well no, I agree. It is not really true, it is just assumed to be true! As I said, seeing and vision is to me the primary sense and so very dominant. So it seems that I spend most of the time knowing life from there, but of course there are the other senses also always providing sensations – hearing, touch, taste etc. That’s why I was interested also to notice when feeling into sensations that when I touched the desk surface with my fingers with my eyes closed, the touch sensation was known at the finger tips, not behind the eyes, but it is hard to be aware of both at the same time. I kind of switched back and forth, but there was knowing in both places. There was no sensation of touch behind the eyes. The sensation behind the eyes is felt as visual only.

So you localized a SENSATION between the eyes. Close your eyes, and just FEEL that sensation between the eyes.
Focus on it by FEELING it.. and investigate:

But HOW do you know that this sensation is aware and knows everything?

No, its true, when I do that and just feel the sensation there, it is empty itself. It is just an empty sense of looking. “Awareness” or “knows everything” are just mental content, labels or thoughts. I can feel those like swirling around on top of the pure sensation. They mess it up!! I don’t know where those mental things are, they feel like they are slightly more spread out inside the head, but almost buzzing around like flies!!

Does the raw sensation itself suggest or communicate in any way that it’s aware and know things? If not, what is providing this information?

The swirl of mental content going on in the head. The raw sensation is neutral. It is felt but doesn’t communicate or suggest anything else. So it is the thoughts that are causing the distraction from just looking. Making a mental image of "awareness" or a "looker" that isn't there in the raw sensation. Kind of annoying actually!!

Can a sensation know anything?
Can a sensation be aware, really? Or only thoughts suggest so?
What can a sensation do?

No, a sensation is just a sensation. It is experienced. It cannot do anything. It cannot be aware.
It is the thoughts that almost get in the way or muddle the pure sensation.

Please be careful not think about the answers, but actually investigate this in experience while you FEEL that sensation.

Yes, I did and that distinction is very clear. I can feel the pure sensation and then experience the whirl of thoughts or images on top of it. Quite separate. As I keep doing this over and over again today while doing other daily life things, it becomes clearer. It is easier to feel the looking sensation by itself. It feels almost like a meditation just on the sensation of looking and when that is strong, the swirls of thoughts becomes weaker. Quieter.

Is that sensation between the eyes, actually appears as the knower of experience, or that sensation is itself appears AS an EXPERIENCE?

Yes, now I feel it as a raw experience, but the thoughts are still there flying around!!
Without thoughts it is just pure experience.

Let’s investigate this.
Let’s do it again. Close your eyes, and just pay attention to the sensations of the hands. FEEL them.

OK.

Are the sensations of the hands FELT from, or KNOWN FROM or BY the sensations in between the eyes?

No, they are not. The sensation in the hands and fingers are experienced in the hands and fingers. I notice some tingling and the feeling of the skin of my forehead and eyes and some warmth and some pressure. But those sensations are in the hands and fingers, just in front of the visual sensation in the eyes, which is also still there.

Is the FEELER / KNOWER of the sensations (of the hands) are the sensations between the eyes?/

No, the feeling and knowing the sensations of the hands is in the hands, not between the eyes.
But I would not say there is a "feeler" or a "knower" of the sensations of the hands.
There is just the raw experience of those sensations.

Now keep your eyes closed, and listen to the sound. It could the hum of the fridge, or the laptop, or any background noise.
Is the sensation between the eyes the knower of the sound?

No, the hearing and knowing of the sounds is experienced at the location of where the sounds are coming from. I am sitting on a squeeky chair (!!!). When I shift my weight the chair makes a terrible squeeky noise. The knowing of that noise is located in the chair. It isn’t even in or near my ears!! Wow, that’s weird. I’ve never noticed that. The hearing of a sound isn’t known at the ears at all!!! The sound is experienced or heard at the location of the object where the sound is coming from. I’m even feeling that now as I type on the keyboard. The typing sounds are at the keyboard, certainly not at the ears, in my head or between the eyes. I’ve never noticed that before or even thought about it!!

Now focus for the taste in the mouth.
Is the sensation between the eyes are aware of the taste?

Same, no. The taste sensation is only known directly in the mouth.
There is no sensation of the taste between the eyes.

Do you know what is the trick here? Do you know what is missing from clearly seeing this? THOUGHTS.

What you are not seeing is that all the information of the sensation being the knower is coming from thoughts. Only thoughts make the claim “I am awareness’.

Wow yes, I totally get that. And I’m not even thinking it!!! I get it as in actually seeing that is true in my experience.
I can see that difference now, very clearly. Seeing through the trick of the thoughts presents a whole different texture to all of the sensations. They spread out. They no longer appear funneled through a central knower in the head or behind the eyes. They are experienced where they arise. That does feel very different. It was the experience of the touching and hearing that made that suddenly obvious. This has never been really seen or experienced that way before!! Not in the head at all!! Only really seeing is sensed in the head and again I think that because vision is so dominant for me, it was being assumed that that's where "I" am located or where "awareness" is located and all sensation is known there, BUT IT ISN'T!! This makes the actual sensations more direct. Known directly as they are, where they are and for sounds, not even in the body.

But since probably you haven’t investigated thoughts, what they are, and what they are not, you take them for face value.

In fact I have done quite a bit of the work on thoughts before I registered on LU to be guided. I knew, as I said above, that I have been trying to get this seeing no self through thinking and intellectual concepts and knew that I needed to work to drop that. From what I read I understood that thinking was getting in the way of actually experiencing it, as you said above. So I did the exercises on thoughts, but I am certainly happy to repeat it with you. Based upon what I have now experienced above thanks to your pointers, I can see why understanding thoughts is so important because thoughts are the trick causing the misinterpretation of the sansations. The thoughts are creating the unquestioned belief in there being something or someone there, a "knower" or a "feeler" or "me as awareness" which isn't experienced in the raw sensations. And without the thoughts, sensations are seen to arise in the location where they arise and not in or by some central "knower". That is a huge insight for me! Its funny but it makes the old Buddhist/Taoist saying so true: "you are what you think"!!!! That is literally true.

What is a thought?

I’m not sure anyone knows what a thought actually is. What it is made of?? The only way we know thoughts are that they are experienced. I don’t believe everyone’s experience of thoughts is the same. For some people they seem to be very vivid, sometimes visual, or, as in my case, more verbal. If I just focus on experiencing thinking happening, the sensation is almost exclusively verbal with only very weak images. Thinking happens as an internal voice stream, usually arguing something……with no one!! Just words flying around. It is certainly clear that this comes from nowhere. There is no thinker and no controlling what thought or verbal stream comes up next. They can be triggered by other things happening. And they just flare up and then disappear again. Sometimes a seemingly related action might follow or most often not.

Is thought something real?

Yes, they are real as experiences. They are experienced and so somehow they exist. But I make the distinction between “real” and “true”. A thought may be real, but that doesn’t make it true. And that is a big problem, because we often don’t really consider whether the thought is true. It can just be believed because it is a thought!! Not very intelligent really!! So, yes thoughts are real but not always true.

When there is a thought, its presence is clearly there, but what about its content, what the thought is about? Is that here too?

No, the thought is present, it is experienced and so it can be said to be real, but its content is just that, the content of a thought. Its shape or form if you like, but that content isn’t something real nor is it necessarily true. There can easily be a untrue thought. There is a huge difference between an object and thought about that object. There can be a thought about an elephant, it might even be an enjoyable thought about the elephant, but there is no actual elephant here. If there was an real elephant, there would be lots of real sensations too, like the noise and the smell and even the feel. None of those sensations are present when the thought of the elephant is present. They might be imagined, but they are not real sensations.

If you have the thought ‘unicorn’, that thought is present, right?

But what about the unicorn itself? Is there an actual real unicorn when you think the thought ‘unicorn’?
No? Why not?

No, as I said above, the unicorn is just the content of a thought. It is a real thought about a unicorn, but there is no real unicorn.

Wow! This has been quite a big day for me!
I am so grateful for your skillful pointing.
Happy to keep going further.
Thank you, Vivien.

Hi Ian,

There are some repetition with my questions, but it’s intentional.

No, I do mean the felt sensation. When I sense the feeling in that place, it is not a mental image of anything. It is a felt sensation of looking.

Felt sensation of looking? Can looking be actually felt?
Isn’t it just a thought label ‘sensation of looking’ to the raw sensation itself?

Does the sensation itself suggest or communicate it any way that it’s a sensation of LOOKING?

HOW do you know that it’s the sensation of LOOKING? What is providing this information?

As I said, seeing and vision is to me the primary sense and so very dominant.

Vision is the primary sense for every human. It’s not specific to you. It’s a human condition. Followed by vision. Except for those who are blind or deaf.

There was no sensation of touch behind the eyes. The sensation behind the eyes is felt as visual only.

What do you mean by “the sensation behind the eyes is felt as a visual only”?

Do you think that there are different type of sensations, like touch sensation or a visual sensation?
Is this so?

What does a visual sensation even mean? Is this coming from the belief/assumption that seeing/looking can be felt?
But can they? Or this just another trick?

Look at the display before you.

Can a seer/looker be experienced?
Can looking / seeing be experienced?
Or there is what is seen/looked at? Only colors and shapes happening?

No, its true, when I do that and just feel the sensation there, it is empty itself. It is just an empty sense of looking.

Empty sense of looking? If it’s empty, then how do you know that it’s looking? Is there really such thing as ‘sense of looking/seeing’?

Isn’t the expression of ‘empty sense of looking’ just another concept or interpretation over the raw experience of sensation?

The swirl of mental content going on in the head. The raw sensation is neutral. It is felt but doesn’t communicate or suggest anything else. So it is the thoughts that are causing the distraction from just looking. Making a mental image of "awareness" or a "looker" that isn't there in the raw sensation. Kind of annoying actually!!

Are thoughts actually ‘swirling in the head’? Is this what experience shows?
Do thoughts actually appear in any location? In or outside of the head, or swirling in or around the head?
Or is this provided by visual thoughts, by imagination?

What is the experiential proof that thoughts appear at any location?
Is there any experiential link between thoughts and the head?

Yes, they are real as experiences. They are experienced and so somehow they exist. But I make the distinction between “real” and “true”. A thought may be real, but that doesn’t make it true.

Can you see that thinking is conceptual and all words are symbols? That they are not reality?

Reality is that which is.
Description of reality are words that are not reality in themselves.
Like word body is not an actual body but a symbol, used to communicate.

So certain thoughts (as abstract symbols) points to reality, like the word ‘chair’. But most thoughts don’t even do this. They just point to other thoughts, other concepts, like freedom, courage, disappointment, university, education, or ‘she hurt my feelings’, etc.
Is this clear?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

There are some repetition with my questions, but it’s intentional.

No problem. You are the guide. I am grateful.

No, I do mean the felt sensation. When I sense the feeling in that place, it is not a mental image of anything. It is a felt sensation of looking.

Felt sensation of looking? Can looking be actually felt?
Isn’t it just a thought label ‘sensation of looking’ to the raw sensation itself?

OK, this is where it is hard to choose the right words!!
I should not have used “felt sensation”. A sensation isn’t felt. There is just the sensation.
As you say: looking isn’t actually felt.
Let me restate more carefully:

When I search the location between the eyes, there is looking, but even that is just a word which doesn’t capture the experience.

Does the sensation itself suggest or communicate it any way that it’s a sensation of LOOKING?

No, it does not. There is nothing that suggests or communicates a “sensation of looking”.
These are just words that are used to try to describe the experience.

HOW do you know that it’s the sensation of LOOKING? What is providing this information?

I’m afraid words begin to fail me here!!!

There is no knowing or knower of the sensation of looking.
Nothing in the sensation says “looking”
So it can only be a subtle overlay of thought that adds the label “looking”.
But the word “looking” kind of implies eyes, vision or seeing.
We can even drop “sensation of”.
Now there is just looking.
But what if we drop the word “looking”.
So there is just presence, experience, being.
No apparent eyes involved. No act of looking involved.
Just……………this!!!! Beyond the words.

As I said, seeing and vision is to me the primary sense and so very dominant.

Vision is the primary sense for every human. It’s not specific to you. It’s a human condition. Followed by hearing. Except for those who are blind or deaf.

OK, I’m sure that is probably the case.

There was no sensation of touch behind the eyes. The sensation behind the eyes is felt as visual only.

What do you mean by “the sensation behind the eyes is felt as a visual only”?

Same as above, difficult to use the right words.
Without “visual” its just….this….raw experience…….just what is!!??

Do you think that there are different type of sensations, like touch sensation or a visual sensation? Is this so?

I think in using words, we are making a distinction between whether the experience is one of seeing, hearing, touching etc.
Without those descriptive words, what can be said? Nothing.
Beyond the words, without the words, in the raw experience, there is no distinction.
Any sensation is only ever just the same experience.
It just is. No words are possible. To utter a word is to miss it.

What does a visual sensation even mean? Is this coming from the belief/assumption that seeing/looking can be felt? But can they? Or this just another trick?

No, I agree, seeing/looking, hearing…………they are not felt. The words are just an attempt to communicate, but cannot capture what it is.
So, yes, using any words or labels is more thought tricks.
Trying to add a structure to something without form.

Look at the display before you.

Can a seer/looker be experienced?

No, there is no seer or looker in the experience.

Can looking / seeing be experienced?
Or there is what is seen/looked at? Only colors and shapes happening?

Yes looking / seeing are not experienced. In fact, they are only words. The word is not experienced. The word “looking” is not looking / seeing.
Without unnecessary imposed labels, only colours and shapes happening, but then even the words “colour” and “shape” is too much. They don’t come close to the actual experience.

No, its true, when I do that and just feel the sensation there, it is empty itself. It is just an empty sense of looking.

Empty sense of looking? If it’s empty, then how do you know that it’s looking? Is there really such thing as ‘sense of looking/seeing’?

No, there is not. There is no such thing as a “sense of looking”.

Isn’t the expression of ‘empty sense of looking’ just another concept or interpretation over the raw experience of sensation?

Yes, I totally agree and see that. In fact, I don’t think that you can even say “raw experience of sensation”. There is just…………

The swirl of mental content going on in the head.

Are thoughts actually ‘swirling in the head’? Is this what experience shows?

No. I’m sorry, again just a way of trying to describe the experience.
There is experience of thoughts arising and disappearing, but they are not very solid or clear and cannot be located.

Do thoughts actually appear in any location? In or outside of the head, or swirling in or around the head? Or is this provided by visual thoughts, by imagination?

That seems very hard to say. If I search for a thought, there is no location. There is just the experience of thought, but it is so faint, and quick and not located anywhere.

What is the experiential proof that thoughts appear at any location?
Is there any experiential link between thoughts and the head?

Nothing in experience implies a location for thoughts.
In fact it seems impossible to say what or where a thought is.
There is only the brief experience of it.

Yes, they are real as experiences. They are experienced and so somehow they exist. But I make the distinction between “real” and “true”. A thought may be real, but that doesn’t make it true.

Can you see that thinking is conceptual and all words are symbols? That they are not reality?

Yes, that is correct. But what does it mean to say “conceptual”? That is again another word. It doesn’t describe the experience of a thought. Words and thoughts can’t be found in experience,as "objects" in reality (if that is what we mean by raw experience). The only way that there can be experience of a word is in the form of marks on a piece of paper or in the sound of it being spoken. That is the experience of a "real" word - with shape and colour or sound. It is not possible to experience a "real" thought. There is the experience of the content of a thought, but it is not possible to experience a "thought" as an object of experience. So the word "thought" is again just a word used to describe a type of experience, but no real thing.

Reality is that which is.
Description of reality are words that are not reality in themselves.
Like word body is not an actual body but a symbol, used to communicate.

Yes, I totally understand.

So certain thoughts (as abstract symbols) points to reality, like the word ‘chair’. But most thoughts don’t even do this. They just point to other thoughts, other concepts, like freedom, courage, disappointment, university, education, or ‘she hurt my feelings’, etc.
Is this clear?

Yes, very clear.
From your pointing and questions above, I can see that no word or thought is present in experience, in reality. No word even comes close to what the experience is.

Thank you, Vivien.

Hi Ian,

The thing is that you got hang up on language, on words, and thus you failed to look what those questions pointed to.

Yes, words will never be able to come even close to what is, but we need words to communicate.

And some ( a few) words/thoughts point directly to what is; like the words:
Experience, what is, color, sound, sensation, taste, smell, thought

But most of the thoughts don’t point directly to experience, to what is, but rather to point only to other thoughts.

And the trick lies in in this. Since thoughts almost always interpreting and narrating what is going on, and if we are not seeing those narrating, labelling thoughts in the moment of happening to be only abstract thought-fluff, then we believe the thought to be something real, as if the content of that thought were actually happening.

And this is very important. Here lies the distinction between dreaming and waking.

When I search the location between the eyes, there is looking, but even that is just a word which doesn’t capture the experience.

The thing is that you are trying to correct your words, you are trying to describe it differently, and at the same time, you don’t look where the questions are pointing at.

You missed what I was pointing to, since you thought that it’s just about words. But it isn’t.

V: HOW do you know that it’s the sensation of LOOKING? What is providing this information?

I: There is no knowing or knower of the sensation of looking.
Nothing in the sensation says “looking”
So it can only be a subtle overlay of thought that adds the label “looking”.
But the word “looking” kind of implies eyes, vision or seeing.
We can even drop “sensation of”.
Now there is just looking.
But what if we drop the word “looking”.
So there is just presence, experience, being.
No apparent eyes involved. No act of looking involved.
Just……………this!!!! Beyond the words.

This is conceptual (meaning coming from thinking); this is a logical thinking. This is not coming from looking, but from analysing, and following logic.

Especially this part:

But the word “looking” kind of implies eyes, vision or seeing.
We can even drop “sensation of”.
Now there is just looking.
But what if we drop the word “looking”.
So there is just presence, experience, being.
No apparent eyes involved. No act of looking involved.

Dear Ian, you missed what I was pointing at.

I was pointing to see that there is no subject-object relation.
But you made it into a philosophical explanation

I think in using words, we are making a distinction between whether the experience is one of seeing, hearing, touching etc.
Without those descriptive words, what can be said? Nothing.
Beyond the words, without the words, in the raw experience, there is no distinction.
Any sensation is only ever just the same experience.
It just is. No words are possible. To utter a word is to miss it.

But this is not what I’m pointing at.

It's not about the eyes. Let’s just use one word: experiencing instead of looking.
Is experiencing going on? Or just experience?

There cannot be experiencing between a subject-object split.
Since experiencing is a verb, which is performed by a subject.
A subject (experiencer) is experiencing the experience.
Hence subject-object split is created.
It’s an artificial, thought based illusion.
This is an illusion about separation.
What I’m pointing at there is no separation.

There is no experiencing… where would that be? In the imagined space between the assumed subject and object?
Or experiencing would be the imagined ability of the assumed subject (experiencer)?

Is there an experiencer?
Is there experiencing happening?
Or there is only experience?

In other words:

Is there a knower, which knows what is happening?
Is there knowing going on in reality? Is there something knowing what is happening?
Or there is only the known? Only what is happening?

Yes looking / seeing are not experienced. In fact, they are only words. The word is not experienced. The word “looking” is not looking / seeing.
Without unnecessary imposed labels, only colours and shapes happening, but then even the words “colour” and “shape” is too much. They don’t come close to the actual experience.

The thing is that you are analysing the words, and saying that none of them convey what is actually happening. Yes, that’s true, but you are throwing away the tools that would help you to see through the illusion.

Don’t through away your tools while you need them. Because then you miss to see what those pointers (in form of words) were pointing to.

Yes, that is correct. But what does it mean to say “conceptual”? That is again another word. It doesn’t describe the experience of a thought. Words and thoughts can’t be found in experience,as "objects" in reality (if that is what we mean by raw experience). The only way that there can be experience of a word is in the form of marks on a piece of paper or in the sound of it being spoken. That is the experience of a "real" word - with shape and colour or sound. It is not possible to experience a "real" thought. There is the experience of the content of a thought, but it is not possible to experience a "thought" as an object of experience. So the word "thought" is again just a word used to describe a type of experience, but no real thing.

OK, there are some confusion here. Especially this one:

. There is the experience of the content of a thought, but it is not possible to experience a "thought" as an object of experience.

When you look at it colsely, then it turns out that it’s quite the opposite.

When a thought is happening, it’s undeniably there, it’s undeniably happening.
So the thought as a phenomenon is happening, it’s real.
The phenomenon of a thought is experienced.

But what the thought is about, the content, is NOT experienced.
Although the thought as a phenomenon is happening, it is experience, but it doesn’t contain any experience.

Let’s look at some examples. Please don’t just think through the following questions, but actually do it. Do everything you can to experience the content of thoughts.

Can you experience the content of the thought ‘sweet’? Can you actually TASE sweetness when you think this thought?

Can you experience the content of the thought ‘warm’? Do you actually FEEL warmth when you think the thought ‘warmth’?

Can you experience the thought ‘fragrant’? Do you actually SMELL fragrance when thinking this thought?
If you say no, then why not?

The only way that there can be experience of a word is in the form of marks on a piece of paper or in the sound of it being spoken

No. This is conceptual, meaning, it’s coming from thinking not form looking at experience.

Words on a piece of paper are NOT the experience of thoughts.
Rather it’s the experience of sensations + colors + the thought label ‘paper’ or ‘words on a paper’.
Experience is very simple.

There is only color, sound, sensation, taste, smell, and thought. In one word: experience.
Everything else is just an abstract thought-fluff. Not reality. Just imagination. Just abstraction.

Seeing this clearly is essential.

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

The thing is that you got hang up on language, on words, and thus you failed to look what those questions pointed to.

Yes, words will never be able to come even close to what is, but we need words to communicate.

Yes and no! I didn’t fail to look. I certainly looked at what the questions pointed at.
There is experience of that.
It was trying to communicate back the experience to you that is the problem.

When I concentrate on your questions, on what they point to, there is certainly experience.
That is clear and direct.
I then feel that I need to try to communicate or describe the experience to you to answer the question.
[Maybe I don’t even need to do that!!]
When I do that, you question the words I use, and it seems that you are doing that because you doubt the experience here, but it is more that I seem to use the wrong words to describe the experience of what the questions pointed at and that makes you doubt my experience of it!!!

And some ( a few) words/thoughts point directly to what is; like the words:
Experience, what is, color, sound, sensation, taste, smell, thought

Yes, I totally understand.

But most of the thoughts don’t point directly to experience, to what is, but rather to point only to other thoughts.

Agreed.

And the trick lies in in this.

Since thoughts almost always interpreting and narrating what is going on, and if we are not seeing those narrating, labelling thoughts in the moment of happening to be only abstract thought-fluff, then we believe the thought to be something real, as if the content of that thought were actually happening.

And this is very important. Here lies the distinction between dreaming and waking.

So, just to be clear, can you confirm that the “distinction between dreaming and waking” is falling for this “trick” of thoughts? It is believing the contents of the thoughts that keeps us dreaming? We continue to dream If we don’t see that thought trick?
I understand that. I just want to be sure that is what you meant.

When I search the location between the eyes, there is looking, but even that is just a word which doesn’t capture the experience.

The thing is that you are trying to correct your words, you are trying to describe it differently, and at the same time, you don’t look where the questions are pointing at.

No, I am using your questions as pointers and I am looking at where the questions are pointing at. That is very clear. The experience is very clear. It is only in trying to be precise in the words used to describe the experience that it appears to you that I am not looking.

For example:

HOW do you know that it’s the sensation of LOOKING? What is providing this information?

In the experience there is no “sensation of looking”.
It was just the content of a thought that got typed out to try to describe the experience.
So, I fell for the thought trick by believing that the content of the thought "sensation of looking" was the actual experience. I see the "trick" in operation there.

Especially this part:
But the word “looking” kind of implies eyes, vision or seeing.
We can even drop “sensation of”.
Now there is just looking.
But what if we drop the word “looking”.
So there is just presence, experience, being.
No apparent eyes involved. No act of looking involved.

Dear Ian, you missed what I was pointing at.

No I didn’t!! I just cannot describe the experience that is being pointed at.

I was pointing to see that there is no subject-object relation.

Yes, that is the experience.There is no experience of subject and object, outside of falling for thoughts about that.

It's not about the eyes. Let’s just use one word: experiencing instead of looking.
Is experiencing going on? Or just experience?

Just experience.

There cannot be experiencing between a subject-object split.
Since experiencing is a verb, which is performed by a subject.
A subject (experiencer) is experiencing the experience.
Hence subject-object split is created.
It’s an artificial, thought based illusion.
This is an illusion about separation.
What I’m pointing at there is no separation.

Totally. In the experience, no separation is experienced, unless added by falling for the thoughts "trick".

There is no experiencing… where would that be?

In the imagined space between the assumed subject and object?
Or experiencing would be the imagined ability of the assumed subject (experiencer)?

Totally agreed.

Is there an experiencer?

No, there is no experience of an experiencer in the experience.

Is there experiencing happening?
Or there is only experience?

Yes, only experience.

Is there a knower, which knows what is happening?

No, there is no knower in the experience.
No knower can be found in colour, sound, touch or feel.
There could only be a thought "knower", but there is not in my experience.

Is there knowing going on in reality? Is there something knowing what is happening?
Or there is only the known? Only what is happening?

Only what is happening. Only the experience.

The thing is that you are analysing the words, and saying that none of them convey what is actually happening. Yes, that’s true, but you are throwing away the tools that would help you to see through the illusion.

Don’t through away your tools while you need them. Because then you miss to see what those pointers (in form of words) were pointing to.

Ok. No more word games. Only the tool words:

Experience, what is, color, sound, sensation, taste, smell, thought”

When a thought is happening, it’s undeniably there, it’s undeniably happening.
So the thought as a phenomenon is happening, it’s real.
The phenomenon of a thought is experienced.

Yes, I agree. I was just trying to say that I’m not sure anyone can say what “the phenomenon of thought” actually is, outside of the experience of it. Nobody knows what a “thought” actually is. You cannot point to a thought.

But what the thought is about, the content, is NOT experienced.
Although the thought as a phenomenon is happening, it is experience, but it doesn’t contain any experience.

Yes, I understand and agree.

Let’s look at some examples. Please don’t just think through the following questions, but actually do it. Do everything you can to experience the content of thoughts.

OK.

Can you experience the content of the thought ‘sweet’? Can you actually TASTE sweetness when you think this thought?

No, there is no sweetness in the experience. Images of “sweet” things arise, but there is no experience of sweetness. There is nothing in experience that gives rise to a sensation of tasting sweetness. There is just the experience of a thought.

Can you experience the content of the thought ‘warm’? Do you actually FEEL warmth when you think the thought ‘warmth’?

No, there is no experience of warmth. Images of sitting by a fire or having a warm shower come up, but in experience there is nothing that gives rise to a feeling of warmth. There is just the experience of a thought.

Can you experience the thought ‘fragrant’? Do you actually SMELL fragrance when thinking this thought?

Same reply. There is no experience of a real smell.

If you say no, then why not?

Because in the experience of the phenomenon of a thought there is no taste, no warmth, no smell and the content of the thought – sweet, warm, fragrant is not real. It is not in experience and is not present in the experience of the thought phenomenon.

Experience is very simple.

It certainly is. Effortless. Direct. Immediate.

There is only color, sound, sensation, taste, smell, and thought. In one word: experience.
Everything else is just an abstract thought-fluff. Not reality. Just imagination. Just abstraction.

Seeing this clearly is essential.

Yes, describing the experience with words like colour, sound, taste, smell is Ok. That is easy.
As you explain, however, describing the experience of thought is a bit harder.
The experience of the phenomenon of a thought versus the non-experience of its content.

The pure experience is seen here, Vivien, even if not described well!
I think the important thing you have pointed out is the “trick” of thoughts.
Believing that the contents of thoughts are real.
Falling for the trick.

….. if we are not seeing those narrating, labelling thoughts in the moment of happening to be only abstract thought-fluff, then we believe the thought to be something real, as if the content of that thought were actually happening.

Understood. That is very important and helpful to now understand and be able to see in action.

Thank you, Vivien.

Hi Ian,

I then feel that I need to try to communicate or describe the experience to you to answer the question.
[Maybe I don’t even need to do that!!]

You have to describe your experience, otherwise I wouldn’t have any idea where you are at the moment. But when you describe it, you have to use words to describes the experience as precisely as you can, WITHOUT ADDING anything extra.
There are only your written words I can work with and respond to. So your words have to reflect your seeing. I know it’s not the easiest thing to do, but we have to use words to communicate, we cannot get around it.

When I do that, you question the words I use, and it seems that you are doing that because you doubt the experience here, but it is more that I seem to use the wrong words to describe the experience of what the questions pointed at and that makes you doubt my experience of it!!!

Yes, this could happen. And sometimes you just can’t find the best words to describe it, and some other times you are believing your words and mistake them for reality, without even seeing that this happens. And my job is to trying to spot it when it happens.

So, just to be clear, can you confirm that the “distinction between dreaming and waking” is falling for this “trick” of thoughts? It is believing the contents of the thoughts that keeps us dreaming? We continue to dream If we don’t see that thought trick?

Yes, exactly. And this happens much more often than one might assume. It happens a lot. The everyday human condition is being almost completely lost in the content of thoughts, not seeing them only as thoughts, but rather believing them and thus mistaking them for reality.

And even when the self is seen through, this mistaking thoughts for reality is still goes on. It requires lots of looking and investigation to gradually and slowly dissolve this habit.

In the experience there is no “sensation of looking”.
It was just the content of a thought that got typed out to try to describe the experience.
So, I fell for the thought trick by believing that the content of the thought "sensation of looking" was the actual experience. I see the "trick" in operation there.

Yes, exactly. And this is what I was pointing to. The thought ‘sensation of looking’ was mistaken with reality.
Totally. In the experience, no separation is experienced, unless added by falling for the thoughts "trick".

Yes. So I invite you to focus on this, and trying to spot this mechanism as often as possible during the day.
To see how often we ‘fall under this spell’, so to speak :)

Notice, when you have an ‘inner dialog’ with someone.
That dialog is not happening here now, but when it happens, we mostly take it as if it were actually happening.
And what is the sure sign that we believe the content of thoughts? Emotional reactions, bodily contractions.

When we believe a thought be real, then that abstract fleeting concept turns into something very real. As if the body were a duplicating or transforming machine, and it transforms our fantasies (thoughts) into actual, real felt sensations, into bodily contractions, unpleasant sensation or emotions (but these are all just sensations). So in this way we feel what we think. With this transformation the self becomes quite real again. As if the felt sensations are filling our ‘internal dream stories’ with life, with reality. The realness of the sensations are providing the reality effect to your thought stories.

I remember you mentioned that these negative or unpleasant emotions and reactions have lessen a lot, but if you look closely, you might still can spot some, probably with less intensity. Just notice, every time when there is a judgment on something – good, bad, unpleasant, boring, exciting, etc. – these mental labels are easily turned into felt sensations.

And at the same time, the illusion of separation is created. Since I am the one who is judging the sunset beautiful, and the getting up early unpleasant, so with each judgement not seen only to be a thought-fluff, the subject-object split is emerges out of thin air.

Just notice how often this happens. Let me know what you find.

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

You have to describe your experience, otherwise I wouldn’t have any idea where you are at the moment. But when you describe it, you have to use words to describes the experience as precisely as you can, WITHOUT ADDING anything extra.

Yes, you have helped me to be more aware of that. Thank you.

and some other times you are believing your words and mistake them for reality, without even seeing that this happens. And my job is to trying to spot it when it happens.

Yes, absolutely. You have done that very well. It is not something I understood or was even really aware of before your pointing. That is a big step forward for me.

The everyday human condition is being almost completely lost in the content of thoughts, not seeing them only as thoughts, but rather believing them and thus mistaking them for reality.

I knew about that, but can now see it much more clearly than before.

And even when the self is seen through, this mistaking thoughts for reality is still goes on. It requires lots of looking and investigation to gradually and slowly dissolve this habit.

I would be grateful for your suggestion on how best to do that.

And this is what I was pointing to. The thought ‘sensation of looking’ was mistaken with reality.

Yes, that was a very important lesson. Not only is there the mistake of believing the content of the thought (“a sensation of looking”) but also the mistake of then believing that was actually present in experience!! Mistaking the thought for a real experience and thus not seeing the real experience itself.

Yes. So I invite you to focus on this, and trying to spot this mechanism as often as possible during the day. To see how often we ‘fall under this spell’, so to speak :)

Yes, I will do. I am keen to practice it, so that I can spot the “trick” early or be aware of how it works before falling under its spell!!

Notice, when you have an ‘inner dialog’ with someone.
That dialog is not happening here now, but when it happens, we mostly take it as if it were actually happening.
And what is the sure sign that we believe the content of thoughts? Emotional reactions, bodily contractions.

Absolutely. Those bodily sensations are a great indicator to look out for. They are most often unwanted sensations, so it is like an alarm bell to get back to looking. They are an alarm bell that something is being believed that isn't real in experience. I believe that such bodily reactions to the thought content are mostly unpleasant (not always, but usually) because the thought content that is being believed has to do with something that is perceived to be bad for the "self", threatening to some aspect of the "self". This causes the stronger felt reactions in the body. So, if we reverse that, the stronger and more unpleasant the bodily sensations, the stronger must be the belief in the "self" being attacked or threatened. I think that is why these things are weaker for me, because I have not had a very strong "self" image for a long time. I'm not saying it is not there. Of course it is. As long as there is belief in separation, it must be present. But it seems to be much weaker for me and so are the bodily sensations. I don't react in that way very much. I hope that is clear and not too many words again!!!!

When we believe a thought be real, then that abstract fleeting concept turns into something very real……….. So in this way we feel what we think.

Yes, it is scary how automatic and quick that is, because it is the human habit until it is seen for what it is.

With this transformation the self becomes quite real again. As if the felt sensations are filling our ‘internal dream stories’ with life, with reality. The realness of the sensations are providing the reality effect to your thought stories.

I understand.

I remember you mentioned that these negative or unpleasant emotions and reactions have lessen a lot

Yes, that has been my experience, but I agree that it is certainly still going on at a more subtle level that therefore a bit harder to spot. I think being more aware of sensations is a good cue to watch for.

And at the same time, the illusion of separation is created. Since I am the one who is judging the sunset beautiful, and the getting up early unpleasant, so with each judgement not seen only to be a thought-fluff, the subject-object split is emerges out of thin air.

This is also a very useful pointer.
If the thought trick can be spotted and return to just what is actually the raw experience, stripped of the thought story content, it is seen that there is no subject-object split.
But without some concentrated effort to be vigilant, it is so easy for the habit of believing the thoughts to allow the subject-object split to creep back in!! Very sneaky!!

Just notice how often this happens. Let me know what you find.

Yes, I will. Thank you. Let me do so for a day or two and then report back.

Thank you , Vivien, Have a great weekend.

Hi Vivien,

I've been looking at this very closely all day. Even just the understanding of the mechanism of the thought stories being believed to be real starts to weaken their hold. To weaken their impact on experience.

But this has given rise to a question:

I understand and know that in experience, in what is actually happening, there is no knower, no thinker, no seer, no doer and no such thing as a separate awareness that is "aware of experience" or "in which it is all happening". All of those are themselves just belief in thought images or concepts that are not real and cannot be found. Even when that is all seen, it seems like there still remains some weaker but subtle residual belief in the "me" or "I" thought stories or images, that as you said, result in the subject-object split rather that just pure experience.

So it seems to me that it is important to understand what is the mechanism of this "belief" in thoughts? What is actually happening when we say that "thoughts are believed in" or as you said "when we believe a thought to be real"? There is no believer. So what is going on that results in there being a belief in a thought? What is that? What is the mechanism? How best to understand that? Because it is the belief in the thought that then seems to create the reactions felt in the body and that, as you said, it is the realness of those sensations that further supports the reality effect of the thought story believed.

Understanding how this works seems to me to be critical because the continued belief and hence mistake of taking the content or story of thoughts to be real is the main thing that creates the whole illusion and leads to such a misunderstanding or inability to recognise pure experience for what it really is.

And even further, no longer believing the "me" thought itself to be true or about anything real, causes the habitual subject-object split to collapse into a genuine experience of no self.

Thank you, Vivien

Hi Ian,

V: And even when the self is seen through, this mistaking thoughts for reality is still goes on. It requires lots of looking and investigation to gradually and slowly dissolve this habit.

I: I would be grateful for your suggestion on how best to do that.

There are no clear-cut recipes for that. You just have to notice thoughts as they arise.
But also, at some point you have to work on all the traumas and emotional wounds we all have. Since every time they are poked or touched by certain stimuli they will trigger the sense of self. So everything that makes up our personalities needs to be look at sooner or later. But of course, many people don’t go there.

Seeing through the self is just the first step, not the end. Falling away of conditionings can last at the end of the organism.
Even when that is all seen, it seems like there still remains some weaker but subtle residual belief in the "me" or "I" thought stories or images, that as you said, result in the subject-object split rather that just pure experience.

Yes. But what you are talking about is well beyond the scope of this forum. We are only pointing to simply seeing that there is no separate self anywhere. And as I mentioned it’s just the beginning not the end. The illusion of the subject-object split will go on. And that cannot be resolved with a few pointers. Since all the beliefs you’ve ever hold about yourself and the world are still keeping it together. And investigating these beliefs can take years, often lots of years.

So it seems to me that it is important to understand what is the mechanism of this "belief" in thoughts? What is actually happening when we say that "thoughts are believed in" or as you said "when we believe a thought to be real"? There is no believer. So what is going on that results in there being a belief in a thought? What is that? What is the mechanism? How best to understand that? Because it is the belief in the thought that then seems to create the reactions felt in the body and that, as you said, it is the realness of those sensations that further supports the reality effect of the thought story believed.

This is not something to understand. When there is a desire to understand things, then the self is believed to be real in that moment.

Rather investigate who and what for it wants to understand things. Who or what is not satisfied with what is, and rather wants 'pure experience" instead what is.

It’s not about understanding, but rather looking at all your beliefs you have of yourself, others and the world. And this takes lots of time.

Understanding how this works seems to me to be critical because the continued belief and hence mistake of taking the content or story of thoughts to be real is the main thing that creates the whole illusion and leads to such a misunderstanding or inability to recognise pure experience for what it really is.

To believe that certain thoughts are true in general is the thing that needs to look be at.

For example, most of us have beliefs things like.. I am not good enough, I am not lovable, I need to do something in order to win others love, approval and acceptance, I am ugly, I am fat, I am too old, I’m not clever enough, people often reject me, the world is not safe, etc… + all the beliefs and traumas we gathered through our upbringing.

If there is any thought/belief you feel that it’s true and you need to protect it when someone challenges that belief.

Every thought that makes us contracted comes with a belief about myself, the world and others. The things that feels personal… the things that I personally react to…

Vivien

Ok, Vivien, thank you.
I can see that noticing the belief in every one of those thoughts could take a long time. I think your pointer to the felt sensations those beliefs create is a useful one to notice when a belief is in action, but some are even more subtle. I find that just learning from you and now knowing this thought story mechanism already helps a lot in spotting it in action.

Can I ask for your help please just with the looking at experience again?

I found the pointers to hearing and touch and taste very helpful. Particularly with hearing, the realisation that the sound is not felt or sensed anywhere close to the ears. The sound is experienced where it is. With the sensation of hearing there is no sense that hearing is occurring inside the body and so does not seem to be associated with the thought image "I am hearing". The same is true for the sensation of touch. The sensation of touch is experienced at the point of contact, in the fingers or skin, and again, no strong sense of "I am touching" or "touching is experienced in here".

But seeing seems to be more difficult and I belief that is because there is belief in thought images about seeing and looking and who is looking or seeing that create the sense that seeing is somehow "in here". There is more of a sense of a "looker" than there is a "hearer" and with the belief in the sense of a looker comes a sense of location "inside here". Even though it is seen that, just like sounds, what is seen, the sensation of seeing an object is actually seen to be where that object is. The seeing and the object are one thing. It seems hard to experience that clearly without the sense of there being a "looker" somehow located at the centre from which things are seen. This is very strong.

Can you please provide any pointers to counteract that perception? That belief.

Thank you, Vivien

Hi Ian,

But seeing seems to be more difficult and I belief that is because there is belief in thought images about seeing and looking and who is looking or seeing that create the sense that seeing is somehow "in here".

Before investigating this, there is something else to look at.

I found the pointers to hearing and touch and taste very helpful. Particularly with hearing, the realisation that the sound is not felt or sensed anywhere close to the ears. The sound is experienced where it is

Let’s do an experiment.

You will need a continuous source of a neutral sound, like the sound of the fridge, or the sound of the fan of the laptop, or the background noise of traffic.

I will use the example of the sound of the fridge.

So the sound is not experienced in the head, at the ear. Is this totally clear experientially?

The sound is experienced where it is

Is this really the case? How do you know where the sound is experienced?
Is the sound even experienced? Or there is only sound?

Look at the fridge.
Now there is the image (colors) of the fridge + sound.

Is the sound known at physical location where the image of the fridge is?
Is there any actual link between the visual of the fridge and the sound?
Is there ANY location of the sound at all?

With the sensation of hearing there is no sense that hearing is occurring inside the body and so does not seem to be associated with the thought image "I am hearing".

Yes, that’s true. But do you see that saying that the ‘sound is experienced where it is’ just another thought idea, and not how actually is?

Saying that ‘the sound is experienced where it is’ is equal to saying that there is an experiencer of the sound, but the experiencer of the sound is not at the ears or the head, but at the location where the sound is. So both the experiencer and the sound appear at the same location, where the act of experiencing is taking place.

And there are 4 main questions:

- Is there an act of experiencing?
- is there an experiencer performing the act of experiencing?
- are there 3 things happening at the same location: experiencer + experiencing + sound?
- is there an actual location for the sound at all?

The same is true for the sensation of touch. The sensation of touch is experienced at the point of contact, in the fingers or skin, and again, no strong sense of "I am touching" or "touching is experienced in here".

So what about this one? Is this really the case?

Vivien

Hi Vivien

I will use the example of the sound of the fridge.

OK great, here it is an ice maker!!

So the sound is not experienced in the head, at the ear. Is this totally clear experientially?

Yes, there is a clear strong sense that the sound is not in the head or at the ears.

The sound is experienced where it is

Is this really the case? How do you know where the sound is experienced?

Describing only shapes and colours etc, (I am sitting in the kitchen on a chair – all labels yes!!). There is a large white area (stone floor - label) then a shiny grey square above it (the ice making machine- label) with black surrounding. There are other shapes and colours left and right, above, below. This array of colours and shapes creates the impression of space and distance and separation between them, but it is all one scene. The impression then is that the sound is located at one location within this scene and not others. There is another brown shape on the right. The sound is not there.

So to answer your question: based on the “normal” (??) experience of spatial layout, the sound appears “located” by reference to certain areas of shape and colour and not others.

Is the sound even experienced? Or there is only sound?

OK, sorry. I thought that the word “experience” was allowed. When I use the word “experience” I am not intending to mean an “experiencer” or an act of “experiencing”. So, OK no, the sound is not experienced. A sound is occurring. There is sound.

Look at the fridge.
Now there is the image (colors) of the fridge + sound.

Is the sound known at physical location where the image of the fridge is?

Yes, as above, considering the “scene”, being just an array of colours and shapes, there is sound at the same apparent place in the scene as the shapes and colours labelled “ice maker”.

Is there any actual link between the visual of the fridge and the sound?

No, none at all. The sound and the shapes and the colours have no link or relationship in experience, other than apparent relative position.

Is there ANY location of the sound at all?

Yes, apparently so, there is. There is some kind of spatial layout. All the colours, shapes, sounds and touch sensations are not all occurring on top of each other. That would be a complete mess!! They are distinct. Spread out.

Yes, that’s true. But do you see that saying that the ‘sound is experienced where it is’ just another thought idea, and not how actually is?

I can imagine that it could be mediated by a thought idea, but that is not my actual experience. It seems very hard to believe that the spatial relationship is not real. Unless this is all some fancy virtual reality projection in side my "head", but that is not what is here, unless of course it is all an illusion!!

Saying that ‘the sound is experienced where it is’ is equal to saying that there is an experiencer of the sound, but the experiencer of the sound is not at the ears or the head, but at the location where the sound is. So both the experiencer and the sound appear at the same location, where the act of experiencing is taking place.

I don’t agree!! Again, that is not what I mean when using the word “experienced”. So I cannot use that word if it is unclear. I am certainly not saying that there an experiencer anywhere. No experiencer can be found. There is no experiencer in the scene. I don’t feel that the location of the sound implies an "experiencer" where the sound is or "experiencing" taking place. Where the sound is, there is just the sound. Where the grey square is, there is just a grey square. These are NOT "being experienced", they just are what they are. It is "where" they are, that you are saying is not real or is being misinterpreted somehow.

And there are 4 main questions:

- Is there an act of experiencing?

No, there is no sense of an “act of experiencing”.

- is there an experiencer performing the act of experiencing?

No, no experiencer can be found, performing any act.

- are there 3 things happening at the same location: experiencer + experiencing + sound?

No, absolutely not. Just sound happening.

- is there an actual location for the sound at all?

Well, the words “actual location” could be tricky!! GPS location? On “earth”?? In my house? But describing just what is, in the juxtaposition of colours, shapes (floor, walls, furniture – labels), sensations of touch (sitting on a chair) and sounds, the “ice maker” sound is happening where it is, and not elsewhere. The sound is not in the same location as the “chair” shape.

It doesn’t matter how hard I consider it, the sense of relative spatial position is very very strong.

The same is true for the sensation of touch.

So what about this one? Is this really the case?

Yes. As I was sitting contemplating above, I also noticed the sensation of touch of hands on the table, bottom on the chair, feet on the floor, in relation to the sound "of the ice maker" (label). All separate, not all on top of each other, in one place, but in relation to each other spatially.

If that sense of spatial location is, as you say, not real, but only created as a thought image, then it totally has me fooled!! And if that is not reality, then that would be a huge shock. A huge change in perception or how the world is experienced. I could only get there by starting to use concepts of awareness and the like and I was specifically NOT doing that and staying with just “looking” and “experience”.

If this sense of location or of relative spatial positioning is another thought "trick" then I am starting to get really frustrated!!! There seems no way through that. I can't see how that is a thought that is "believed"!!! Very tricky and effective indeed.

Thank you, Vivien.

Hi Vivien,

There does not seem to be a reply from you today.
I hope you are well.
I assume that you must be very busy.
I look forward to hearing from you hopefully tomorrow.

Still feel very much that I need your continued guidance.
I think that I need to spend more time on the direct experiential looking, to counteract the tendency to go to thoughts and concepts.

Thank you, Vivien.