Guide Available

[hylas]

Just what I needed to hear, thank you. Will do as instructed and report tomorrow.

[hylas]

So, I have continuously asked myself if I am aware of the body. Of course, when I am looking at it I am aware of its surfaces, or the clothes that clothe it. When my eyes rest elsewhere I am aware only of sensations that I habitually assign to parts of the body. I feel a pressure at the feet, an ache in a tooth, a warmth at the feet, an itch or tingle at the nape or scalp. There is nothing at all in the guts, in the muscles when stationary. With my eyes closed I am aware of these same things, but because of the absence of sensations between them (spatially) I feel that there could be empty space between each sensation. Aside from habit or assumption or a kind of connect the dots, there is no body other than these sensations. Particularly in the area between knee and hip there is nothing, no awareness at all, most of the time. If I woke up in a hospital, and could not see my legs, and had the very same sensations, and a doctor told me that my thighs had been amputated and the rest of my legs sewn to my hips, my sensations would not contradict his assertion.

When I say "I am the body" subsequent to this, it seems absurd. How can I be the body when i am aware of so little of the body? And to claim I am this collection of itches and feelings of pressure seems more absurd. When I ask the same question but not right after the "am I aware?" experiment I feel nothing at all. I don't feel there's any way to make the proposition true, no way to inject myself into the idea of body.

The visual aspect is harder to dismiss so readily. It's always there when I turn to look at it. And it seems to move when I want it to, even if that volition is not a verbal thought.

[Josephkoudelka]

When I say "I am the body" subsequent to this, it seems absurd. How can I be the body when i am aware of so little of the body? And to claim I am this collection of itches and feelings of pressure seems more absurd. When I ask the same question but not right after the "am I aware?" experiment I feel nothing at all. I don't feel there's any way to make the proposition true, no way to inject myself into the idea of body.

Yes. I am aware of a body through seeing, yet when I look at the actual experience dropping my thoughts about what it means, I am aware of sensations, pressures, itching, tingles occurring in space like awareness. This crucial for breaking the identification with both the body and thoughts.

Lets look look at thoughts now in the same way.

Throughout the day, when time and occasion permits, notice, "I am aware of thoughts." Do this with eyes open or closed, whatever way is best to really notice "I am aware of thoughts." Then after some time settling into this sense of alive knowing of thinking and thoughts, repeat to yourself, "I am these thoughts." Notice whatever arises. Alternate between these two exercises. After spending the day doing this, describe the direct experience of these two.

[hylas]

Indeed, the "thought experiment" produces similar results to the body experiment. When I remind myself to be aware of thoughts, thoughts seem like mere things to be aware of. They stream through my mind, based on whatever stimulus or previous thought there might be (or, more likely, they are thoughts about what it means to be aware of thoughts). Invariably, when I first think to be aware of thoughts, that thought seems to cancel other thoughts (if only momentarily). So, ironically, the command to be aware of thoughts seems to clear my awareness of thoughts, or at least allow me to be more acutely aware of things that are not thoughts.

This may be beside the point, but when my mind comes back to thoughts, the thoughts tend to center on what it means to reason, to try to reach understanding, and who it is that's trying to understand, and what it means to understand something subsequent to thoughts.

When I try to assert that I am the thoughts I'm having, I immediately seem more separate from them. The very assertion seems to highlight the absurdity of claiming that I am them (or at least that I am mostly them). For some reason, the claim that I am thoughts makes the thoughts themselves more distant.

[Josephkoudelka]

When I try to assert that I am the thoughts I'm having, I immediately seem more separate from them. The very assertion seems to highlight the absurdity of claiming that I am them (or at least that I am mostly them). For some reason, the claim that I am thoughts makes the thoughts themselves more distant.

Yes, it is absurd to believe we are thoughts.

So it is apparent that there is awareness or knowing of thoughts. Are thoughts aware of anything? Look from DE and use the previous exercise as a base for looking to see if a thought is aware of anything.

In the same vein, does a thought know anything? Spend time looking from platform of witnessing awareness, which is simply the knowing presence that is aware of thoughts. This applies to previous question as well.

[Josephkoudelka]

Above should say - "...this knowing presence that is aware...

[hylas]

Are thoughts aware of anything? Look from DE and use the previous exercise as a base for looking to see if a thought is aware of anything.

I must say that, even though I once thought of thought as awareness itself, it now seems just as laughable to say that thought is aware of anything as it is to say "I am thought." Thoughts stream through my mind like ticker tape, meaningless in-and-of themselves. It's quite obvious that whatever is aware of body—of feelings—is aware of thoughts, in much the same way.

In the same vein, does a thought know anything?

It's also obvious that a thought knows nothing on its own. A thought is no more capable of knowing than a word read on a page, or an object seen or heard. I continue to puzzle over what exactly "knowing" is. It seems more active than "awareness." If I have a simple thought such as "the sidewalk is icy," it obviously is aware of nothing. Awareness is aware of it. But did it arise from some proto-thought? Was this proto-thought also present to awareness? I suspect the answer is yes, and that the part of thought that is verbal is almost completely superfluous, a needless echo, registered by awareness after awareness has already made it unnecessary. But when it comes to "figuring things out" things become less clear. The thought that "a=b, and b=c, so a=c" seems to actually do something. I don't say that, in this case, thought knows anything or is aware of anything, but it does seem to be a useful tool that allows awareness to know something new. How it does so remains mysterious. Did awareness make the final conclusion? Seems unlikely, But, then, what did thought do to make the third part understood? Maybe this is irrelevant to the inquiry at hand. Regardless of the mechanics of problem solving, it is clear that thought alone can know nothing.

[Josephkoudelka]

I must say that, even though I once thought of thought as awareness itself, it now seems just as laughable to say that thought is aware of anything as it is to say "I am thought." Thoughts stream through my mind like ticker tape, meaningless in-and-of themselves. It's quite obvious that whatever is aware of body—of feelings—is aware of thoughts, in much the same way.

Yes. A thought is aware of nothing. It is just a thought.

I continue to puzzle over what exactly "knowing" is. It seems more active than "awareness." If I have a simple thought such as "the sidewalk is icy," it obviously is aware of nothing. Awareness is aware of it. But did it arise from some proto-thought? Was this proto-thought also present to awareness? I suspect the answer is yes, and that the part of thought that is verbal is almost completely superfluous, a needless echo, registered by awareness after awareness has already made it unnecessary. But when it comes to "figuring things out" things become less clear.

The original proto-thought is "I am." Not "I am this..." or "I am that..." just "I am." If one explores DE regularly, remaining open to the actual experience as it is, these questions sort themselves out. As for why or how, the only answer one will get is a thought *about* the nature of Direct Experience. Sometimes these thoughts seem very profound, other times - not so much, still, thoughts are a conceptual abstraction creating a sense of self. A sense of someone who knows. This is the more active aspect between awareness and knowing.

Knowing, as we usually conceive it, is an active process of revelation available to a separate self or ego. Along with knowing often comes a sense of satisfaction or superiority, sometimes inferiority, when exposed to another's capacity for knowing. This kind of knowing involves conceptual revelation, whereas awareness is prior to all concepts. Look closely though, step behind the veil of conceptual knowing and recognize that awareness knows without any concept.

I am still approaching this from the seer-seen relationship at this point, the stand of the witness. You spoke of being familiar with Greg Goode's work, and as he points out, the witness still contains a subtle superimposition, something that knows. This topic is beyond the scope of what we do here at LU, but one we can explore further post gate. We go this deep here long enough to recognize the lack of a individual separate self.

What I would like for you to explore now is whether or not Awareness knows boundaries such as internal/external, body/not body.

Looking again, as the witnessing presence that knows DE, become aware of the environment surrounding you. Just as before, examine being "aware of", and its alternate, "I am this or that(in the environment)." After gaining a foundation between these two pov's, see if you can find a concrete boundary for awareness. See if it has an end or beginning that starts, stops, and begins again with relation to the conceptual knowledge of inside/outside, body/not body. After spending the day with this, describe what you have discovered from the standpoint of DE.

[hylas]

So, I've tried to look at the boundaries of this awareness. Visually, it's undeniable that the body is part of the scene. When I try to ignore the ingrained notion that the body is mine and I am seeing through its eyes, indeed the body is just one of many things in my field of vision. I'm nowhere near being able to claim that it seems not separate, but I can imagine it as just another set of colors in the canvas before me. I'm not sure how I am to analyze or try to experience the fuzziness at the periphery of my vision. It seems like a real limit. As does the fact that I see only what is before me. Even if the things I see only exist when I see them, there seems to be boundaries, if not distinct ones. When I am still the body is an object in that field. But again, it's the movement that comes with thought that keeps me feeling separate. Imagine stumbling upon an early video game that had a screen filled with blobs. All the blobs seem alike, and you may not even be sure if you're to be looking at blobs or the spaces between them. But when you press the joystick and see one blob move, you know instantly that "that's you." Similarly, even if volition does not come from a me, the thought that moves the body (or thing thing that thought registers when it moves the body) makes the body seem to be me mine. Or, if not mine, at least my tool, my sensory apparatus.

That said, I do notice that the feelings and sensations attributed to things via the body, and the feelings of the body, are more or less synonymous. That is, when I touch water it is one and the same to say the water feels wet or to say my hand feels wet. There is wetness. Trying to get this with vision is much more difficult. That my eye and the things it sees are experiencing a similar togetherness is hard to come to.

The idea of inner and outer, I think, I have put to rest. Or mostly. It all seem "out there" and I find nothing that is "in here." The thoughts I have just seem either everywhere or nowhere (I think that an exercise of looking in the mirror and imagining the thoughts coming from the image there instead of from me, helped). Aside from thoughts, what else would be "in here?" Unfortunately I cannot get the out there to seem like an in here. I understand that what I see before me IS my consciousness, but, somehow I still feel separate form the things in that consciousness.

And thank you for the suggestion that you may be able to help dissolve the witness when and if it comes to that. I DO appreaciate it.

[Josephkoudelka]

So, I've tried to look at the boundaries of this awareness.

Awareness is not an object that can be grasped like a thought. We are simply looking to see if there is any limit to knowing Direct Experience.

Relying on the sense data alone(not a story about the senses), where does knowing end?

Has there ever been a time when you were not aware?

[hylas]

Awareness is not an object that can be grasped like a thought. We are simply looking to see if there is any limit to knowing Direct Experience.

I'm confused by this. I understand completely that awareness is not to be grasped like an object, but I don't understand where to look for its boundaries beyond the boundaries of sense data. If sense data is just a swirl of color and sensation it still has boundaries.

Relying on the sense data alone(not a story about the senses), where does knowing end?

I feel like a fool because I find the question so hard to understand. Aren't the limits of my vision the limits of my awareness of that vision?

Has there ever been a time when you were not aware?

none that I can remember. Whether I was aware before memory, i can't say. But, knowing that a memory is just another thought I try to answer the Question more directly. But without memory the question seems nonsensical.

I don't know why the awareness of all my sense data isn't my separate "I". Hope I'm not jumping ahead by saying this.

[Josephkoudelka]

I'm confused by this.

your thinking *about* DE and awareness/knowing.

Do you know the words on the screen now?

Is there an end to knowing now?

[hylas]

I'm still confused. Knowing doesn't seem to be spatial just as thought seems not spatial. Ignoring the temporal, it has no place the same as thoughts.

[Josephkoudelka]

You're still trying to figure this out through thinking.

Look. Is there any limit to knowing "still confused?"




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Josephkoudelka]

What do you know directly right now in this moment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk