This is it

[Mawi]

Dear Nina,

Now 'go to' the feeling/sensation which we would normally refer to as 'hand on desk'
and answer from what you can FIND.

1) How many things do you find?
Are there two things (hand and desk) or is there one thing – sensation?

2) Can a ‘feeler’ be found in 'what is being felt'

3) Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'?
Or is there just 'a sensation'?

4) Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just 'a sensation'?
What do you find? Can an INHERENT FEELER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the feeler, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

Ok: I find one thing, like one blurb, that's all. There is no feeler, no thing being felt, there really just is sensation. No inherent feeler, just spaciousness with a blurb of sensation. Nothing else is here at this moment.
These exercises seem pretty obvious to me - I wonder if i miss something. Is what I notice when doing the exercises to be practiced when I am just 'living'? Maybe I am too unaware? I guess underneath this is the question: where is this going? Hopefully to a clear awareness of no 'me', and yet, i am already aware of that - but then not 'really'...hard to say...What do you think, Nina.
Thank you so much for your help!
Mawi

[suma]

Dear Mawi,

Ok: I find one thing, like one blurb, that's all. There is no feeler, no thing being felt,
there really just is sensation. No inherent feeler, just spaciousness with a blurb of sensation. Nothing else is here at this moment.
These exercises seem pretty obvious to me - I wonder if i miss something.
Is what I notice when doing the exercises to be practiced when I am just 'living'?
Maybe I am too unaware? I guess underneath this is the question: where is this going?
Hopefully to a clear awareness of no 'me', and yet, i am already aware of that –
but then not 'really'...hard to say...What do you think, Nina.

The exercises have basically only one meaning: To directly experience that there is
nothing like a separate self and never was. Something that never was - cannot be missed
as it was never there in a first place. So there’s not really much that need to be practised.
Once it was seen it is just something like the natural place that got recognized.

What is there for real? Where is all this going?
When I was in my twenties it so happened that I was in Myannmar/Burma and there a
small group of Burmese ladies invited me to visit an Arahant.

This was really a quite odd experience. I was sitting in front of this really old and
very thin and feeble old Monk. His voice was so weak that he had to speak via microphone.
The most astonishing about this man was that he was sitting there –
and at the same time nobody was sitting there.
So he was there and at the same time he was not there.
He was alive and death at the same time.
He was in the physical realm and in the ‘death’ realm at the same time.

This was totally odd, but that’s just the beauty of the whole play.
It is a living contradiction.
Another thing that I very clearly felt was a total silence in the heart area.
Usually there’s lot of helter–skelter going on and therefore it was noticed as
something really extraordinary.

This is the second contradiction which actually is not really one.
The silence or deep peace is there always and ever and the trembling ups and downs
are equally there. The first is easy to miss out and the latter is easy to overwhelm
the whole system.

Not to get lost in all that we try to look more at the direct making of all that.
To get a feeling of the background in all the stuff happening around.



Let’s continue with the exercises ( :

So now we may start to combine more senses - or even all, if possible:

Try it with two senses first, for example seeing and hearing.
Stay with it for some time.

Then add another, and add another,
for example add your bodily sensations and add your thoughts and images,
until you see the totality of experience.

Just go slowly into this.

Are you able to look at all sense impressions as a whole experience?

Can you see seeing-hearing-tasting-smelling-feeling-thinking just as a one-perception?
There might not be something happening to all the senses at the same time.
Just stay with what may enfold in the given moment.


Then look at the experience:
Is it necessary to divide it into different parts?

What do you see?
Let me know how you go.


All the best

nina

[Mawi]

Dear Nina,
Thank you for sharing your experience of paradox you had in Myanmar; it's beautiful. It helps me to hear from your personal experience. Actually, and you can say no, I'd be very interested how you experience life at this time. Is there no suffering left? Can you just see what is and know it's just that?....

So now we may start to combine more senses - or even all, if possible:

Try it with two senses first, for example seeing and hearing.
Stay with it for some time.

Then add another, and add another,
for example add your bodily sensations and add your thoughts and images,
until you see the totality of experience.

Just go slowly into this.

Are you able to look at all sense impressions as a whole experience?

Can you see seeing-hearing-tasting-smelling-feeling-thinking just as a one-perception?
There might not be something happening to all the senses at the same time.
Just stay with what may enfold in the given moment.

Checking with hearing and seeing: they clearly appear as one happening, and, also, thinking seems to be tied into seeing. It creates a context, orders relationships between things by giving meanings, structures and organizes the seen into something 'recognizable' to memory, which is also thought. (i guess that's what it's for). I was travelling in a bus, seeing a passing landscape on one hand, on the other a large TV screen with tigers, elephants etc...two different stories playing, simultaneously...and i was wondering: is one more real than the other? If there's no thought, there's no knowing of priority or reality; thought says the landscape must be more real, but i truly felt that both were the same: a movie. Even when adding sensations and feelings to seeing, hearing and thinking, all that appears is a constantly changing tapistery of color, shape, sound, meanings, labels,associations to past, body sensations, ...It's one happening, one experience, yes; just one.

Is it necessary to divide it into different parts?

No, I wouldn't quite know how, as it's all happening simultaneously. When we listen to music with an orchestra, we don't separate the different instruments from each other while hearing; it is one experience.
That makes me think again of my Near Death experience: there it was very clear, it was a happening, but it was not IT, in the sense, it was not the real thing, it was just what's covering IT up.
Today in the bus and later on, and now, realizing it's just one experience, constantly changing, there is something more, the silence, the spaciousness, IT...i guess we'll get there:).
With love,
Mawi

[suma]

Dear Mawi,

again such a lovely post to read.
Thank you very much.

Actually, and you can say no, I'd be very interested how you experience life at this time. Is there no suffering left? Can you just see what is and know it's just that?....

What is suffering? Suffering needs a sufferer. Only when there is a dog someone can kick the dog. ( :
This is not just a platitude. This is the central question circling around our exploration here.
In my experience there is causeless joy, tension, difficult emotional challenges as well as beautiful encounters on the emotional level, fear, friction, deep peace….the list could be continued endlessly.

So what is suffering?
Suffering is only there when a sufferer is there; someone to recognize and value the experience.
Suffering is there when resistance toward what is is there.
When there is a willingness to relax facing even the fiercest amalgam of emotions - there’s also a vast peace and silence one can literally just fall into. So it is just both...

Checking with hearing and seeing: they clearly appear as one happening, and, also, thinking seems to be tied into seeing. It creates a context, orders relationships between things by giving meanings, structures and organizes the seen into something 'recognizable' to memory, which is also thought. (i guess that's what it's for).

Can you also see without thought? Just seeing as seeing? So that there in seeing is mere seeing?

I was travelling in a bus, seeing a passing landscape on one hand, on the other a large TV screen with tigers, elephants etc...two different stories playing, simultaneously...and i was wondering: is one more real than the other? If there's no thought, there's no knowing of priority or reality; thought says the landscape must be more real, but i truly felt that both were the same: a movie. Even when adding sensations and feelings to seeing, hearing and thinking, all that appears is a constantly changing tapistery of color, shape, sound, meanings, labels,associations to past, body sensations, ...It's one happening, one experience, yes; just one.

Very beautiful.

That makes me think again of my Near Death experience: there it was very clear, it was a happening, but it was not IT, in the sense, it was not the real thing, it was just what's covering IT up.

This is really valuable.

Just let yourself sink into the is-ness of the present moment, may it be painful, may it be joyful;
in the background, very evasive but with infinite patience - this IT is just there.




Here is now an exercise to investigate the body.

Please follow each step, don't leave out any.
Take your time.
Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen.
Repeat the exercise several times. Stand in front of a bigger mirror.

(1) First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.

(2) Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?
Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’?
Or only thoughts suggest it?

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.
Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?
Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all? Or are there only colours and shapes?

(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.
Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs,
or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).
Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

(8) Start to walk slowly.
Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

9) Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’;
OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?


Warmly

nina

[Mawi]

Dear Nina,
Thank you so much for this beautiful sharing!

What is suffering? Suffering needs a sufferer. Only when there is a dog someone can kick the dog. ( :
This is not just a platitude. This is the central question circling around our exploration here.
In my experience there is causeless joy, tension, difficult emotional challenges as well as beautiful encounters on the emotional level, fear, friction, deep peace….the list could be continued endlessly.

I love how you say that! It pulls the whole questioning again into focus, so thank you! And it helps me to have again confirmed that the end of suffering isn't a blissed out state beyond human emotions, ha ha. Because, related to how i understood the spiritual path i was on in the past, that's what I was aiming for...well, good luck with that one! Now i am clear that it's about not resisting what is. And the resisting, when it's there, cannot be controlled, because it would need a 'resister'.

Suffering is only there when a sufferer is there; someone to recognize and value the experience.

So this is the commenting thinking which creates suffering; yes.

Can you also see without thought? Just seeing as seeing? So that there in seeing is mere seeing?

I can see without thought, however thought likes to jump in there to comment. Will I be able to see without thought? That doesn't sound right, as it's a resistance to what is. I can do it for an exercise, but then there is 'effort', or rather 'intention' involved. Oh, maybe label is not a problem, because to function I still need to know what it is. ? Do you differentiate between 'labelling' and commenting?

Just let yourself sink into the is-ness of the present moment, may it be painful, may it be joyful;
in the background, very evasive but with infinite patience - this IT is just there.

I love this very much, thank you for that. When I read it, i was fighting with unbearable pain (so it 'said'). then i tried to sink into it, but not able for long; the pain was totally overwhelming and i could neither sink nor do anything else but resist. I guess that's the pain of life...no need to fix it - it's just definitely not my preference. As for the is-ness of the moment - do you specifically pay attention to it, or remind you to sense, because it's here? Or is it automatic: that there is just experiencing of is-ness along with objects?

Here is now an exercise to investigate the body.

Please follow each step, don't leave out any.
Take your time.
Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen.
Repeat the exercise several times. Stand in front of a bigger mirror.

(1) First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.

(2) Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?
Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

No, there is very clearly no connection. I don't feel the body on each square inch, it's more like a patchwork of sensations here and there - where as seeing is like another world. I see the hole body immediately. It's quicker (at least for me) than the sensing.

3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

No, there is no connection. The sensation changes much more slowly than the image - again, it's like two languages which are not a translation of each other.

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’?
Or only thoughts suggest it?

No, the sensation has nothing to do with the movement. If i closed the eyes there was no 'knowing' of moving the hand, and the sensation felt more or less the same all along.

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.
Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?
Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all? Or are there only colours and shapes?

If there's no use of memory, there's no way i can know what that is. It is just shapes and colors; like anything else, table, etc. It is abstract with no label (thought of memory).

(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.
Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs,
or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

Ha ha ha, that's funny. No, there is no knowledge of legs or head. Yes, thoughts - memory does suggest so.

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).
Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

There's no body here. Just sensations shifting, changing.

8) Start to walk slowly. Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

There are only sensations, no body or anything else. No experience of walking; that's a label, which needs thought. Yes, the thinking comments on 'what that is'. No body can be found, nor can 'walking' be found. It's all just sensations.

9) Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’;
OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

Regarding going through the room, no, there is no knowing of that. However, i had this impression that the different sensations were not all in one location. Then I remembered the exercise where i recognized the 'oneness' of experience, where all senses are one instant experience, no separate sensations, visions, sounds, etc. It's all one. So now i can also 'see' the different sensations as one. It's one appearance, then another one, etc, that's how the shifting is experienced.

[suma]

Dear Mawi,

And it helps me to have again confirmed that the end of suffering isn't a blissed out state beyond human emotions, ha ha. Because, related to how i understood the spiritual path i was on in the past, that's what I was aiming for...well, good luck with that one! Now i am clear that it's about not resisting what is. And the resisting, when it's there, cannot be controlled, because it would need a 'resister'.

Yes, the endless bliss is just one side of the coin. It might last for some time,
even if it lasts for 100.000.000 years, still there would be an end in this,
and the opposite would show up.
Bliss is still a ‘mind-state’.
Like the ecstasy of falling in love with someone in the very beginning.
Is this really a state one likes to stay in forever?

What we are trying to look at is not a state of mind.
Actually it has nothing to do with mind.
It is just the background in which all the sense impressions happen –
and it is always there and has ever been.

It has nothing to do with gender, bodily appearances,
childhood stories or any stories at all, likings or dislikes, preferences and all that,
it is just the simple experience of ‘I am’, whereas experience is not really the correct term.
Maybe ‘beingness’ or something the like.
It is so totally familiar and so close that it is too easy to miss out.

I can see without thought, however thought likes to jump in there to comment. Will I be able to see without thought? That doesn't sound right, as it's a resistance to what is. I can do it for an exercise, but then there is 'effort', or rather 'intention' involved. Oh, maybe label is not a problem, because to function I still need to know what it is. ? Do you differentiate between 'labelling' and commenting?

Thoughts are there as a sense impression like seeing, hearing, etc
but they are not necessary to give the whole show a particular meaning.
It is very important to see the difference.

Resisting thoughts won’t be possible either. Who would resist thought? Thought!
In the same way it won’t be possible to resist seeing or hearing, with senses open.
‘Labelling and commenting’ are both functions of thought.


Look at a clock, a one with short-and long hand pointers, not a digital one.
Can you grasp the time without saying it mentally?

When I read it, i was fighting with unbearable pain (so it 'said').
then i tried to sink into it, but not able for long; the pain was totally overwhelming and i could neither sink nor do anything else but resist. I guess that's the pain of life...no need to fix it –
it's just definitely not my preference.
As for the is-ness of the moment - do you specifically pay attention to it, or remind you to sense, because it's here? Or is it automatic: that there is just experiencing of is-ness along with objects?

Hm, the unbearable pain was a very actual experience.
There’s nothing that can be ‘done’ about it,
besides taking narcotics – in case it’s too overwhelming. ( :
In the moment you try to do something with the pain, it gets more intense.
All that possibly ‘can be done’, just to break the resistance part,
is to say ‘yes’ to the experience.
To totally surrender to it without any attempt to stop or change it.
Difficult!

When you are really just staying with the pain
(in case it’s not such an unbearable pain like cancer or the like) –
it might initially appear as one solid block,
but just looking at it minutely – without any attempt to stop it –
you might also see that the pain at some areas is more intense,
at other areas less and just by noticing this you might also
notice some pulsation or movement in the pain.
Something like a fluctuation.
And maybe you can also notice some undercurrent flux or flow.
And then just stay with the flux, which is somehow ‘behind’ the pain,
as the background canvas or the background static.

A friend of mine told me once that he was at a dentist for having a root-operation
and that he wanted the operation to be carried out without any narcotics.

He said for a certain period of time it was really strong and intense,
but then the pain lessened when the operation was finished.

Well, maybe not a very inspiring example…but he was ‘managing’
to bear the pain by keeping the attention on background flow or flux
and not at the pain itself.

No, there is very clearly no connection. I don't feel the body on each square inch, it's more like a patchwork of sensations here and there - where as seeing is like another world. I see the hole body immediately. It's quicker (at least for me) than the sensing.

Is there a difference –while paying attention to the physical sensations –
between looking at the image in the mirror and then letting the view move
just to other parts in the room, some furniture or whatever?

No, there is no connection. The sensation changes much more slowly than the image - again, it's like two languages which are not a translation of each other.

Is it something like this?

1. Close the eyes and hold up one hand. Pay attention only to the felt sensation ‘of the hand’.
2. Open the eyes, and now observe the hand by looking only.
3. While looking at the hand, pay attention to the felt sensations.

Repeat 1 to 3 as many times as needed and investigate…

Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

Do they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

Is there any link between the sensation and the sight, meaning that the sensation is ‘coming from’ the sight (labelled as ‘hand’) or only thought and mental constructs link them?

There's no body here. Just sensations shifting, changing.

There are only sensations, no body or anything else.
No experience of walking; that's a label, which needs thought.
Yes, the thinking comments on 'what that is'.
No body can be found, nor can 'walking' be found. It's all just sensations.

Very good.

Regarding going through the room, no, there is no knowing of that. However, i had this impression that the different sensations were not all in one location. Then I remembered the exercise where i recognized the 'oneness' of experience, where all senses are one instant experience, no separate sensations, visions, sounds, etc. It's all one. So now i can also 'see' the different sensations as one. It's one appearance, then another one, etc, that's how the shifting is experienced.

Good.
What do you mean by ‘the shifting experienced’?



Please look at whatever is in front of you.

Is it seen from the perspective of two windows
(eyes) or is it like a windscreen view?

Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing.

Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen?

Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?


Warmly

nina

[Mawi]

Dear Nina,

Bliss is still a ‘mind-state’.

Yes, I can see it now.

What we are trying to look at is not a state of mind.
Actually it has nothing to do with mind.
It is just the background in which all the sense impressions happen –
and it is always there and has ever been.

The fact that 'it' is always here feels very comforting.

Thoughts are there as a sense impression like seeing, hearing, etc
but they are not necessary to give the whole show a particular meaning.
It is very important to see the difference

I am confused on that one: When you say 'a particular meaning, do you mean labeling, or commenting?
I am aware that i can see without commenting, however, the labeling in seeing seems automatic - unless i intentionally do not think. For instance: i am watching cars drive by - i just know that these are cars on a street, it's not like i have no clue. As apposed to the excercise looking at the body in the mirror - if there is no use of thought (memory in this case) I don't know what it is. Same with the cars on the street. But isn't it a natural happening that, because we once learned what a car and a body are, that it's automatically known?

Look at a clock, a one with short-and long hand pointers, not a digital one.
Can you grasp the time without saying it mentally?

No. If I don't use memory, I don't know what this object even is.

A friend of mine told me once that he was at a dentist for having a root-operation
and that he wanted the operation to be carried out without any narcotics.

He said for a certain period of time it was really strong and intense,
but then the pain lessened when the operation was finished.

Well, maybe not a very inspiring example…but he was ‘managing’
to bear the pain by keeping the attention on background flow or flux
and not at the pain itself.

Maybe inspiring for his trust in the process, but i am far from there!

Is there a difference –while paying attention to the physical sensations –
between looking at the image in the mirror and then letting the view move
just to other parts in the room, some furniture or whatever?

No, there is no difference, none of the objects is related to the sensations.

1. Close the eyes and hold up one hand. Pay attention only to the felt sensation ‘of the hand’.
2. Open the eyes, and now observe the hand by looking only.
3. While looking at the hand, pay attention to the felt sensations.

Repeat 1 to 3 as many times as needed and investigate…

Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

Yes I can see that, and yes, that's what I meant by 'different language'. They are not related to each other, the sight and the sensation.

Do they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

Yes, that's how it seems to be. There is no link, no causation.

Is there any link between the sensation and the sight, meaning that the sensation is ‘coming from’ the sight (labelled as ‘hand’) or only thought and mental constructs link them?

Only mental constructs (memory) link the sight and sensation. It's clear that the sensation is not coming from the hand, in the same way the image in the mirror has nothing to do with the sensations.

What do you mean by ‘the shifting experienced’?

I mean that in each moment, sensations change: like the wind from the fan on my skin, sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker, or walking, sensations are always changing.

Please look at whatever is in front of you.

Is it seen from the perspective of two windows
(eyes) or is it like a windscreen view?

It's like a windscreen view.

Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen?

There is only what's seen, there is no seer.

Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

There is no awareness separate from experience. However, without awareness there would be no experience. So we could say it's the same. Is that right? not sure.
Warmly,
Mawi

[suma]

Dear Mawi,

Thoughts are there as a sense impression like seeing, hearing, etc
but they are not necessary to give the whole show a particular meaning.
It is very important to see the difference
I am confused on that one: When you say 'a particular meaning, do you mean labeling, or commenting?
I am aware that i can see without commenting, however, the labeling in seeing seems automatic - unless i intentionally do not think. For instance: i am watching cars drive by - i just know that these are cars on a street, it's not like i have no clue. As apposed to the excercise looking at the body in the mirror - if there is no use of thought (memory in this case) I don't know what it is. Same with the cars on the street. But isn't it a natural happening that, because we once learned what a car and a body are, that it's automatically known?

Ok, don’t let’s get too theoretical here.
Look at your experience.
You see the cars drive by and you know what you see.
Is there an active thinking involved?
Something like: ‘Oh man, so many cars, and all that smelly exhaust-gas,’
or: ‘What a beautiful car, I wish I could drive such a nice car…’
or: ‘ This model I like more than the other one behind.”
Or: ‘This is a very clean car; this is a very dirty car…’??

This kind of thought is like the tweeting of birds;
it might be there but what it says doesn’t have much meaning.
This is meant by labelling and commenting.
And, as you might know – it is rather useless.

It is something different when you just look at a scene and know what you see.
When in the seeing is only seeing – nothing else.
Looking and knowing are the same in this process.
In here no active thinking is needed.
To make this clear the little example with the clock was given.
Maybe the question was not well enough presented.
It seems to be a bit contradictive. ( :

Look at a clock, a one with short-and long hand pointers, not a digital one.
Try to grasp the time without saying it mentally.
Look at the clock and know the time.
No active thinking or mental talking is necessary here.

Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

Yes I can see that, and yes, that's what I meant by 'different language'. They are not related to each other, the sight and the sensation.

Yes, very good.

Is there any link between the sensation and the sight, meaning that the sensation is ‘coming from’ the sight (labelled as ‘hand’) or only thought and mental constructs link them?

Only mental constructs (memory) link the sight and sensation. It's clear that the sensation is not coming from the hand, in the same way the image in the mirror has nothing to do with the sensations.

Very good.

What do you mean by ‘the shifting experienced’?

I mean that in each moment, sensations change: like the wind from the fan on my skin,
sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker, or walking, sensations are always changing.

Ok.

Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen?

There is only what's seen, there is no seer.

Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

There is no awareness separate from experience. However, without awareness there would be no experience. So we could say it's the same. Is that right? not sure.

Yes, in awareness there is only awareness as in experience there is just experience.
In hearing is only hearing, etc.
But trust here only into your own experience. ( :



We may have a look at time now:

There might be a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all)
somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future.
The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time,
or an event that is moving forward on this linear time, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

Any actual experience of one event following another?

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

How long does the ‘now’ last?

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?



Warmly,

nina

[Mawi]

Dear Nina,

It is something different when you just look at a scene and know what you see.
When in the seeing is only seeing – nothing else.
Looking and knowing are the same in this process.
In here no active thinking is needed.

This helps, thank you: looking and knowing are the same. Yes, makes sense.

What do you mean by ‘the shifting experienced’?

I mean that in each moment, sensations change: like the wind from the fan on my skin,
sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker, or walking, sensations are always changing.


Ok.

I realize, after reading your message about time, that what I called 'shifting' is actually including the 'past', it's not totally simultaneous, but it still feels like here/now.

.. is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

Any actual experience of one event following another?

It's a clear NO to all these questions. In my experience, time does not seem to move. So there is no 'now' moving or giving way to the next. However, at first impression, i felt like experience seems to move. But then when I look closer, experience more flashes in and out, rather than linearly moving along. Waw, that just gives me a spacious feeling:). Realizing that, something just happened: i got overcome with emotion and relief....feels like a homecoming...this is so cool!

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

It's not moving at all. It's just being.

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

No, I can't. It just is...it feels like it's not in time, it's not on a line, it's just here.

How long does the ‘now’ last?

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

The now does not last - it's just here. It has no start nor end. It does not become the past; thinking create a past, it's thought-made.

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

The past in experience is memory/thought. There is clearly no experience of time, only thoughts. It's made up, totally!

Thank you so much!
Warmly,
Mawi

[suma]

Dear Mawi,

It's a clear NO to all these questions. In my experience, time does not seem to move.
So there is no 'now' moving or giving way to the next. However, at first impression,
i felt like experience seems to move.
But then when I look closer, experience more flashes in and out,
rather than linearly moving along.
Waw, that just gives me a spacious feeling:). Realizing that, something just happened:
i got overcome with emotion and relief....feels like a homecoming...this is so cool!

Can you explain this ‘experience flashes in and out’ a little bit?
Where does it flash from and when?
Is there something like a coming and going?

Can there be ever an experience outside the now?


Warmly

nina

[Mawi]

Dear Nina,

Can you explain this ‘experience flashes in and out’ a little bit?
Where does it flash from and when?
Is there something like a coming and going?

I am having trouble with this.
When I just really am aware what the experience is without trying to do it right, some sensations come ‘in’, or appear, and are present and then disappear: like a motorycle going by: it’s faint, becoming louder, getting faint and then Is gone.
Where is it going and coming from? From nothing. It just appears in the present and then not. And other sensations are present and then not in A faster rhythm. Like the sensation of wind blowing on my skin: it changes faster than The sound of the motorbike. But it’s all experienced now. Never anywhere else, as there is nothing else.
Is there a coming and going you ask?
I know the answer is no, but like when
A sound is faint, gets loud and then
Faints again it does feel like a movement.
The flashing on the other hand, are just short sensations appearing and disappearing. The experience of that...I don’t know - I just had a flash of ‘Nowness’, Of here-ness, or is-ness.

I am still not clear on this. I guess the
mind Is just in there without me noticing....
Looks like I need some more coaxing from you.
Thank you kindly.
Mawi

[suma]

Dear Mawi

When I just really am aware what the experience is without trying to do it right,
some sensations come ‘in’, or appear, and are present and then disappear: like a motorycle going by:
it’s faint, becoming louder, getting faint and then Is gone.
Where is it going and coming from? From nothing.

It just appears in the present and then not. And other sensations are present and then not in A faster rhythm.
Like the sensation of wind blowing on my skin: it changes faster than The sound of the motorbike.
But it’s all experienced now. Never anywhere else, as there is nothing else.

Is there a coming and going you ask?
I know the answer is no, but like when
A sound is faint, gets loud and then
Faints again it does feel like a movement.
The flashing on the other hand, are just short sensations appearing and disappearing.
The experience of that...I don’t know - I just had a flash of ‘Nowness’, Of here-ness, or is-ness.

Just be simple with it.
When can you really experience the experience?
Can it really happen outside the now?
Appearing, being present and disappearing – is this really a direct actual experience
or something memory is telling a b o u t the experience?

It just appears in the present and then not. And other sensations are present and then not in A faster rhythm.

Direct experience can only happen in the now. ‘Rhythm’ is already an interpretation.

So can there really be a coming and going in the now?


Now we may look really close.

Just be the experience in the present moment.
Leave all interpretations, memories and attempts to 'do it right'.
Just be in the moment.
Feel the aliveness inside you.
Feel how you and everything you perceive is filled with aliveness.
Get deeply in touch with it.

Is it a static kind of feeling?
Is there some sort of trembling in there?
Can it be discribed?


nina

[Mawi]

Dear Nina,
Thank you for your questions; they clarified it.

When can you really experience the experience?
Can it really happen outside the now?

No, of course there is nothing outside the now, no experience.

Appearing, being present and disappearing – is this really a direct actual experience
or something memory is telling a b o u t the experience?

Yes, i can see now, it's an interpretation of the experience, the 'sense' of appearing, being present and disappearing. So there was thinking involved.

So can there really be a coming and going in the now?

No, now is just is-ness.

Just be the experience in the present moment.
Leave all interpretations, memories and attempts to 'do it right'.
Just be in the moment.
Feel the aliveness inside you.
Feel how you and everything you perceive is filled with aliveness.
Get deeply in touch with it.

Is it a static kind of feeling?
Is there some sort of trembling in there?
Can it be discribed?

It is not a static kind of feeling. It feels alive, kind of vibrating, and it cannot be described. It is beyond words or thoughts.
Like this, with experience as a whole, it is clear to me that it is alive, undescribable. When we are going into details as before, my thoughts kick in and it gets confusing; like a Tausendfuessler who tries to figure out how it is walking, i stumble over my own feet.
Thank you.
Mawi

[suma]

Dear Mawi,

It is not a static kind of feeling. It feels alive, kind of vibrating, and it cannot be described.
It is beyond words or thoughts.
Like this, with experience as a whole, it is clear to me that it is alive, undescribable.

Yes, very beautiful.

When we are going into details as before, my thoughts kick in and it gets confusing; like a Tausendfuessler who tries to figure out how it is walking, i stumble over my own feet.

Ok, sorry. We are in the field of words here.
These questions only aim to be sure that we’re on the same track.


We may now have a closer look at memory:


Past and memory go hand-in-hand as almost everybody believes that a memory thought
is referring to something that has happened;
that a memory thought is a different thought than a non-memory thought.

Please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it.

What is memory exactly?

What is the memory ‘made of’?

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

WHEN does the memory actually appear?

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?

WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

Look at what is actually going on and not what thoughts say… but what actually is.


Warmly

nina

[Mawi]

Dear Nina,

What is memory exactly?

It is just normal thought. A line of thoughts telling a story.

What is the memory ‘made of’?

It is made of thought, sometimes emotion and body sensation come along with it.

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

There is absolutely no difference. Both are identical.

WHEN does the memory actually appear?

In the present. In the now.

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Some of the thoughts are saying that this and that happened. It is the content of thought (the story) which we call memory, but in fact is just regular thought.

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?

It is completely the same as any thought; about whatever does not matter.

WHEN does the future thought appear?

In the now, like all thoughts do.

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?

There is stictly no difference. Again, like with so called memory, future thoughts are added to the story which say this will happen in the future. it is only just more content, more thoughts, but there is no difference at all.

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Some of the thoughts say that; their content..but as said, this is just more thought; regular thought. There are no differences in thought.

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

There is no difference between any kind of thoughts. A thought is a thought is a thought. I am convinced about that. the only difference is the story line of the thoughts. but they all tell a story about something, even commentaries about what is happening now are just thoughts.

Look at what is actually going on and not what thoughts say… but what actually is.

When we do not look at what thoughts say, I see strictly only one kind of thoughts: thoughts.
Warmly,
Mawi