The Gate

Hi Vivien,

Sensing is just sensing, seeing is just seeing, tasting is just tasting, thinking is just thinking. The content of thought says this sensation belongs to me, I am seeing, tasting, smelling, thinking.

OK, the content of thoughts say that sensations belongs to me, I am seeing, etc. – But can this ‘me’ be found? Where is it exactly?

Find it. Look everywhere. Where is it? In Thoughts? Sensations? In hearing? Smelling? Tasting? Inside the body? In the head? Behind the eyes? Inside the eyes? In the throat? In the chest?

Make a very thorough look. Spend as much time with during the day as you can. Even if you cannot find anything, look again. Maybe the self is hiding somewhere. Look again and again.

I can only find the 'idea' of me in thought- I am hearing the wind, I am tasting the tea, I am smelling the flower, I am thinking the thought. There is an idea/thought that all this happens 'in me'. Thought seems to happen in the head, behind the eyes, so there is a strong sense of 'me' there. I might be veering off on a tangent here but when I have looked for 'me' throughout the day I do come up against the "I am consciousness/awareness" thought again and again- a thought that I am aware of!!! I realise my response above might clash with my response to your previous "can a focuser/noticer be found?" questions.

I'm going around in circles on this one! It's like my mind is 'crashing'.

Best,
Graham

Hi Graham,

Thought seems to happen in the head, behind the eyes, so there is a strong sense of 'me' there.

How is known exactly that thoughts happen in the head? – go to the actual experience

Locate the spot, where thoughts seem to originate from. Investigate that spot.
What is that spot made of? It’s a sound? Smell? Taste? Image/sight? Thought? Sensation?

You’ll see that it’s a sensation, but don’t believe me, find it out for yourself.

Wait for a thought to arise. Localize the sensation which it seems to originate from. Keep the focus on the sensation, and ask:
Is this sensation doing the thinking?
Is this sensation creating thoughts?
Is this sensation the thinker?
Is this sensation is the origin of thoughts?

Ask these as many times, until it gets totally clear, that it’s just a sensation, nothing else. And it cannot see.

When a mental image arises, focus the attention inside the head, and try to find the sensation, from where the seeing seems to be happening. It can be the eyes, behind the eyes, forehead, etc.
Then keep the focus of attention on that sensation, and ask:
Is this sensation seeing the image?

Localize the sensation, keep the focus there, and ask:
Is this sensation the self?
Is this sensation the ‘me’?
Is this sensation the ‘focuser’?
Is this the knower?

When there is a sound present, localize the sensation that seems to be the hearer of the sound, and ask:
Is this sensation doing the hearing?
Is this sensation the hearer?


When there is a sensation present, localize the sensation that seems to be feeling the sensation, and ask:
Is this sensation feeling the other sensation?
Is this sensation the feeler?

Whenever the sense of me during the day arises, as a doer, feeler, thinker, taster, smeller, hearer, experiencer, knower, chooser, noticer, decider, or in any way, locate the sensation where the ‘me’ seems to reside, and ask: “Is this sensation the ……?”

Let me know how it goes.

I might be veering off on a tangent here but when I have looked for 'me' throughout the day I do come up against the "I am consciousness/awareness" thought again and again- a thought that I am aware of!!!

Later we will get back to investigate awareness/consciousness. But for now, let’s just deal with the sense of me inside the head/body first.

You can look at awareness similarly as above. When it seems that I am awareness, try to locate the sensation, witch aware-ing seems to be happening, and ask:
Is this sensation aware?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

Thought seems to happen in the head, behind the eyes, so there is a strong sense of 'me' there.

How is known exactly that thoughts happen in the head? – go to the actual experience
Locate the spot, where thoughts seem to originate from. Investigate that spot.
What is that spot made of? It’s a sound? Smell? Taste? Image/sight? Thought? Sensation?

Interesting! When I did this first there was a subtle shift is perspective- I cant quite explain it- but 'something' happened. When I try to locate the spot where I think thought has come from I find only sensation. Thought then says "See, that's just a sensation, not a thought" and I then try to find that thought and only find another sensation and so on.

Wait for a thought to arise. Localize the sensation which it seems to originate from. Keep the focus on the sensation, and ask:
Is this sensation doing the thinking?

No- its just a sensation

Is this sensation creating thoughts?

No- its just a sensation

Is this sensation the thinker?

No- its just a sensation

Is this sensation is the origin of thoughts?

No- its just a sensation

When a mental image arises, focus the attention inside the head, and try to find the sensation, from where the seeing seems to be happening. It can be the eyes, behind the eyes, forehead, etc.
Then keep the focus of attention on that sensation, and ask:
Is this sensation seeing the image?

No- but 'something' is seeing the image- it is being seen.

Localize the sensation, keep the focus there, and ask:
Is this sensation the self?

No- it is being sensed by 'something' apart from the sensation.

Is this sensation the ‘me’?

No

Is this sensation the ‘focuser’?

No

Is this the knower?

No- the sensation itself is known

When there is a sound present, localize the sensation that seems to be the hearer of the sound, and ask:
Is this sensation doing the hearing?

No

Is this sensation the hearer?

No

When there is a sensation present, localize the sensation that seems to be feeling the sensation, and ask:
Is this sensation feeling the other sensation?

I had a little trouble with this one but no- there is a sensation- thought labels it "me sitting on chair". That thought is felt as a sensation itself and is not feeling the original sensation.

Is this sensation the feeler?

No

Whenever the sense of me during the day arises, as a doer, feeler, thinker, taster, smeller, hearer, experiencer, knower, chooser, noticer, decider, or in any way, locate the sensation where the ‘me’ seems to reside, and ask: “Is this sensation the ……?”
Let me know how it goes.

The sense of me arises as thought- "I am the doer", "I am the feeler", "I am the thinker", "I am the taster/smeller/hearer", "I am the ....." etc. These thoughts are felt as sensations in the head. They are not me. They are sensations and are known.
By what?? As I write, my head is thick with sensation!

Graham

Hi Graham,

Interesting! When I did this first there was a subtle shift is perspective- I cant quite explain it- but 'something' happened. When I try to locate the spot where I think thought has come from I find only sensation. Thought then says "See, that's just a sensation, not a thought" and I then try to find that thought and only find another sensation and so on.

So this is how the sense of self is created. There is a thought and a sensation present, and another thought ‘says’: “I am thinking”. Since the sensation is labelled as ‘me’.
No- but 'something' is seeing the image- it is being seen.

If it’s clear that the sensation is not doing the thinking and there is no thinker, then why should be there a something that is doing the seeing?

If there is REALLY ‘something’ there that is seeing the image, then that ‘thing’ must be found. So find it. Localize it.

No- it is being sensed by 'something' apart from the sensation.

“It is being sensed” – The word ‘sensed’ implies a feeler, since sense is a sensation.
So you say that the image is FELT? Felt by what?
Where is this ‘thing’ that is feeling or sensing the image? If it’s really there, then it must be there. Find it, localize it.

Can an image be felt at all? It’s either an image, or sensation. How could an image be sensed if it’s not a sensation?

there is a sensation- thought labels it "me sitting on chair". That thought is felt as a sensation itself and is not feeling the original sensation.

“That thought is felt” – can a thought be felt? Either it’s a thought or a sensation.

Let’s see what is really happening here.

There is a sensation present.
There is a thought: “me sitting on chair”.
And this is it. The thought is never felt. There is only the actual experience (AE) of sensation, and the AE of thought.
The content of the thought “me sitting on chair” never becomes reality. It’s just a mental conceptualization. Just an idea. Nothing else. Nothing real.

The sense of me arises as thought- "I am the doer", "I am the feeler", "I am the thinker", "I am the taster/smeller/hearer", "I am the ....." etc. These thoughts are felt as sensations in the head. They are not me. They are sensations and are known.

OK. Let’s just describe it a bit more precisely.

So there is a sensation present, labelled as ‘head’. That is the AE of a sensation, but not a ‘head’.
There is a thought present “I am the thinker” – that is the AE of a thought, but not a ‘thinker’.
There might even be a mental image there about ‘thoughts coming from the head’. But that would be just the AE of a mental image, but not the AE of ‘thoughts coming from the head’.

And when these 3 are not seen for what they really are, but rather they are welded together into a bundle, BUMMM… the sense of self is created. Note the words I used. SENSE of self. So it seems that the self is FELT. But actually that is just a sensation. Nothing else. A sensation is being mistaken for a self. For an entity. Can you see this?

They are sensations and are known.
By what?? As I write, my head is thick with sensation!

If there is no thinker, no seer, no feeler, no taster, no smeller, no hearer, than why is the need for a knower?

Yes, knowing is going on. It cannot be denied. And it SEEMS that there is something that is doing the knowing, a KNOWER.
But what if there isn’t a ‘knower’? What if that knowing is just happening by itself, without anything doing it?
If there is really a ‘knower’, then it must be found – so find it

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

If it’s clear that the sensation is not doing the thinking and there is no thinker, then why should be there a something that is doing the seeing?
If there is REALLY ‘something’ there that is seeing the image, then that ‘thing’ must be found. So find it. Localize it.

I can't- all I can say is that there is an awareness of the sensation, the thought, the image- they are 'known'.

No- it is being sensed by 'something' apart from the sensation.

“It is being sensed” – The word ‘sensed’ implies a feeler, since sense is a sensation.
So you say that the image is FELT? Felt by what?
Where is this ‘thing’ that is feeling or sensing the image? If it’s really there, then it must be there. Find it, localize it.

Again, I can't find a 'thing' that feels or senses the image. Thought says "I feel/sense the image" but thats a thought too. But there is awareness of both the sense and the thought separate from both. Now, thought might say "I am aware of both" but there is also awareness of that thought too.

“It is being sensed” – The word ‘sensed’ implies a feeler, since sense is a sensation.
So you say that the image is FELT? Felt by what?
Where is this ‘thing’ that is feeling or sensing the image? If it’s really there, then it must be there. Find it, localize it.

I can't find it or localize it

Can an image be felt at all? It’s either an image, or sensation. How could an image be sensed if it’s not a sensation?

It can't- an image is just seen

“That thought is felt” – can a thought be felt? Either it’s a thought or a sensation.

No- a thought cannot be felt.

So there is a sensation present, labelled as ‘head’. That is the AE of a sensation, but not a ‘head’.
There is a thought present “I am the thinker” – that is the AE of a thought, but not a ‘thinker’.
There might even be a mental image there about ‘thoughts coming from the head’. But that would be just the AE of a mental image, but not the AE of ‘thoughts coming from the head’.

And when these 3 are not seen for what they really are, but rather they are welded together into a bundle, BUMMM… the sense of self is created. Note the words I used. SENSE of self. So it seems that the self is FELT. But actually that is just a sensation. Nothing else. A sensation is being mistaken for a self. For an entity. Can you see this?

When you lay it out like that, yes.

If there is no thinker, no seer, no feeler, no taster, no smeller, no hearer, then why is the need for a knower?

Yes, knowing is going on. It cannot be denied. And it SEEMS that there is something that is doing the knowing, a KNOWER.
But what if there isn’t a ‘knower’? What if that knowing is just happening by itself, without anything doing it?
If there is really a ‘knower’, then it must be found – so find it

I can't- knowing refers me back to the thought "I am knowing" which is a thought arising in AE but not itself a knower. Why is there a need for a knower? I get tangled in the this question.

Graham

Hi Graham,

Why is there a need for a knower? I get tangled in the this question.

Language is dualistic. With language, there is assumption that there must be a subject (me or awareness) that is doing or having or know the object (thought, image, etc.). But this assumption is coming only from language, in the actual experience there is neither subject nor object that could be found.

We say “It’s raining” – where is this ‘it’? Water is simply falling. Or, “The wind is blowing” – can you find ‘the wind’ or is it just air moving?
We also say “I’m aware” – but is there really anything that is aware, or aware-ing / knowing just happening WITHOUT A KNOWER or AWARENESS? - Have a look and see.

I can't- all I can say is that there is an awareness of the sensation, the thought, the image- they are 'known'.

And can there a ‘knower’ be found in the actual experience?
Or there is only knowing happening?

But there is awareness of both the sense and the thought separate from both. Now, thought might say "I am aware of both" but there is also awareness of that thought too.

OK. If there is an awareness apart from the process of aware-ing or knowing of thoughts, then that awareness must be found in actual experience. So, where is it?

It can't- an image is just seen

And what is seeing the image?
Is there a ‘see-er’?
Is there a knower of the image?

Or is there only an ‘imageknowing’ as one unit, without borders or any separation between them?

Don’t just contemplate these questions, but actually go to the direct experience. Have a mental image. Notice that the image is known.
And now investigate the ‘image-known’ if there is really something separate from the image that knows it?

Try to literally separate the two, the image and the knowing. Try to peel off the image from the knowing. If this can be done, then there can be the image on one side, and a KNOWER (or awareness) of the other side. Clearly separate from each other. But can this be done?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

I will post o this tomorrow.
Graham

Hi Graham,

Thank you for letting me. I'm looking forward to your replied.

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

Language is dualistic. With language, there is assumption that there must be a subject (me or awareness) that is doing or having or know the object (thought, image, etc.). But this assumption is coming only from language, in the actual experience there is neither subject nor object that could be found.

We say “It’s raining” – where is this ‘it’? Water is simply falling. Or, “The wind is blowing” – can you find ‘the wind’ or is it just air moving?
We also say “I’m aware” – but is there really anything that is aware, or is aware-ing / knowing just happening WITHOUT A KNOWER or AWARENESS? - Have a look and see.

Awareness is nowhere to be found and at the same time is 'present' or 'here' even thought I cant smell, touch, taste, hear or sense awareness. Awareness is aware of being aware. There is an unmistakeable presence of that which is aware. It is not an object that can be 'found' as such.

And can there a ‘knower’ be found in the actual experience?
Or there is only knowing happening?

No- a knower cant be found in AE- just a thought saying I am tasting, touching, thinking, hearing, I am knowing- and that thought is known.

OK. If there is an awareness apart from the process of aware-ing or knowing of thoughts, then that awareness must be found in actual experience. So, where is it?

Again, I cant 'find' awareness in AE so therefore can't locate it- it just 'is'. Awareness is in which, to which and with which experience is known but cannot be 'located'.

And what is seeing the image?
Is there a ‘see-er’?
Is there a knower of the image?

No- the image is just seen and known. Thought says " seen and known by me" but thats a thought which is also seen and known.

Or is there only an ‘imageknowing’ as one unit, without borders or any separation between them?
Don’t just contemplate these questions, but actually go to the direct experience. Have a mental image. Notice that the image is known.
And now investigate the ‘image-known’ if there is really something separate from the image that knows it?
Try to literally separate the two, the image and the knowing. Try to peel off the image from the knowing. If this can be done, then there can be the image on one side, and a KNOWER (or awareness) of the other side. Clearly separate from each other. But can this be done?

No- I cannot separate the image from the knowing of it- or a sound from hearing it, or a sensation from feeling it.

Best,
Graham

Hi Graham,

Awareness is nowhere to be found and at the same time is 'present' or 'here' even thought I cant smell, touch, taste, hear or sense awareness. Awareness is aware of being aware. There is an unmistakeable presence of that which is aware. It is not an object that can be 'found' as such.

I went back to your first post what you filled out at registration. And there you say that you are/were engaged with the teaching of Rupert Spira. I am very familiar with his teachings, I followed him for a long time. And just as for many other non-duality teachers, his teaching’s focal point is that there is a self-aware awareness, in which all experience happens, and made of.

But for the time of this investigation, I’d like to ask you to put aside all learned information, and see it for yourself, from your actual experience what is going on. Can you do that? And are you willing to do that, just as an experiment?

Awareness is aware of being aware. There is an unmistakeable presence of that which is aware. It is not an object that can be 'found' as such.

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

When it’s seen that a seer, taster, smeller, feeler, thinker, etc. cannot be found, the IDENTIFICATION often GOES to the SEEMING APPEARANCE OF A SELF-EXISTENT, SELF-AWARE AWARENESS, which is the KNOWER OF EVERYTHING THAT APPEARS.

So the identification with the body and the senses (feeler, hearer, thinker, etc) is replaced with a subtle form of identification, “I am that which is aware”…. So there is still some sort of separate entity which is aware and holds and knows all experience (object). And the identification with awareness is an excellent hiding place for the separate self.

Since all the seeming realness of the separate self comes from the seeming realness of a standalone awareness. So as long as awareness is not seen for what it is, the belief of the separate self is not really seen through… it’s just hiding behind the notion of a standalone awareness. Do you see this?

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

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

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

It [ awareness] is not an object that can be 'found' as such.

If it cannot be found at all, how do you know that a standalone, independent awareness really exists?

Saying that it can be known by “awareness is aware of being aware” is not a proof, since this is just a THOUGHT. This is the actual experience (AE) of a thought, not the AE of an independently existent awareness.

And yes this thought is ‘known’, but the knowing of this thought and the seeming knower cannot be separated, just as you discovered.

So if they cannot be separated at all, then how is it known that there is a standalone, independently existent awareness?

Yes, aware-ing is going on. But there is nothing separate from the ‘aware-d’ object… The object and the aware-ing of it cannot be separated.

There are no two things there. There is no thought + awareness, somehow glued together.
There is just thoughtknowing. As a one unit. None of them exist without the other.
Actually, there is not even such thing as a thought.
There is only thoughtknowing. Without the knowing of it there is no thought. There isn’t a standalone thought.
Just as there isn’t a stand-alone awareness. Without the thought (or any objects), there isn’t an aware-ing either.

So the knowing of a thought, which is a one unit, thoughtknowing, or thoughtawareing, creates the illusion of a stand-alone, independently existent awareness. Can you see this?
V: Or is there only an ‘imageknowing’ as one unit, without borders or any separation between them?
Don’t just contemplate these questions, but actually go to the direct experience. Have a mental image. Notice that the image is known.
And now investigate the ‘image-known’ if there is really something separate from the image that knows it?

Try to literally separate the two, the image and the knowing. Try to peel off the image from the knowing. If this can be done, then there can be the image on one side, and a KNOWER (or awareness) of the other side. Clearly separate from each other. But can this be done?

G: No- I cannot separate the image from the knowing of it- or a sound from hearing it, or a sensation from feeling it.

Do you see that the word ‘knower’ is just another label to ‘awareness’?

KNOWER = AWARENESS
KNOWING = AWARE-ING

So if you can see that the knowing of the sound cannot be separated from the knower, then how is known exactly that there is a standalone ‘knower’?

So if you can see that the aware-ing of the sound cannot be separated from awareness, then how is known exactly that there is a standalone ‘awareness’?

In order to stay that there is a stand-alone, independently existent awareness, then that awareness has to exists without any appearance…. So that awareness has to be there, even when there is no thought, sensation, smell, image, sound, taste, no experience at all is present.

So can a stand-alone, independent awareness being aware itself only, if there is no experience at all?
If yes, what would that be like? – even answering this question, requires lots of fantasy…

Have you ever had the experience of ‘awareness being aware of itself’ without any object (no experience at all)?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

First of all I would like to sincerely thank you for guiding me. I can see from this post and others the level of commitment you have in this process and that is truly humbling so again- thank you!

I went back to your first post what you filled out at registration. And there you say that you are/were engaged with the teaching of Rupert Spira. I am very familiar with his teachings, I followed him for a long time. And just as for many other non-duality teachers, his teaching’s focal point is that there is a self-aware awareness, in which all experience happens, and made of.

But for the time of this investigation, I’d like to ask you to put aside all learned information, and see it for yourself, from your actual experience what is going on. Can you do that? And are you willing to do that, just as an experiment?

Busted! You're absolutely right- some of my responses have been coloured by, unconsciously or consciously, Rupert Spira's teachings and indeed I see how some of what I have written could have been quoted directly from them. Since I started this process with you I have not engaged with any of his or any other teaching but you're very perceptive to point out where this process and those teachings have mingled. At times I have noticed that the two have bumped up against one another. I am willing, and will try my best, to put aside "all learned information".

Since all the seeming realness of the separate self comes from the seeming realness of a standalone awareness. So as long as awareness is not seen for what it is, the belief of the separate self is not really seen through… it’s just hiding behind the notion of a standalone awareness. Do you see this?

I do see the subtle from of identification going on as you outline and I see how it has become a stumbling block and a hiding place for the separate self.

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

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

Yes- I see clearly the stumbling block in that awareness has become a kind of 'managed duality' for me and I'm certainly more open now to looking at this.

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

No- any resistance to the notion that awareness is an illusion has been dealt with by your latest post and I'm totally open to the exploration of that.

If it cannot be found at all, how do you know that a standalone, independent awareness really exists?

Saying that it can be known by “awareness is aware of being aware” is not a proof, since this is just a THOUGHT. This is the actual experience (AE) of a thought, not the AE of an independently existent awareness.

And yes this thought is ‘known’, but the knowing of this thought and the seeming knower cannot be separated, just as you discovered.

So if they cannot be separated at all, then how is it known that there is a standalone, independently existent awareness?

It- awareness- cannot be found as a separate, independent 'thing' from what is known as you point out and yes, I see that "awareness is aware of being aware" is just a thought and that this thought cannot be separated from the knowing of it. There is not awareness and the 'thing' that is being 'aware-d' so to speak.

There are no two things there. There is no thought + awareness, somehow glued together.
There is just thoughtknowing. As a one unit. None of them exist without the other.
Actually, there is not even such thing as a thought.
There is only thoughtknowing. Without the knowing of it there is no thought. There isn’t a standalone thought.
Just as there isn’t a stand-alone awareness. Without the thought (or any objects), there isn’t an aware-ing either.

So the knowing of a thought, which is a one unit, thoughtknowing, or thoughtawareing, creates the illusion of a stand-alone, independently existent awareness. Can you see this?

Yes I see how the illusion is created.

Do you see that the word ‘knower’ is just another label to ‘awareness’?

KNOWER = AWARENESS
KNOWING = AWARE-ING

Yes

So if you can see that the knowing of the sound cannot be separated from the knower, then how is it known exactly that there is a standalone ‘knower’?

It is only 'known' there is a stand alone 'knower' through conditioning and the thought 'I am the knower' which is only a thought and is not separate from the knowing of it.

So if you can see that the aware-ing of the sound cannot be separated from awareness, then how is known exactly that there is a standalone ‘awareness’?

Again, I would say conditioning. I cannot separate out 'awareness' from 'sound' and cannot find 'awareness' as a separate 'thing' If awareness could be found as a separate 'thing' there would be an awareness of that 'thing' and that would prove it wasn't it.

In order to stay that there is a stand-alone, independently existent awareness, then that awareness has to exists without any appearance…. So that awareness has to be there, even when there is no thought, sensation, smell, image, sound, taste, no experience at all is present.

So can a stand-alone, independent awareness being aware itself only, if there is no experience at all?
If yes, what would that be like? – even answering this question, requires lots of fantasy…

No- for the reason I outlined above. If there is no experience at all ie thought, sensation, smell, image, sound, taste- there would not be an awareness 'aware-ing' no experience independent of any experience.

Have you ever had the experience of ‘awareness being aware of itself’ without any object (no experience at all)?

No

Best,
Graham

Hi Graham,

First of all I would like to sincerely thank you for guiding me. I can see from this post and others the level of commitment you have in this process and that is truly humbling so again- thank you!

You are very welcome.

At times I have noticed that the two have bumped up against one another. I am willing, and will try my best, to put aside "all learned information"

It’s natural if learned information bubbles up. And the task is to scrutinize the ‘learned information’ through the lens of direct experience and see if they can stand.

No- any resistance to the notion that awareness is an illusion has been dealt with by your latest post and I'm totally open to the exploration of that.

Great!

It- awareness- cannot be found as a separate, independent 'thing' from what is known as you point out and yes, I see that "awareness is aware of being aware" is just a thought and that this thought cannot be separated from the knowing of it. There is not awareness and the 'thing' that is being 'aware-d' so to speak.

Yes, so awareness is not something that is waiting in the background for an object (like thought or sensation) to appear and then latch onto them with its knowing or aware-ing ability, so the thought or the sensation become known by it. For this to be true, there must be not only a stand-alone awareness, but a thought or sensation without the knowing of them. But there cannot be a thought or sensation without the knowing of them. We can fantasize about it, but actually thought or sensation without the knowing element simply doesn’t exist. Can you see this clearly?

Rather aware-ing is appearing simultaneously with the appearance of the thought or sensation. But this is even not true. Since no two separate ‘things’, an awareness and the thought appearing together, but just one ‘thing’ appearing ‘thoughtawareing’ or ‘sensationawareing’. Can you see this clearly?

And even saying that only ‘thoughtawareing’ is appearing is not completely true, since the word ‘appearing’ already implies something or somewhere in which or where it can appear. But this is the point where language fails use, due to its dualistic nature.

OK, now to make sure that it’s really seen experimentally and not just conceptually, I’d like to ask you to investigate the above with all the 5 senses.

Pay attention to a sound and try to alternate between the sound and the knowing or aware-ing of the sound. It seems like 2 things.

But now, try to peel off the sound from the knowing of it. Do everything you can to separate the two. Not just think about it, but really try to separate them, to have one at the one side and the other on the other side. So how it goes?
Try to find the sound without the knowing or aware-ing of it. How a sound without knowing looks like?

I ask you to do this to have an experience of the impossibility of it. To have a hands-on experience so to speak, until no doubt is left that there is either a stand-alone sound (without the knowing of it), or a stand-alone awareness.

Now, repeat this with a sensation. Try your best to separate them. So?
How does a sensation without aware-ing looks like?
Is there such thing as sensation without the knowing of it? – really look for it, not just think

Put some food in front of you. Smell it.
Try to best to separate the smell from the knowing of it.
How does a smell without aware-ing looks like? – try to find it

Now, start to eat and pay attention to the taste.
Again, try to best to separate the smell from the knowing of it.
How does a taste without aware-ing looks like? – try to find it

Now, look at the food. Be aware of the visual sight.
Try to best to separate the sight from the knowing of it.
How does a sight without aware-ing looks like? – try to find it

After doing the exercise, please read my comments bellow very carefully. Read it many times.

Awareness is the act of knowing itself; awareness is not the agent caring out the knowing.

There is no noun carrying out the action. Awareness is happening, knowing sensations or thoughts is happening, but there’s nothing else there. No agent is behind the knowing.

The body doesn’t have awareness. Quite the opposite. The body is being ‘aware-d’ / experienced (as sensations and images).

But even that is not totally true. There is no separation between the so called subject and the object. All seeming separation created by thinking.

Saying that sensations appear in awareness is separation, so sensation can be observed from the distance (from the point of view of awareness). But there is no distance. There is zero distance between the appearing thought and the awareness of it. The thought itself is the awareness of it. There is no sensation without the awareness of it, and there is no awareness without the sensation. None of them can stand alone. Actually, there are no two. They are one. They are the same. There is no subject-object relation at all.

Experience is not divided into a perceiving subject and a perceived object which are connected through an act of perceiving. There is only a seamless experience. Can you SEE this without any doubt?

Vivien

I wanted to make the sentences bold bellow, but accidentally pressed 'submit' before finishing. So here is my highlighting:

But there is no distance. There is zero distance between the appearing thought and the awareness of it. The thought itself is the awareness of it. Can you see this clearly?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

Yes, so awareness is not something that is waiting in the background for an object (like thought or sensation) to appear and then latch onto them with its knowing or aware-ing ability, so the thought or the sensation become known by it. For this to be true, there must be not only a stand-alone awareness, but a thought or sensation without the knowing of them. But there cannot be a thought or sensation without the knowing of them. We can fantasize about it, but actually thought or sensation without the knowing element simply doesn’t exist. Can you see this clearly?

Yes

Rather aware-ing is appearing simultaneously with the appearance of the thought or sensation. But this is even not true. Since no two separate ‘things’, an awareness and the thought appearing together, but just one ‘thing’ appearing ‘thoughtawareing’ or ‘sensationawareing’. Can you see this clearly?

Yes

Pay attention to a sound and try to alternate between the sound and the knowing or aware-ing of the sound. It seems like 2 things. But now, try to peel off the sound from the knowing of it. Do everything you can to separate the two. Not just think about it, but really try to separate them, to have one at the one side and the other on the other side. So how it goes?
Try to find the sound without the knowing or aware-ing of it. How does a sound without knowing looks like?

I can't separate or "peel off" the sound from the knowing of it. A sound without the aware-ing of it doesn't exist as such or isn't known or aware-d.

Now, repeat this with a sensation. Try your best to separate them. So?
How does a sensation without aware-ing looks like?
Is there such thing as sensation without the knowing of it? – really look for it, not just think

I can't separate a sensation from the knowing or aware-ing of it. Again, if I pay attention to a sensation, say the sensation of 'sitting on a chair' I cannot separate it from the aware-ing of it so 'sensationawaring' happens.

Put some food in front of you. Smell it.
Try to best to separate the smell from the knowing of it.
How does a smell without aware-ing looks like? – try to find it

I cant separate the two into 'smell' and 'aware-ing of smell'- it is one seemless 'smellaware-ing'. The smell doesn't exist without it being 'aware-d'.

Now, start to eat and pay attention to the taste.
Again, try to best to separate the taste from the knowing of it.
How does a taste without aware-ing looks like? – try to find it

I can't separate the taste from the knowing of it. There is no taste without the aware-ing of it.

Now, look at the food. Be aware of the visual sight.
Try to best to separate the sight from the knowing of it.
How does a sight without aware-ing looks like? – try to find it

I can't- it is 'sightaware-ing'- one 'thing'.

But there is no distance. There is zero distance between the appearing thought and the awareness of it. The thought itself is the awareness of it. Can you see this clearly?

Yes

Experience is not divided into a perceiving subject and a perceived object which are connected through an act of perceiving. There is only a seamless experience. Can you SEE this without any doubt?

I've read your highlighted passage several times and can agree with and see exactly what you say but I just want clarification on something. I know we touched upon 'attention' in a previous post so maybe we can cover this now. I can see that there is no 'attention' as a separate 'thing' but.......I pay attention to a sound, say 'traffic', and it is aware'd so 'soundaware-ing' happens. Then a bird is heard or aware-d and 'traffic' SEEMS to recede from being aware'd. Likewise with 'sensationaware-ing'- if a sound then 'catches my attention' so becomes aware'd itself the sensation SEEMS to recede from being aware'd. I'm not saying there is another 'thing' called 'attention' but that is what it SEEMS like. Perhaps we could explore that a little and return to this passage for full 'sign off'.

Best,
Graham

Hi Graham,

I know we touched upon 'attention' in a previous post so maybe we can cover this now. I can see that there is no 'attention' as a separate 'thing' but.......I pay attention to a sound, say 'traffic', and it is aware'd so 'soundaware-ing' happens. Then a bird is heard or aware-d and 'traffic' SEEMS to recede from being aware'd. Likewise with 'sensationaware-ing'- if a sound then 'catches my attention' so becomes aware'd itself the sensation SEEMS to recede from being aware'd. I'm not saying there is another 'thing' called 'attention' but that is what it SEEMS like. Perhaps we could explore that a little and return to this passage for full 'sign off'.

All right. It’s good that you can see that there is no separate thing as ‘attention’, any yet the illusion of it still occurs. It’s very similar to awareness. To help you with this, I went to my experience of the seeming appearance of attention. But I just don’t know how to put the experience into words, since with the usage of language I cannot avoid dualism, which is not there in AE.

Let’s look at how attention SEEMS to appear. First, it seems that there is awareness, like a big space in a room. And there are objects in the room, like thoughts, sensations, sounds, etc. These objects are the furniture in the room. And attention seems like a flashlight or a spotlight, which seemingly can be directed to a certain furniture. It seems like as if attention is just another ability of attention (apart from aware-ing), or a tool, and as if awareness has the ability to direct itself (in form of attention) to certain object, like a sound, and then it can move its spotlight to a sensation, then to a thought. And whatever the spotlight is on, that is being emphasized and everything else is just in the deem background.

So attention seems like as an ability or an action what awareness does. Or a tool that awareness uses to highlight certain objects. So it’s based on duality, and a belief in a subtle form of doer or chooser, or a mover (that moves the attention to a certain object).

This was the easy part to describe. But in reality, there isn’t a spotlight, rather there is a ‘soundknowing’ and then there is a ‘sensationknowing’, then there is a ‘thoughknowing’. It’s not that attention is moving to a certain object (there is no real spotlight which could move), but rather the objects are coming, staying, fading and then going. I don’t know how to put this into words.

And this illusion is also closely related to the notion of time, what we will investigate close to the end of our conversation. Maybe later attention will be more clear, but to be honest it’s not too important, in terms of seeing no self. But of course if it feels really relevant to you, we can look at this further later.

But first, we have to investigate the notion of control.
Here is an interesting exercise.

Go and make a cup of tea or coffee. As you do this notice whether a 'self' does it. Also notice if there are many or any moments in the whole procedure of going to the kettle, switching it on, getting the cup (etc) when 'you' control the process?

How the decision is made what to make a cup of tea or coffee?
Do ‘you’ choose putting or not putting milk into the tea (or coffee)?
Is there a moment of choice or it happens automatically?
Do ‘you’ 'make the cup of tea (or coffee) happen' or it just happens?
Can a chooser be located?

Vivien