Guide, Please?

[Aiyana]

Hi Vivien,

So let’s investigate a bit on time.

There is a general assumption that there is a 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 do you have an experience that the now is moving along the line of time?

No. When attention is focused on the now, there is no sense of time moving along.

How fast the present moment is actually moving?
How long does the now last?
Where does it start and where does it end?
When does the now exactly become the 'past'?

The Now does not move at all. Attention shifts from the now to thoughts and memories. It doesn't start or end, but attention moves. It has no location - it can be found anywhere. It doesn't become the past - but thoughts label it as "past". In the now, there is a sense of changelessness and timelessness. At least thought interprets it that way....

What is the past in the actual experience?

The past is only a thought - a memory. Only the now can be experienced. The past is only remembered.

J

ust consider…
Look in the mirror. See the image that is called ‘body’.
Was the ‘body’ that is seen in the mirror was born on a certain date?

Well, the body that was born on "my birthday" looked quite different. How can it be known that the body in the mirror is the same body? Only thoughts and memories link them.

Other than this thought, how else is it known that the ‘body’ was born on that specific date?

It can't. There is nothing in the reflection that reflects a certain birthdate.

Or is the thought the only link?

Yes! And this thought is strengthened because other people share it. (Family members, friends.) But they are still just thoughts.

And because that thought is believed in, it is said to be 'reality', but is it really?

No. It is just a thought.

However, all it is just a thought appearing that is believed in?
Can you see this?

Can you see that “This body was born on xxxx” is simply a thought appearing that is believed in, and nothing more than that?

Yes. Everything "known" about that body is a thought.

So, can this body have a past?
Or everything that is labelled as ‘past’ is just a mental story?
Other than contents of thought stories, is there a ‘past’?
Can time be experienced at all?

The past is just thoughts. The body is a thought and there are thoughts about the body. It has no past.

Yes, the past is mental stories.

There is no past outside of thoughts. It cannot be experienced.

Time cannot be experienced. Only the now can be experienced and it is timeless. Only memories linked together give a sense of time. But time cannot actually be experienced.

If the ‘I’ is just a thought, then what is ‘past’?

The past is a thought too! They are stories about the I-thought.

Love,

Aiyana

[Vivien]

Dear Aiyana,

Very nice looking ‘again’ :)

When attention is focused on the now, there is no sense of time moving along.

Look very closely.

“When the attention is focused on the now” – is there anything ‘outside’ of the now?
Is there anything else than this moment?
Is there anything that is not happening now?

When do thoughts about past and future happen if not now?

“When attention is focused on the now, there is no sense of time moving along” – is there ‘any time’ when the sense of time is moving along?
If yes, when exactly?
How is the sense of time is moving along is ACTUALLY experienced?

Attention shifts from the now to thoughts and memories.

Is there any difference between thoughts and memories?
What is a ‘memory’ if not a label on a thought?
Is there such thing as a ‘memory’ or there are only some thoughts about a supposed past with other thoughts saying that this is a memory?

The past is only a thought - a memory. Only the now can be experienced. The past is only remembered.

“The past is only remembered” – this thought suggests that the past has happened.

But is there any ACTUAL experiential evidence that the ‘past’ has ever happened?

Attention shifts from the now to thoughts and memories.

“Attention shifts” – says a thought. But look very closely.

What is the ACTUAL experience of ‘attention shifting’?
Is it really shifting or just simply an object appear (like thought, sensation, sight…)?

If there is no past, then how could attention shift? Compared to what?
Where is the previous moment when the ‘attention was on a thought’ but now it’s on a sensation?

Is there an ‘independent attention’ which could shift to an ‘independent now’ or to an ‘independent thoughts’?

Where is the dividing line between attention and the thought?
Can the attention be separated from the thought?

Where does attention end and the sensation starts?
Is there attention without an object (like sensation, thought, sound, taste)?
Is there an object (sensation, sound) without attention?

Love, Vivien

[Aiyana]

Hi Vivien,

“When the attention is focused on the now” – is there anything ‘outside’ of the now?
Is there anything else than this moment?
Is there anything that is not happening now?

There is only now. Everything that is happening is happening now.

When do thoughts about past and future happen if not now?

They happen now.

“When attention is focused on the now, there is no sense of time moving along” – is there ‘any time’ when the sense of time is moving along?
If yes, when exactly?
How is the sense of time is moving along is ACTUALLY experienced?

Hm... there is no sense of time moving along. There are external signs of time passing, such as the sun rising and setting and seasons changing. But can one experience the passing of time? I'd say "no". It seems like time passes because the time changes on the clock and the sun begins to set. But "the now" doesn't change with time. Things in the "now" change - people get older, they move to different places - let the experience of the now is the same.

Is there any difference between thoughts and memories?
What is a ‘memory’ if not a label on a thought?
Is there such thing as a ‘memory’ or there are only some thoughts about a supposed past with other thoughts saying that this is a memory?

A memory is a thought. Thoughts label other thoughts as memories - "this is not now, this is past".

“The past is only remembered” – this thought suggests that the past has happened.

But is there any ACTUAL experiential evidence that the ‘past’ has ever happened?

Well, there are photographs.... But that seems like the same type of "evidence" as the sun setting and rising. How can it be known that a photo is real? Or is it a visual image of a thought?

Photos probably wouldn't be considered actual experience. In actual experience there is no evidence of the past. The past "lives" in thoughts that are labeled as memories. The content of thoughts is not real, so how could we assume that the contents of thoughts about the past are real?

As far as experience can tell, the past and the future only exist in thoughts.

“Attention shifts” – says a thought. But look very closely.

What is the ACTUAL experience of ‘attention shifting’?
Is it really shifting or just simply an object appear (like thought, sensation, sight…)?

Wow... this is true. It seems like attention shifts.... but yes, a thought is saying that. Thoughts and sensations and perceptions appear, but there is no "I" that is choosing what to look at, what to think, etc... Only thoughts label it that way. Thoughts arise and there is awareness of those thoughts, sensations arise..... Why does it seem like there is a focus of awareness? That's where the idea of attention comes in. But awareness is not changing its focus.... different objects are entering and exiting awareness.

If there is no past, then how could attention shift? Compared to what?
Where is the previous moment when the ‘attention was on a thought’ but now it’s on a sensation?

Hm.... thoughts arise.... sensations arise.... The "shifting of attention" is just thoughts and sensations arising.

Is there an ‘independent attention’ which could shift to an ‘independent now’ or to an ‘independent thoughts’?

No. The "I-thought" labels this as "my attention". But it is really just thoughts appearing and disappearing.

Where is the dividing line between attention and the thought?
Can the attention be separated from the thought?

Attention is a thought. When a thought arises, it seems like "attention is on" that thought. That is the I-thought. The thought is arising in awareness; no one is putting attention on it.

Where does attention end and the sensation start?
Is there attention without an object (like sensation, thought, sound, taste)?
Is there an object (sensation, sound) without attention?

There seems to be notice of a sensation when it first arises. Then attention seems to fade. Attention is a thought that is labeling the sensation. "There is pain in the knee!" If the pain fades, there are no more thoughts about it. "Attention fades".

The sensation is real; the thought about it isn't. Attention/thought is just labeling the sensation.

There must be an object for there to be "attention".

There is no evidence that objects exist outside of attention.


Love,

Aiyana

[Vivien]

Dear Aiyana,

There are external signs of time passing, such as the sun rising and setting and seasons changing.

How is it known that the sun is rising and setting? Can it be known apart from thoughts?
What is the actual experiential evidence that sun was setting yesterday evening and rising this morning?
Where is yesterday evening sunset, and today morning sunrise?

“Season changing” – what it the ACTUAL experience of a season? – not what thoughts say about it, but what can be experienced right here, right now.

It seems like time passes because the time changes on the clock and the sun begins to set.

Would seeing a number NOW on the clock prove that time has passed?
Compared to what? To a thought and mental images of the watch showing a different number?
Where is that previous moment exactly to which it could be compared to?
Or the thoughts about a previous moment appear NOW?

But "the now" doesn't change with time.

This sentence implies that although the now cannot change, there is such thing as time. Look very closely.

Is there REALLY such thing as time? If yes, where is it?
Or only thoughts say so?

Things in the "now" change - people get older, they move to different places - let the experience of the now is the same.

If there is only now, how could anything change?

In order to say that something is changed, past is needed to which the now could be compared to.
But where does that past appear if not now?

“People get older” – how is it known exactly?
In order to say that people get older, past is needed. So there are thoughts appearing NOW ABOUT a supposed ‘past’ when somebody looked younger.

But where is that past exactly? - We are not looking for thoughts and images ABOUT the past, we are looking for the ACTUAL past. Where is that exactly?

Well, there are photographs.... But that seems like the same type of "evidence" as the sun setting and rising.

How can it be known that a photo is real? Or is it a visual image of a thought?
When does the photo appear? Isn’t it appears in the now?

What is the actual experiential evidence that those patch of colours that are labelled of ‘me 5 years ago’ is this apparent body now?

That photo can prove only the now. It appears now. It cannot prove the past. Can you see this?

But awareness is not changing its focus.... different objects are entering and exiting awareness.

This assumes that there is a separate awareness in which independent, separate objects can appear. But look very closely, is this really the case?

I gave you some pointers in the previous post, but it’s been ‘misinterpreted’ by thoughts. These were those pointers:

Vivien: Where is the dividing line between attention and the thought?
Can the attention be separated from the thought?
Where does attention end and the sensation starts?
Is there attention without an object (like sensation, thought, sound, taste)?
Is there an object (sensation, sound) without attention?

You’re saying that there is an independent awareness that is separate from everything else. That is aware of the experience. LOOK very closely… What is the actual experiential evidence for a standalone awareness? – don’t thing about it… but look very closely… take your time with each of the questions, and please answer ALL of them, one-by-one, don’t miss any.

Is there a standalone awareness somewhere outside of the actual experience?

Is there a thought without the awareness of it?
Is there awareness without any experience?

If so, where is the dividing line exactly between the thought and the awareness of it?
Where is the dividing line exactly between the experience and the awareness of it?

Where does a sensation end and the awareness of it starts?
Where does a sound end and the awareness of it starts?

Are there two things, ‘the awareness’ and the ‘awared’ (experience), or is there only one seamless experience?

Take your time.

Love, Vivien

[Aiyana]

Dear Vivien,

How is it known that the sun is rising and setting? Can it be known apart from thoughts?
What is the actual experiential evidence that sun was setting yesterday evening and rising this morning?
Where is yesterday evening sunset, and today morning sunrise?

There is no evidence of the sun setting or rising. That's a story. But I see changes in the amount of light at different times of the day. Does this prove the existence of time? It differentiates one moment from another. Well, it differentiates my perception of one moment from my perception of another.

Okay... but how can it be known that there were actually moments different from this moment? The moments when the light was different only exist in thought. Hm... so that doesn't prove that there is time or that things change. It only shows that THOUGHTS seem to show change. The story (more thoughts) attributes those changes to time.

Hmm... interesting. Right now I am perceiving a faint light through the trees. In ten minutes I believe there will be less light.... in ten more minutes even less.... BUT change is never actually experienced. There is a thought that says something was "different" ten minutes ago or will be different ten minutes from now. But the change cannot actually be experienced.

Wow.

“Season changing” – what it the ACTUAL experience of a season? – not what thoughts say about it, but what can be experienced right here, right now.

Only the weather at this moment and time can be experienced. Thoughts label today as "Winter". Just like changes in daylight, changes in seasons cannot actually be experienced. All that can be experienced is the weather RIGHT NOW. There is no way to know if weather ever really changes because the changes only exist in thoughts.

Would seeing a number NOW on the clock prove that time has passed?
Compared to what? To a thought and mental images of the watch showing a different number?
Where is that previous moment exactly to which it could be compared to?
Or the thoughts about a previous moment appear NOW?

Same deal! Only the number on the clock now can be experienced. Thoughts say that the number was different earlier and that it will be different later. But the changes only exist in thoughts.

There is no previous moment that it could be compared to. There is no moment but THIS ONE RIGHT NOW. So any other moment exists only in thoughts and cannot be experienced.

The thoughts of "other moments" is appearing now, but there is no evidence that those moments ever existed outside of thoughts.

Wow again!

Is there REALLY such thing as time? If yes, where is it?
Or only thoughts say so?

No. There is no such thing as time. There is only NOW. Time only exists in thoughts, which hold memories of moments that are "not now". But how could these moments exist if there is only the now? They only exist in thoughts.

If there is only now, how could anything change?

Nothing can change! Thoughts label things as different from "now".... but those differences don't exist outside of thoughts.

In order to say that something is changed, past is needed to which the now could be compared to.
But where does that past appear if not now?

The past appears NOW as a thought. It doesn't exist outside of thoughts.

“People get older” – how is it known exactly?
In order to say that people get older, past is needed. So there are thoughts appearing NOW ABOUT a supposed ‘past’ when somebody looked younger.

The idea that someone looked younger "before" is a thought. Changes in appearances cannot be experienced! There only SEEMS to be changes because there is a thought/mental image that says what we're seeing now is different than what we saw before.

But where is that past exactly? - We are not looking for thoughts and images ABOUT the past, we are looking for the ACTUAL past. Where is that exactly?

The past only exists in thoughts.

How can it be known that a photo is real? Or is it a visual image of a thought?
When does the photo appear? Isn’t it appears in the now?

The photo appears now. A thought labels the image as "different" from something being experienced or perceived now. It cannot be known that a photo is real. A thought says "This is a photo" and another thought says "This is you from 10 years ago".

What is the actual experiential evidence that those patch of colours that are labelled of ‘me 5 years ago’ is this apparent body now?

None!!! It cannot be experienced. Only a thought says it is "me".

That photo can prove only the now. It appears now. It cannot prove the past. Can you see this?

Yes!

But awareness is not changing its focus.... different objects are entering and exiting awareness.

This assumes that there is a separate awareness in which independent, separate objects can appear. But look very closely, is this really the case?

There is no experience of an object entering or exiting awareness. Objects seem to appear. Some disappear. But there is no evidence that they GO anywhere. There is no longer awareness of them. But can it be said that they left awareness? There is no evidence of this.

You’re saying that there is an independent awareness that is separate from everything else. That is aware of the experience. LOOK very closely… What is the actual experiential evidence for a standalone awareness? – don’t thing about it… but look very closely… take your time with each of the questions, and please answer ALL of them, one-by-one, don’t miss any.

Okay! I didn't answer the pointers you gave me last night, as it seems very similar questions are repeated below. Could you let me know if you DID want me to answer those pointers as well as the ones below?

Is there a standalone awareness somewhere outside of the actual experience?

No. There is no evidence that anything exists outside actual experience.

Is there a thought without the awareness of it?

No. There is no thought without awareness of the thought.

Is there awareness without any experience?

No. Even in the gaps between thoughts and sensations, there is the experience of being aware.

If so, where is the dividing line exactly between the thought and the awareness of it?

There is none. As soon as the thought arises there is awareness of it.

Where is the dividing line exactly between the experience and the awareness of it?

There is none. There is awareness of every experience as it happens. Awareness does not start and stop. Experiences do seem to start and stop though.... But experience does not "enter" and "exit" awareness. It "begins" and "ends" within awareness.

Where does a sensation end and the awareness of it starts?

They are inseparable. The sensation arises within awareness.

Where does a sound end and the awareness of it starts?

They are inseparable. The sound arises within awareness.

Are there two things, ‘the awareness’ and the ‘awared’ (experience), or is there only one seamless experience?

There is only one seamless experience. There is awareness, and everything arises within awareness.

Thanks for pushing me, Vivien! I really got stuck in thoughts last time. I can tell because it becomes more difficult to answer questions. Today was much easier, though I got "stuck" a couple of times.

Love,

Aiyana

[Vivien]

Dear Aiyana,

Okay... but how can it be known that there were actually moments different from this moment? The moments when the light was different only exist in thought. Hm... so that doesn't prove that there is time or that things change. It only shows that THOUGHTS seem to show change. The story (more thoughts) attributes those changes to time.

Hmm... interesting. Right now I am perceiving a faint light through the trees. In ten minutes I believe there will be less light.... in ten more minutes even less.... BUT change is never actually experienced. There is a thought that says something was "different" ten minutes ago or will be different ten minutes from now. But the change cannot actually be experienced.

Beautiful :)

There is no previous moment that it could be compared to. There is no moment but THIS ONE RIGHT NOW. So any other moment exists only in thoughts and cannot be experienced.

Very nice looking. Let’s go one more step further.

“any other moments exist only in thoughts” – Are those moments really exist in thoughts or are there only THOGHTS ABOUT other moments?

The past only exists in thoughts.

The same question here:
Does the past REALLY exist in thoughts, or are there only THOUGHTS ABOUT a past?

There is no experience of an object entering or exiting awareness. Objects seem to appear. Some disappear. But there is no evidence that they GO anywhere. There is no longer awareness of them. But can it be said that they left awareness? There is no evidence of this.

Saying that objects appear and disappear requires time.

Let’s say, in one moment (1) there is an awareness of a sound of the rain, (2) then there is the awareness of the sensation of the fingers touching the keyboard, (3) then the sound of the rain, (4) then a thought “oh I’m hearing the sound of the rain again”.

So in order to say that objects appear and disappear time is needed.

Thoughts say: ‘object #1 seemingly disappeared and object #2 appeared’, but is this really the case?
Where is object #1 when there is object #2?

Is the object #1 the same as object #3 (both about the sound of the rain)?
If they are the same, how is it known? How is the comparison made?

You wrote yourself:

“Changes in appearances cannot be experienced! There only SEEMS to be changes because there is a thought/mental image that says what we're seeing now is different than what we saw before.”

So, has anything enter and leave, appear or disappear in awareness? Is this possible?
Or we can say only, that there is whatever IS in this moment?

There is none. There is awareness of every experience as it happens. Awareness does not start and stop. Experiences do seem to start and stop though.... But experience does not "enter" and "exit" awareness. It "begins" and "ends" within awareness.

So what would you say now about this above comment?
Do appearances really begin and end? If yes, how is this known?

They are inseparable. The sensation arises within awareness.
They are inseparable. The sound arises within awareness.

You’re saying that they are inseparable, but at the same time there is a hidden implication that at some point as if there were two separate things (awareness + sensation) that are now somehow ‘glued together’, and thus appear together.
But is this the case?

If the sensation arose in awareness that would mean that there are two things:

• (1) The awareness in which things could arise
  (2) And the arising objects (sound, sensation)

But if they are inseparable, how could there be two?
If they are inseparable, aren’t they the same thing?
Isn’t there only one?

There is no separation between the so called subject and the object. All seeming separation created by thinking.

Saying that thoughts appear in awareness is separation. So thoughts 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 (awareness) and a perceived object which are connected through an act of perceiving. There is only perception.
Can you see this?

And there is another important point about ‘awareness’.

The body doesn’t have awareness. Awareness is not the property of the body. Quite the opposite. The body (which is nothing else than sensation + sight) is being ‘awared’ / experienced.

But even saying this is not completely true, because there is no separation at all between the awareness and the body (sensation + sight). The awareness and the body (sensation + sight) are one and the same thing.
Can you see this?

Here is an exercise to see that the body has no awareness.
First you have to be able to clearly see that what the body really is.

So close the eyes and scan through the body for several minutes.
Is there anything else present than (1) sensations and (2) mental images (about the body or certain body parts)?

Then open the eyes and look at the body (like hands).
Is there anything else present than (1) sensations and (2) a visual image (perception of seeing)?
Can you see that the body is nothing else than a bunch of sensation + some images?

So how could a sensation be aware or own awareness?

How could a mental image be aware or own awareness?
How could a visual sight be aware or own awareness?

Sensations, images and sight (the perception of seeing) are ALL experienced. They don’t own experiencing or do experiencing… And the body is nothing more than sensations, images and the perception of seeing (sight). So….?

But even saying this is not completely true. The sensation is not separate from the awareness of it. The sensation and the awareness are one and the same. There are no two that are somehow ‘glued together’. Can you see this?

Okay! I didn't answer the pointers you gave me last night, as it seems very similar questions are repeated below. Could you let me know if you DID want me to answer those pointers as well as the ones below?

You can answer them. :)

Thanks for pushing me, Vivien! I really got stuck in thoughts last time. I can tell because it becomes more difficult to answer questions. Today was much easier, though I got "stuck" a couple of times.

Today I’ll go for a short 4-day long holiday with not proper internet access, so I won’t be able to reply to you during this time.

But please, post me every day, don’t stop looking because of this.
I suggest doing the above exercises, then going back and read some parts of our conversation, or even the whole, and do some exercises again. Please write about what have you found, or anything that is not clear.

Love, Vivien

[Aiyana]

Hi Vivien,

“any other moments exist only in thoughts” – Are those moments really exist in thoughts or are there only THOGHTS ABOUT other moments?

No, the moments don't really exist. There is no reality in thoughts - just imagination.

The same question here:
Does the past REALLY exist in thoughts, or are there only THOUGHTS ABOUT a past?

Nope. There are just thoughts. Even if the past existed once, it no longer exists now. But there is no proof that it ever existed. Thoughts say it did, but the content of thoughts is not real.

That's about all I can answer right now - too sleepy! But I'll come back to the rest of the questions tomorrow.

[Aiyana]

Hi Vivien,

I hope you're enjoying your vacation! It's snowing here and I'm enjoying watching it fall :)

Saying that objects appear and disappear requires time.

Let’s say, in one moment (1) there is an awareness of a sound of the rain, (2) then there is the awareness of the sensation of the fingers touching the keyboard, (3) then the sound of the rain, (4) then a thought “oh I’m hearing the sound of the rain again”.

So in order to say that objects appear and disappear time is needed.

Thoughts say: ‘object #1 seemingly disappeared and object #2 appeared’, but is this really the case?
Where is object #1 when there is object #2?

Object #1 is still there. Attention, which is a thought, focuses on one thing more than another. This is given a time label. But... the only thing that makes it seem like time is passed is thought.

Right now "I'm" sitting on the couch, typing. Two cats are sitting on me. A timer is ticking. Heat is blowing. Birds call in the backyard.

It's all happening at once. But thoughts say that there is time because there was a memory of a "first bird" when a "second bird" called. Without the memory (thought) there would be no observation of difference between the birds.

The heat is off. Thoughts say it was on before. Thoughts are interpreting everything! There is only a sense of time because thoughts tell us something is "different".

Is the object #1 the same as object #3 (both about the sound of the rain)?
If they are the same, how is it known? How is the comparison made?

"Same" and "different" are thought labels. Thoughts say that different birds are calling in the backyard. Thoughts say one is a "crow". Only thoughts say that a bird's call is different from a cat's purr or the ticking of a timer. Thoughts, thoughts, thoughts....

You wrote yourself:

“Changes in appearances cannot be experienced! There only SEEMS to be changes because there is a thought/mental image that says what we're seeing now is different than what we saw before.”

So, has anything enter and leave, appear or disappear in awareness? Is this possible?
Or we can say only, that there is whatever IS in this moment?

Whatever IS is right now is all there is. Thoughts label every moment and interpret experience. Thoughts create the idea of "difference". There is no EXPERIENCE of anything appearing or disappearing - only thoughts that say that.

There is none. There is awareness of every experience as it happens. Awareness does not start and stop. Experiences do seem to start and stop though.... But experience does not "enter" and "exit" awareness. It "begins" and "ends" within awareness.

So what would you say now about this above comment?
Do appearances really begin and end? If yes, how is this known?

No. Only thoughts say that.

They are inseparable. The sensation arises within awareness.
They are inseparable. The sound arises within awareness.

You’re saying that they are inseparable, but at the same time there is a hidden implication that at some point as if there were two separate things (awareness + sensation) that are now somehow ‘glued together’, and thus appear together.
But is this the case?

Only thoughts say one is a sound and another is a sensation. Only thoughts say there are two "things" that can be "different".

If the sensation arose in awareness that would mean that there are two things:

• (1) The awareness in which things could arise
  (2) And the arising objects (sound, sensation)

But if they are inseparable, how could there be two?
If they are inseparable, aren’t they the same thing?
Isn’t there only one?

Yes. Only thoughts are saying there are two things.

There is no separation between the so called subject and the object. All seeming separation created by thinking.

Yes!!! This is clear.

Saying that thoughts appear in awareness is separation. So thoughts 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 (awareness) and a perceived object which are connected through an act of perceiving. There is only perception.
Can you see this?

Yes. Only thoughts say that there is a "cat" next to "me" that is "not me". Thoughts separate "me" from "everything else". Thoughts separate "perceiver" from "perceived".

And there is another important point about ‘awareness’.

The body doesn’t have awareness. Awareness is not the property of the body. Quite the opposite. The body (which is nothing else than sensation + sight) is being ‘awared’ / experienced.

But even saying this is not completely true, because there is no separation at all between the awareness and the body (sensation + sight). The awareness and the body (sensation + sight) are one and the same thing.
Can you see this?

The body is being experienced just as everything else is being experienced. It seems like the body experience is "closer" than other experiences because there is a thought that says so.

I believe this... but can't see it yet.

Here is an exercise to see that the body has no awareness.
First you have to be able to clearly see that what the body really is.

So close the eyes and scan through the body for several minutes.
Is there anything else present than (1) sensations and (2) mental images (about the body or certain body parts)?

Then open the eyes and look at the body (like hands).
Is there anything else present than (1) sensations and (2) a visual image (perception of seeing)?
Can you see that the body is nothing else than a bunch of sensation + some images?

Yes. Awareness is not in the body. When the eyes are closed, all that can be found in the body are sensations and thoughts about the body. (Images). When the eyes are open, there are perceptions about the body (sight) and sensations.

Hm... images are involved both when the eyes are closed and when they're open. Images are not real when the eyes are closed.... how can it be known they are "real" when the eyes are open?

So how could a sensation be aware or own awareness?

It couldn't.

How could a mental image be aware or own awareness?

It couldn't.

How could a visual sight be aware or own awareness?

It couldn't.

Sensations, images and sight (the perception of seeing) are ALL experienced. They don’t own experiencing or do experiencing… And the body is nothing more than sensations, images and the perception of seeing (sight). So….?

The body cannot be experiencing.

But even saying this is not completely true. The sensation is not separate from the awareness of it. The sensation and the awareness are one and the same. There are no two that are somehow ‘glued together’. Can you see this?

I believe this but I do not see it yet.

I will go back and answer your pointers. Then I will keep looking at awareness. Is there really a separation between what is experiencing and what is being experienced?

Will look at this and will look back at previous questions.

Thanks, Vivien!

Love,

Aiyana

[Aiyana]

Hi Vivien!

I came back to the pointers:

Where is the dividing line between attention and the thought?

There isn't one. A thought arises and there is attention about it. There is no experience of a thought "lurking in the background". If thoughts are discarded, they disappear. But while a thought is present, there is attention about that thought.

Can the attention be separated from the thought?

It seems like it. But... there is no dividing line between them. Attention is a labeling thought. Just now, there was a "pinging" sound from the phone and a thought arose. "You have an e-mail from work." Attention was the thought that labeled the sound.

Where does attention end and the sensation start?

As soon as a sensation arises, there is a thought that labels the location, the type of sensation, etc. That is attention.
They are "simultaneous".

Is there attention without an object (like sensation, thought, sound, taste)?

No. Attention is always labeling an object.

Is there an object (sensation, sound) without attention?

No.

[Aiyana]

Hi Vivien,

I am really struggling to see awareness without the subject-object relationship. I can see that nothing exists outside of awareness - nothing "enters" or "exits" awareness, but rather arises from within awareness. Everything is "made of" awareness.

Thoughts create the subject-object relationship - "I" perceive "not-I". But this seems to be "my" experience.

Music is playing. "I" hear it. Is the truth that it is simply heard, but no one is hearing it? That doesn't make sense. How could it be "heard" by no one? So it is "playing", but no one is hearing it?

This is a "sticking" point. There is still identification with an "I". I'll come back to this tomorrow.

Love,

Aiyana

[Aiyana]

Hi Vivien,

Working on the "awareness" sticking point...

And there is another important point about ‘awareness’.

The body doesn’t have awareness. Awareness is not the property of the body. Quite the opposite. The body (which is nothing else than sensation + sight) is being ‘awared’ / experienced.

But even saying this is not completely true, because there is no separation at all between the awareness and the body (sensation + sight). The awareness and the body (sensation + sight) are one and the same thing.
Can you see this?

I see there is no separation between awareness and the body, but I don't see that they are the same thing. That is because "awareness" is an idea and "the body" is an idea. But when I break it down to the level of sensations.... there is no distinction between a sensation and the awareness of that sensation. So it's clear they are the same.

Sensations, images and sight (the perception of seeing) are ALL experienced. They don’t own experiencing or do experiencing… And the body is nothing more than sensations, images and the perception of seeing (sight). So….?

But even saying this is not completely true. The sensation is not separate from the awareness of it. The sensation and the awareness are one and the same. There are no two that are somehow ‘glued together’. Can you see this?

There is no boundary between awareness and what is being experienced.

Just now I was eating and realized there was NO DISTANCE between the sensations and perceptions of eating and the awareness of those sensations and perceptions. They are one.

Experience is not divided into a perceiving subject (awareness) and a perceived object which are connected through an act of perceiving. There is only perception. Can you see this?

Awareness cannot be separated from objects perceived. There seems to be an "I" that perceives objects. But how can that be? Awareness is not in the body. The body seems to perceive objects outside of itself, but the body (sensations, images) is "part of" awareness, not the seat of awareness.

"I" is not in the body. "I" exists in thoughts. Thoughts are not "aware of" other thoughts. They arise within awareness; awareness arises with them. A thought does not arise without awareness of the thought.

"I am listening to music." In order for that to be true, I'd have to find an "I" separate from the "music". There is no "I" to be found outside of thoughts. Thoughts can't be aware of anything. Thoughts label the music, but don't experience it. Music is an experience in awareness. There is no separation between the experience of the music and the awareness of it.

If there is no "I" to "own" awareness and awareness is not "in" the body, then who is listening to music?

Awareness and the music are one. There is no subject and object here.

Hm... must look further. Despite the evidence to the contrary, it still seems like there's a "I" listening to music.... Seems!!! Thoughts are clinging to this. I'll continue to look at perceptions, sensations, etc.... Is there a subject that is aware of an object?

Love,

Aiyana

[Vivien]

Dear Aiyana,

I’m back. You did very nice looking :)

Right now "I'm" sitting on the couch, typing. Two cats are sitting on me. A timer is ticking. Heat is blowing. Birds call in the backyard.
It's all happening at once. But thoughts say that there is time because there was a memory of a "first bird" when a "second bird" called. Without the memory (thought) there would be no observation of difference between the birds.
The heat is off. Thoughts say it was on before. Thoughts are interpreting everything! There is only a sense of time because thoughts tell us something is "different".

Yes!

Awareness is not in the body. When the eyes are closed, all that can be found in the body are sensations and thoughts about the body. (Images). When the eyes are open, there are perceptions about the body (sight) and sensations.
Hm... images are involved both when the eyes are closed and when they're open. Images are not real when the eyes are closed.... how can it be known they are "real" when the eyes are open?

OK, have a bit closer look on this.

Both the ‘thought-image of a body’ and the ‘sight of the body’ appear IN and AS awareness. Both are totally inseparable from the awareness of them.

So how could one be ‘more real’ than the other?
What is ‘real’ anyway? What is the actual experience of ‘realness’?

Vivien: Where is the dividing line between attention and the thought?

Aiyana: There isn't one. A thought arises and there is attention about it. There is no experience of a thought "lurking in the background". If thoughts are discarded, they disappear. But while a thought is present, there is attention about that thought.

“If thoughts are discarded, they disappear” – how is it known that ‘previously’ there was a thought that is not present now (disappeared)?
If it is not present, how is it known that it ‘was there before’, just because a thought say so?
Can anything be known that is not present?

I see there is no separation between awareness and the body, but I don't see that they are the same thing. That is because "awareness" is an idea and "the body" is an idea. But when I break it down to the level of sensations.... there is no distinction between a sensation and the awareness of that sensation. So it's clear they are the same.

Yes, both awareness and the body are just an idea. There is no separate awareness at all. And there is no body either. The body is nothing more than sensations + images. And there is no dividing line between the awareness or knowing of the sensation (or images) and the sensation (or images). The sensation (or image) and the knowing (or awareness) of it appear AS ONE indivisible whole. Can you see this clearly?

Just now I was eating and realized there was NO DISTANCE between the sensations and perceptions of eating and the awareness of those sensations and perceptions. They are one.

Yes :)

Awareness cannot be separated from objects perceived. There seems to be an "I" that perceives objects. But how can that be? Awareness is not in the body. The body seems to perceive objects outside of itself, but the body (sensations, images) is "part of" awareness, not the seat of awareness.
"I" is not in the body. "I" exists in thoughts. Thoughts are not "aware of" other thoughts. They arise within awareness; awareness arises with them. A thought does not arise without awareness of the thought.

Yes!

"I am listening to music." In order for that to be true, I'd have to find an "I" separate from the "music". There is no "I" to be found outside of thoughts. Thoughts can't be aware of anything. Thoughts label the music, but don't experience it. Music is an experience in awareness. There is no separation between the experience of the music and the awareness of it.

If there is no "I" to "own" awareness and awareness is not "in" the body, then who is listening to music?

Awareness and the music are one. There is no subject and object here.

Yes, exactly. Now look at this thought very closely: “If there is no "I" to "own" awareness and awareness is not "in" the body, then who is listening to music?”

Doesn’t this thought appear IN and AS awareness as well?
Just because a thought say that there must be a listener, is this REALLY the case?
Can a thought know anything, or thoughts are just known / experienced?

What does want to know the answer to this question?
Is there anything that could get an answer to this question?

Hm... must look further. Despite the evidence to the contrary, it still seems like there's a "I" listening to music.... Seems!!! Thoughts are clinging to this.

What is it exactly that needs further looking?
Is there anything that could gain something from further looking?
Or ALL of these are thoughts appearing inseparably of the knowing of them?

“It still SEEMS there is an ‘I’ listening to music” – Is this REALLY the actual experience or only an appearing thought (that is also inseparable of the knowing of it) suggest this?

“Thoughts are clinging to this” – What is the ACTUAL experience of “thoughts clinging”?

Aiyana: Is there a subject that is aware of an object?

Is there anything without the knowing of it?
If yes, then how is it known?

In order to say that there is a subject that is aware of the experience, that subject must be outside of the actual experience (in order to be aware of the experience).

So is there actual experience and non-actual experience?
If so, how non-actual experience is experienced?
Where is this non-actual experience exactly (the subject)?
Where is this subject that supposedly exists in non-actual experience?

That which is not known (like non-actual experience) is not knowable. Such a ‘thing’ is just an idea. And what is an idea? The content of an appearing thought. Can you see this?

Love, Vivien

[Aiyana]

Hi Vivien,

Welcome back :)

OK, have a bit closer look on this.

Both the ‘thought-image of a body’ and the ‘sight of the body’ appear IN and AS awareness. Both are totally inseparable from the awareness of them.

So how could one be ‘more real’ than the other?
What is ‘real’ anyway? What is the actual experience of ‘realness’?

Neither the thought-image or the sight of the body is real.

Time is an illusion created by thought, that seems to "split" the NOW into past, present, and future. Perceptions and thoughts seem to limit awareness in a similar way. Instead of experiencing the whole, we experience parts.

The NOW is real. Awareness is real. They are always there. They don't fluctuate or change in any way.

"Realness" is what can be experienced. "The Now" is the only time that can be experienced. Awareness is the only existence we experience outside of thoughts. There is no experience of "I", but there is an experience of awareness.

“If thoughts are discarded, they disappear” – how is it known that ‘previously’ there was a thought that is not present now (disappeared)?
If it is not present, how is it known that it ‘was there before’, just because a thought say so?
Can anything be known that is not present?

Only a thought says another thought was "previously" there. Only what is currently present can be known. In fact, there is no evidence that there is ever more than ONE thought. Only thoughts say that the thought arising now is different than a thought that arose "previously".

Yes, both awareness and the body are just an idea. There is no separate awareness at all. And there is no body either. The body is nothing more than sensations + images. And there is no dividing line between the awareness or knowing of the sensation (or images) and the sensation (or images). The sensation (or image) and the knowing (or awareness) of it appear AS ONE indivisible whole. Can you see this clearly?

Yes! It is clear that perceptions can't be taken at face value. A body is "seen", but it cannot be experienced beyond images and sensations. There is no evidence that anything I perceive is as it seems.

I'm going to submit these and take a break. I am really struggling with the remaining questions.

Love,

Aiyana

[Aiyana]

Hi Vivien,

I'm giving it another try.

Yes, exactly. Now look at this thought very closely: “If there is no "I" to "own" awareness and awareness is not "in" the body, then who is listening to music?”

Doesn’t this thought appear IN and AS awareness as well?

Yes!

Just because a thought say that there must be a listener, is this REALLY the case?

No, it's just a thought.

Can a thought know anything, or thoughts are just known / experienced?

No, they cannot know anything. They are known.

What does want to know the answer to this question?
Is there anything that could get an answer to this question?

This is what is confusing. That's because I'm looking for the answer in thoughts.

"I" is a thought. Thoughts can't know anything. They label. The question "Who is listening to this music?" is a labeling thought. Thoughts arise from awareness. There arise with awareness - there are no thoughts "outside" awareness.

Okay... it seems that there is awareness OF these thoughts. Thoughts seem to "enter" awareness. Is this because awareness, out of which all thoughts arise, identifies with the I-thought? So that other thoughts appear to be "outside" of it?

Yes, this is theorizing. Images are appearing to help construct this story.

Who wants to know who is listening to music??

Grrr... this is frustrating. As you can see, little progress is being made, so I'll take a break and continue later tonight or tomorrow.

Love,

Aiyana

[Aiyana]

Hi Vivien,

Third time's the charm? I hope so!

What does want to know the answer to this question?
Is there anything that could get an answer to this question?

The illusory self, which of course, doesn't exist! So how can it want an answer? The I thought arises in and with awareness and awareness identifies with the I-thought.

Yes, that is an intellectual explanation. But "I'm" stuck on that. Thoughts can't think for themselves. So the "I' thought can't be going through an existential crisis. Something with independent consciousness (awareness, knowing, consciousness) must be identifying with the I-thought.

This "I" does not exist.

What is it exactly that needs further looking?
Is there anything that could gain something from further looking?
Or ALL of these are thoughts appearing inseparably of the knowing of them?

No thoughts can be separate from the knowing of them. Knowing, or awareness, does not need to look for anything. The "I" thought believes it is separate from awareness. But it's just a thought.

“It still SEEMS there is an ‘I’ listening to music” – Is this REALLY the actual experience or only an appearing thought (that is also inseparable of the knowing of it) suggest this?

This is a thought. For 38 years it's seemed like "I" has listened "to" music. No "I" can be found outside of thoughts. Listening to music cannot be separated from the awareness of listening to music. Only a thought labels the awareness as "I".

“Thoughts are clinging to this” – What is the ACTUAL experience of “thoughts clinging”?

Resistance. Despite direct experience that reveals there is no "I" outside of thoughts, the thought of "I", like an old habit, persists. Who is resisting??? Thoughts cannot resist.

Is there anything without the knowing of it?
If yes, then how is it known?

There could be. But it could not be known. So as far as experience goes, nothing exists without the knowing of it.

In order to say that there is a subject that is aware of the experience, that subject must be outside of the actual experience (in order to be aware of the experience).

So is there actual experience and non-actual experience?
If so, how non-actual experience is experienced?
Where is this non-actual experience exactly (the subject)?
Where is this subject that supposedly exists in non-actual experience?

No. There is only actual experience.
Non-actual experience is just a theory - a thought.
The subject is an idea.
It "exists" in thoughts. Which is to say, it does not exist!

That which is not known (like non-actual experience) is not knowable. Such a ‘thing’ is just an idea. And what is an idea? The content of an appearing thought. Can you see this?

Yes! That which is not known does not exist. It is only a thought.



Phew! Finished. This was challenging. Seems like there is some resistance and thought-blocks here.

Thanks for your great questions! Resistance usually means I'm ready to let go of some belief(s).

Love,

Aiyana