Discovering Truth

[Vivien]

Hi Daniel,

Wanting is a thought about something that is 'wanted' and an emotion of lacking something which is a body sensation and a thought that labels it as lack of something.

Yes, nice looking.

Now, let’s investigate the notion of awareness or consciousness, or in other words the knower.

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.

Does this belief has come up for you “I = awareness”?
Or the belief that there is a stand-alone independent awareness / consciousness that is aware of what is going on?

I don’t know if you have this assumption that “ I = awareness” or the existence of an independent awareness, but nevertheless, let’s investigate this.

In English, awareness is a noun, not a verb. Nouns imply agencies, or entities.
But can such thing be found as an independently existing awareness?

Stop for a moment now and take a thought. Be aware of the presence of the thought.
Can a thought be separated from the knowing or awareness of it?
Try your best to separate the two from each other. What happens?

Is there a dividing line between the thought and the knowing or awareness of it?
Can you find the line where the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?

Can you find a thought without the knowing of it?
Can you find knower or awareness without any object (like thought, sensation, color, sound, taste, smell)?
In other words, can there be a knowing without a known?

Repeat this exercise many times during the day. Experiment not just only with verbal thoughts, but also with visual thoughts, sounds, taste, etc. Let me know how it went.

Vivien

[dan8]

Hi Vivien,

Does this belief has come up for you “I = awareness”?

I had this idea before, I know that. Right now if it's there it's quite subtle and hard to detect. At least I don't think that I identify with awareness. Awareness is a concept for a sum of all experiences, but it's not real, it's just a thought, nothing substantial.

Or the belief that there is a stand-alone independent awareness / consciousness that is aware of what is going on?

Awareness, consciousness, all just concepts, thoughts. I can't be a concept, it comes and goes with thoughts.

But can such thing be found as an independently existing awareness?

Awareness is supposed to mean something, someplace where experiences happen but that's not something that can be found. Only the experience (sights, sensations, thoughts etc) can be found but no place that's experiencing it. It would be more accurate to say that awarenessing is happening, which is a process without separate subject and object.

Can a thought be separated from the knowing or awareness of it?

I can't see anything separate from the thought. What could there be? Who would be knowing the knower?

Knowing of thoughts is happening, but the knowing and thoughts are one thing. One can't exist without the other, so any distinction is just imaginary, or just aspects of the same thing.

There is just experience unfolding and nothing separate from it, it's all there is, it's the totality of the world as I'm experiencing it. 'I'm experiencing it' - that's just language getting in the way, there is just experiencing, the 'I' in it is just a useful concept.

Try your best to separate the two from each other. What happens?

I don't know what to look for, there is nothing there except for the experience that is being known.

Is there a dividing line between the thought and the knowing or awareness of it?

Not sure what a dividing line would be, but no separateness can be found.

Can you find the line where the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?

This is a good question. No, a thought = knowing of a thought. A thought can't exist separately from its knowing and knowing can't exist without something to be known. But even that is saying too much.

Can you find a thought without the knowing of it?

No. They are the same thing. But language is confusing. I could say that all there is is knowing of phenomena. Or that there is just phenomena without separate knowing of it.

Can you find knower or awareness without any object (like thought, sensation, color, sound, taste, smell)?

No. If there is a knower, it appears and dies a million times every day. But then I think, so I was never born and will never die? There are doubts appearing, when the body dies, the totality of experiencing will also cease. The doubts are thoughts, there is unpleasantness connected to them.

In other words, can there be a knowing without a known?

Separating the two is a product of thought, in looking the two are the same thing.

Let me know how it went.

When I have time to settle, I experience spaciousness from which experiences arise. At that point there is some identification with the spaciousness. I will try to to keep looking at this tomorrow and break it down some more.

Daniel

[Vivien]

Hi Daniel,

Knowing of thoughts is happening, but the knowing and thoughts are one thing. One can't exist without the other, so any distinction is just imaginary, or just aspects of the same thing.
a thought = knowing of a thought. A thought can't exist separately from its knowing and knowing can't exist without something to be known. But even that is saying too much.

Great looking!

When I have time to settle, I experience spaciousness from which experiences arise. At that point there is some identification with the spaciousness.

What is the AE of experience arising from this spaciousness?
Is this actually experienced or only visual thoughts showing a vast space with things/experience appearing in it?

How this spaciousness is actually experienced?
Can spaciousness as such be experienced at all?
Or only verbal and visual thoughts suggest 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 stand-alone thought or a stand-alone sensation without the knowing element. 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 either. Can you see this clearly?

Is it also totally clear that there is no stand-alone, independent awareness waiting in the background for an object to appear and then latch onto it with its knowing or aware-ing ability?

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 us, due to its dualistic nature.

Vivien

[dan8]

Hi Vivien,

What is the AE of experience arising from this spaciousness?

It's an idea. A thought which attempts to conceptualize the process of experience arising. There is no AE of experience 'arising', it just is or is not.

Is this actually experienced or only visual thoughts showing a vast space with things/experience appearing in it?

You're right, there are experiences and then there is a visual thought of the space in which experience arises. And it's not like the visual thought was there all the time, so how could I be something that appears only when I stop, calm down and become aware of experience.

How this spaciousness is actually experienced?

There is no direct experience, it's only as real as a passing thought and then it's gone. There are also sensations of relaxation when this happens so it's pleasurable experience but it's not like I could be the sensations either.

Can spaciousness as such be experienced at all?

No, I can't see how it could be.

Or only verbal and visual thoughts suggest so?

Yes, thoughts and some accompanying sensations but none of that is something which an experience could arise from.

We can fantasize about it, but actually thought or sensation without the knowing element simply doesn’t exist either. Can you see this clearly?

Yes, there is nothing outside of the knowing that is happening right now and there is no knowing apart from the experience.

Is it also totally clear that there is no stand-alone, independent awareness waiting in the background for an object to appear and then latch onto it with its knowing or aware-ing ability?

Any independent awareness is a concept and is not real as AE goes. It can't be the content of itself to be experienced.

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, trying to split the two is something that just thoughts can do. There is only what 'is', it's not dependant on something or someone separate to experience it.

Daniel

[Vivien]

Hi Daniel,

It's an idea. A thought which attempts to conceptualize the process of experience arising. There is no AE of experience 'arising', it just is or is not.

Exactly.

Yes, there is nothing outside of the knowing that is happening right now and there is no knowing apart from the experience.
There is only what 'is', it's not dependant on something or someone separate to experience it.

Nice looking. Let’s look at this a bit more with an analogy.

Imagine a coin. Let’s say that one side of the coin, the tail is the knowing/aware-ing (subject), and the head is the known/awared, like a sensation, or a thought (object).

It seems like that there is a separate subject (tail) and a separate object (head). But is there really?
Are these 2 separate things? Are there really 2?
Or is there only one coin?

Can there be only the tail (knowing) without any the head (objects known)?
Can there be the head (objects known) without the tail (knowing)?


Awareness is knowing itself; awareness is not the agent caring out the knowing.
There is no noun carrying out the action. Aware-ing 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 colors).

All there is to a known is the knowing of it.
And all there is to knowing is the known.

A separate knowing or awareness is nothing more than an idea.
A separate known is nothing more than an idea.

When there is a known there is the knowing of it, inseparably.
Since there are no two (known + knower), but the known and knower (or the ‘awared’ and awareness) are the ONE and the SAME.

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. This is what is called non-duality. No subject-object separation.

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 experience without any division. Can you see this clearly?

Vivien

[dan8]

Hi Vivien,

It seems like that there is a separate subject (tail) and a separate object (head). But is there really?

Yes, the separation is seeming, it's suggested by thoughts. When looked at there is nothing other than knowing, no separate knower, no subject and object. Subject and object is useful in communication but in experience there is none.

Are these 2 separate things? Are there really 2?
Or is there only one coin?

It's one coin, looking at two different sides is aritificial distinction but one can't be without the other, they're aspects of the same thing.

Can there be only the tail (knowing) without any the head (objects known)?

Knowing can't be experienced alone, knowing without the known is just an idea.

Can there be the head (objects known) without the tail (knowing)?

Once there is an object, there is already a subject in this duality, but is there really duality when in truth one can't exist without the other? Or is it just seeming duality suggested by thoughts when in fact it's unity?

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

Yes, it's known and trusted that there is no duality of subject and object, of 'me' and other. Thoughts still suggest and make it seem like there is 'I' doing, seeing, liking, choosing etc. but in moments of looking it can be seen through and then it is seen that things just are, life is living itself and nothing can be other than it is.

Gratitude being felt here and peace

Daniel

[Vivien]

Hi Daniel,

Gratitude being felt here and peace

Wonderful :)

Once there is an object, there is already a subject in this duality, but is there really duality when in truth one can't exist without the other? Or is it just seeming duality suggested by thoughts when in fact it's unity?

These are very good questions. How would you reply to them?

Thoughts still suggest and make it seem like there is 'I' doing, seeing, liking, choosing etc. but in moments of looking it can be seen through and then it is seen that things just are, life is living itself and nothing can be other than it is.

Yes, thoughts will continue to appear saying "I doing, seeing, liking, etc"....but thoughts don’t know anything. They are talking about all sorts of things without knowing what they are talking about. Can you see this clearly?

Now let’s start to investigate time and memory.

What is memory exactly? – please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it…
What is the memory ‘made of’?
WHEN does the memory appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?
WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

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

Please spend lot of time with EACH question… Look very carefully… Look at what actually going on and not what thoughts say… but what actually is.

Vivien

[dan8]

Hi Vivien,

Once there is an object, there is already a subject in this duality, but is there really duality when in truth one can't exist without the other? Or is it just seeming duality suggested by thoughts when in fact it's unity?

These are very good questions. How would you reply to them?

They were meant as rhetorical questions. Yes, what I suggested in those questions is the truth of actual experience.

Yes, thoughts will continue to appear saying "I doing, seeing, liking, etc"....but thoughts don’t know anything. They are talking about all sorts of things without knowing what they are talking about. Can you see this clearly?

So as I understand now, the goal of this process is to see really clearly and with confidence that there is no self. After that it may still be that 99% of the time in the day this may not be held in awareness because of existing conditioning but slowly the truth will then spread.

What is memory exactly? – please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it…
What is the memory ‘made of’?

Memory is usually a visual thought for me but it can be other senses too and then it's accompanied by a thought 'this happened'. I remember it happened to me before that I had a 'memory' and later I realized it was a dream and it hadn't actually happened. So unless a thought says 'this is memory', it can't be known whether it happened and even then it may not be accurate at all.

WHEN does the memory appear?

Always in the present moment only a thought suggests that it's coming from some time in the past. But even past is a thought, there is no other time other than now except in thoughts.

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

None really. Time is only in thought and the difference that a thought is from the past or from the future is just that, a thought.

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

Because it's suggested by a thought, it can't be known actually.

What is the future thought ‘made of’?

A visual thought, it's usually less vivid than the 'memory' thought but that's just a difference in content and then an accompanying thought saying 'this should happen / I want this to happen / this may happen etc'.

WHEN does the future thought appear?

Strictly now

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

The difference is in an additional thought which adds the 'timeframe', no other difference

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

The future thought is just a thought and has absolutely no relevance to what actually happens in the future

What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?

No real difference, only in content of a thought that gives it time reference.

If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

There is no difference, this is clearly seen.

Daniel

[Vivien]

Hi Daniel,

So as I understand now, the goal of this process is to see really clearly and with confidence that there is no self. After that it may still be that 99% of the time in the day this may not be held in awareness because of existing conditioning but slowly the truth will then spread.

We can see that the self has been seen through when upon each looking it can be clearly seen again and again that there is nothing there. I would also add that the ‘truth will spread’ if looking becomes a habit. Further looking is the key here.

Now let’s investigate a bit more if there is really a subject-object separation in experience.

Look at the display before you.

Is there a seer somewhere doing the seeing?

When seeing it, is there any division between seeing, seer, and the seen?
Are these three separate?
If yes, can a the boundary be found between the three? - Not an imagined, conceptual boundary, but an actual boundary.

Can even all the 3 be found?

How seeing itself is experienced?
Can the process of seeing be found at all?

Can anything else be found other than experience (colorknowing)?


Repeat this several times during the day. Please let me know, how it goes.

Vivien

[dan8]

Hi Vivien,

Is there a seer somewhere doing the seeing?

No, the seeing is just happening, no seer there to be found.

There is an expectation here that it should feel different, like one of the states I experienced before where it was very clear that everything is one and the seer and seen are the same but this state is not happening and the seeing is just as ordinary as ever. Actually everything feels very ordinary and same as ever at the moment.

When seeing it, is there any division between seeing, seer, and the seen?

Those are indivisible aspects of the same, there is only one 'seeing' that is quite impersonal.

Are these three separate?

No, they can't be separated and there is actually nothing to be separated. 'Me seeing' is just a thought, it has nothing to do with the actual seeing.

If yes, can a the boundary be found between the three? - Not an imagined, conceptual boundary, but an actual boundary.

Can even all the 3 be found?

The three are different thoughts that try to break up the one process of seeing. But the AE of seeing can't be broken down, it's just one.
The seer is a thought separate me doing the seeing but there is nothing real there. The seeing is the actual process of 'colorknowing' as you accurately put it. And the seen is a thought about a separate object out there born from the duality caused by the initial thought 'seer', because if there is a seer, the seen has to be separate from it.

How seeing itself is experienced?

It's knowing of colors in a 'field of view'. Loads of additional thoughts interpret the colors as objects, as 'my' nose, sudden black color as blinking etc.

Can the process of seeing be found at all?

Seeing can't be found, it's happening or it is not. To call it a process is already a thought. But I probably need explanation of what you mean by the 'process of seeing' here.

Can anything else be found other than experience (colorknowing)?

There are the other senses but in seeing there is only the colorknowing as you nicely label it :), everything else is thoughts about the actual colorknowing.

Daniel

[Vivien]

Hi Daniel,

You did a nice looking.

There is an expectation here that it should feel different, like one of the states I experienced before where it was very clear that everything is one and the seer and seen are the same but this state is not happening and the seeing is just as ordinary as ever. Actually everything feels very ordinary and same as ever at the moment.

Because seeing through the self is NOT a state! Just because the self is seen through, the perception of a seeming duality, seer/seen won’t change. But upon each looking it can be seen that there is no subject-object split.
Many seekers believe that seeing through the separate individual is a completely different state that they are currently having, with some special qualities. But it is not. So expecting this could only lead to disappointment.

Seeing can't be found, it's happening or it is not. To call it a process is already a thought. But I probably need explanation of what you mean by the 'process of seeing' here.

The word ‘seeing’ implies that there is a seer, like a pair of eyes, that is doing the seeing, or having the ability to see.
But in experience, there is no such thing as seeing.

Here are some questions to see if is there anything that is not completely clear. Please answer what's true for you right now, rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer.

Has it been seen that there has never been an ‘I’ that could control or own life or anything?

Is there any chooser or decider of any kind?

Is there an ‘experiencer’?
Is there a ‘thinker’?

Is there a ‘doer’ of any kind which performs activities and movements?

Is there an 'I' of any kind whatsoever that could be responsible for anything at all?
Do others have responsibilities?

Is there a self that is inside the body, perceiving a world that is outside?

Is there a 'you' that started this investigation?
Has there ever been a 'you' doing anything?

Any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?

Vivien

[dan8]

Hi Vivien,

Has it been seen that there has never been an ‘I’ that could control or own life or anything?

Initially I was struggling with this a little because I tried to look at control and owning and these are complicated concepts so it created confusion as to what was being looked for. Then I realized that the answer is: There has never been an 'I' PERIOD. So there is nothing to do anything, let alone control or own. There is no 'I' that can be experienced it has just never been looked at directly and so thoughts assumed (and often still assume) it's existence.

Is there any chooser or decider of any kind?

On a higher level, choice just happens. More often recently I can see that I'm not in any control. I is used here in language, not sure if the illusion is indulged in or it's just a useful feature of language. It doesn't feel natural to write everything in third person. Probably the more precise way to say this would be 'there is no I to be in control' but since the thought 'I'm not in control' feels more natural I'm leaving it here

Is there an ‘experiencer’?

There is experience without any separate 'me' or anything else watching it. Actually there is only experience and nothing else which rules out any possibility for 'experiencer' to exist.

Is there a ‘thinker’?

No, thoughts just happen. Noone in control of them.

Is there a ‘doer’ of any kind which performs activities and movements?

No, it's often suggested by thoughts that "I'm doing this activity" but it's a thought, not the truth of experience.

Is there an 'I' of any kind whatsoever that could be responsible for anything at all?

Responsibility is a concept, there is no responsibility and no 'I' to have it.

Do others have responsibilities?

There can be thoughts about others having responsibilities and there is activity in this body based on that thought but outside of thoughts there is not even 'others'.

Is there a self that is inside the body, perceiving a world that is outside?

There is no body, no self and no outside and inside of the body. There are sensations and there is seeing and these are put together in thoughts as 'body' and 'seeing from the perspective of head'. There is no outside and inside in seeing and there is no outside and inside in sensations either

Is there a 'you' that started this investigation?

It's quite natural to write 'I started this investigation.' There is a memory thought of starting this investigation. The direct experience of that moment can't be accessed but there is no separate 'I' that could have existed when the investigation was started.

Has there ever been a 'you' doing anything?

Experience used to be perceived more from the perspective of 'I' and it was believed more too but from the fact that there is no 'I' now, it can be easily assumed that there never was but it's an assumption because the memory is not an actual experience that can be investigated.

Any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?

I could probably come up with various intellectual questions and will leave those be. There are some doubts whether 'I'm looking correctly' and whether 'I'm missing some aspect of belief in 'I' that's hiding'. Can someone please see through my bluff and point it out to me? But at the same time there is an understanding that doubts are just doubts and they can be neverending especially when taken too seriously.

Looking forward to see what you will find in the answers.

Daniel

[Vivien]

Hi Daniel,

There is no 'I' that can be experienced it has just never been looked at directly and so thoughts assumed (and often still assume) it's existence.

And then what if thoughts still assume that there is an ‘I’?
Is there any problem with that?
And whose problem is that?
But just because these patterns of thoughts are running around, it doesn’t mean that there is any truth to them. So any time when they arise, you can investigate if they are actually in line with experience/reality.

The more you do it, the weaker they get. But they will be around for quite some. But just because they are around, it doesn’t mean that they know what they are talking about. These thoughts have no idea what they are talking about.
Can you see this?

On a higher level, choice just happens

What does it mean that on a higher level choice just happen?
Are there higher and lower levels of experience?

Is there any other level where choice doesn’t just happen?
Are there any levels at all?

More often recently I can see that I'm not in any control. I is used here in language, not sure if the illusion is indulged in or it's just a useful feature of language. It doesn't feel natural to write everything in third person. Probably the more precise way to say this would be 'there is no I to be in control' but since the thought 'I'm not in control' feels more natural I'm leaving it here

Is it possible that “I am not in control” ‘feels more natural’ than “there is no I to be in control” because the I as the doer or controller is still believed?

Saying that I am not in control, is a seeing that there is no control, but somehow the I is still there, just this I is not in control.

Are you sure that there is nothing that the word ‘I’ could point to?
Are you sure that there is no self whatsoever?

There is no body, no self and no outside and inside of the body. There are sensations and there is seeing and these are put together in thoughts as 'body' and 'seeing from the perspective of head'. There is no outside and inside in seeing and there is no outside and inside in sensations either

Yes. Nice description.

There are some doubts whether 'I'm looking correctly' and whether 'I'm missing some aspect of belief in 'I' that's hiding'. Can someone please see through my bluff and point it out to me? But at the same time there is an understanding that doubts are just doubts and they can be neverending especially when taken too seriously.

Whenever you LOOK, can you see it clearly again and again that there is no self whatsoever?

Thought will continue to appear saying "but it stills feels like there is a me"....so look and see if thought is correct...look and see if you can find this "I" that thought keeps pointing to. Can you?

And also thought will continue to appear saying "but it stills feels like there is a me"....but thoughts don’t know anything. They are talking about all sorts of things without knowing what they are talking about. Can you see this?

Vivien

[dan8]

Hello Vivien,

thank you for the reply, I will need to take an extra day to reply. I will keep on looking throughout the day.

Sincerely,
Daniel

[Vivien]

Hi Dan,

That's all right. Thank you for letting me know.

Have a nice day,
Vivien