The Gate

Vivien,
Ok, wow...no anger or frustration... much gratitude and amazement and some confusion. Today is a busy day for me but I have spent the morning with what you wrote. I may not be able to get back to it until tomorrow so just wanted to give you a heads up that my full response won’t go out until tomorrow... again and again...thank you.

Stella


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hi Sella,

You are very welcome :)

I'm looking forward to your reply.

Have a nice day,
Vivien

Hi Vivien,

What I am about to write might trigger resistance, anger, frustration or any other emotions. Please watch out for them.

Thanks for the heads up but that’s why I’m here.

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 with a SEEMING awareness…. So there is still some sort of separate entity which is aware and holds and knows all experience (object).

So before, there was an identification of a separate self being the doer, the one that sees/hears/knows/experiences, etc.
And now, the identification is moved to a stand-alone independent impersonal awareness.

Now the doer is this awareness.
Awareness sees, hears, knows, looks… etc. and allows the 5 senses to appear.

So there is still a subtle form of an entity, just now it’s moved from the separate self to an impersonal awareness.
It’s a belief about separation.
But there is NO separation.

Thinking about this doesn’t help. It just drags things further down a rabbit hole.

Do you not have a feeling of existence? Not as Vivien but as life?

No. Existence is a concept. A concept cannot be felt. ONLY SENSATIONS can be felt.

So no, there is no ‘feeling of existence’. There is ONLY sensations.
And only thoughts interpret / label these sensations as ‘the feeling of existence’.

Yes, I see that.

Not as Vivien but as life?

This questions shows that there is an identification here.

So far, the word ‘I’ was equated to this body-mind with a separate self.
Now the identification is moved to life/awareness.

This ties back to the beginning of our conversation, when we talked about expectations.
You wrote in your intro:

I have learned in my travels that the sages say we are One. One Self. How is it then possible that there could be all these little selves running around?
And perhaps, even the One Self is not the truth either.

So there is no One Self, or Awareness that is hiding in the background waiting for objects to appear to know them.

My initial reaction was that I was not referring to an entity but to a process but what the hell do i know? It’s all speculation and beliefs rising up. All I know is right here right now.

V: There is a clear seeing that there is no self anywhere, but then it’s grasped intellectually with a logical/intellectual conclusion that it must be awareness what is being addressed by these questions.

You wrote: “This is a lived experience. It’s a felt sense of existence”
But only sensation can be felt.
And just thoughts add the label to these sensations as ‘existence’.

Check this out in experience.
See if the sensations themselves suggest in any way that they are the ‘felt sense of existence’, or only thoughts suggest so?

I did this. And what I found was that when I was what I have called “resting in awareness” where the feeling of being was most noticed, it was the absence of thoughts or their diminshment that was the difference. All the senses were present.

V: Is there both awareness AND objects?

You are saying that there is separation.

But isn’t this the very process we are doing here? Every time you ask me to look? When I look at the cup? Am I not verifying separation? But again, I’m back in my world of beliefs....

There is a separate impersonal awareness that is aware of objects, thoughts, etc.

So this assumes that there are 3 things present:

1. There is an independent separate impersonal awareness
2. There are separate objects, separate thoughts, separate sensations, etc.
3. And 1&2 are linked with the awareness aware-ing ability

1. Looking
2. The cup
3. The experience of the cup

How is this different? I’m so confused.

But is this what experience shows?

Is there a thought + the awareness of it?

Yes. The thought is held within what is, and as such it is aware of it.

Where does the thought end and the awareness of it starts?
Where is the dividing line between the thought and the awareness of it?

No there’s no separation except in thought and labeling... a movement in the ocean is called a wave but only because we thought to label it. It’s just part of the what is.

Is this awareness you talk about something separate from all the rest?
Looking happens - how do you know awareness is what is looking?

Awareness is an unfortunate label as it seems to denote an entity. And right now, I have no idea..again, very confused. Honestly, as soon as you say “looking” Stella/me says “who?”

Does this awareness have a shape, a location, a weight? Can you point to this awareness?
Is awareness something other than, different to, or separate from experience (what is)?

I don’t know... what is behind all of this awareness is “who’s looking?” My chest is really tight. Tears rising...

Can you find anything at all that is called "awareness", or do you just find experience (what is)?
In other words, is there a knower and the known? Or is there only the known?

It’s the looking, It’s the knowing what’s going on right now in this moment. I can’t find “it”. It’s not a thing. It’s what’s happening.

V: Right now it [awareness] is a concept. Can you find it in reality?

HOW do you know that the sensation that is felt is the ‘felt presence of existence’?
HOW do you know that this sensation is awareness that is aware of everything else?[/color]

Again, labels...how do I know it is looking that is aware of everything else? And that was a dumb statement on my part...there is no knowledge of “everything else.” That’s a belief not any thing experienced.

It [awareness] is what allows the 5 senses to appear so no the 5 senses cannot see it. There’s nothing to see. It is before all of them. If the body’s eyes close, it is sensed. If there is no sound, it is inwardly sensed.

. V: This is an idea, a thought speculation only.

Agreed.

If awareness cannot be experienced by the 5 senses, it cannot be seen, touched, heard, smelled, tasted, then HOW on Earth do you know that there is an entity called awareness that allows the 5 senses to appear?
Has this awareness ever been SEEN to allow the 5 senses to appear?
Does the seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting needs approval or allowance form anything else?
Or they are just there without anything doing them or allowing them?
HOW do you know that there is an awareness before the 5 senses?

I don’t know. More beliefs crept in.

If the body’s eyes close, it is sensed

HOW awareness is sensed if not with the 5 senses?
Is there a magical 6th sense hiding somewhere of sight?
HOW do you know that what is sensed is awareness and not sensation?

So this is where things began to get dicey for me as I went through this the first time. “What is she saying?! That only what can be sensed by the 5 senses is real? That there’s nothing else? That’s the all of the what is? No spiritual world, no mind that attracts anythng, wisdom, supreme intelligence, no God? Wow. No wonder I don’t get it.

I did and maybe still DO think there’s a magical 6th sense out there, unseen, the Great What Is. And every question that follows was like another nail in the coffin of many beliefs.....

V: Is there an awareness to sense?

S: Yes. Not by the 5 senses. But any moment of looking has been a moment of awareness. One after another, flowing.
This is a pure speculation.

Absolutely...

Take a cup or any object into your hands. And investigate if the cup can be experience in any other way then with the 5 senses. Can you?

No, no other way.

Can anything be experience in any other way than with the 5 senses?
Look carefully. Don’t just think, but really try to experience outside the 5 senses. Can this be done?
HOW could awareness be senses outside of the 5 senses?[/color]
Dear Stella, what you label as awareness is nothing else than plain sensations.

This is all that can be known? Where do thoughts come in? They are not of the 5 senses but they do show up and cause quite a problem. ANd I come back to needing a definition of looking. For almost this entire post I have not been sitting here, typing, I’ve been in the world of thoughts with a machete. Looking here and there and separating and cutting down this and that. Or at least, seemed to be. Weary is the word I would use for how I feel. Like I’ve taken a really long journey and can’t take another step. I have no idea if anything I’ve written makes any sense. I hope so. Your comments appreciated very much.

Stella

Hi Stella,

I’m going to cut up my replies and comments into small segments. We are going to explore everything that is unclear now, but we have to do it systematically, one step at a time.

Honestly, as soon as you say “looking” Stella/me says “who?”

This is a very important part.

So when I say looking, there is an AUTOMATIC THOUGHT REACTION: ‘who?’ – and when this thought is taken seriously, the whole investigation what we are doing here is halted. No looking happens, since it’s DEEMED BY THOUGHTS as useless or pointless, since there is no who.

As a result, there is just a continuous spinning in intellectualization and thought-land, without any actual looking/checking what is ACTUALLY going on in experience (reality).

So you have to be careful if the automatic thought reaction comes up “who?” – this is just a thought.

You are trying to push aside looking at experience directly on the bases that there is no ‘who’ that could look, and yet, you are still holds lots of beliefs based on this ‘who’.

Just because there is no-one looking, looking still happens (as a verb).
So don’t through away this useful TOOL.

So this is where things began to get dicey for me as I went through this the first time. “What is she saying?! That only what can be sensed by the 5 senses is real? That there’s nothing else? That’s the all of the what is? No spiritual world, no mind that attracts anythng, wisdom, supreme intelligence, no God? Wow. No wonder I don’t get it.
I did and maybe still DO think there’s a magical 6th sense out there, unseen, the Great What Is. And every question that follows was like another nail in the coffin of many beliefs.....

These are all learned ideas.

This is all that can be known [5 senses]? Where do thoughts come in? They are not of the 5 senses but they do show up and cause quite a problem.

So first, let’s clear on what is real and what is not.

This is going to be very simple.

We are only ever looking for FACTS of reality, but not knowledge of facts of reality.

You have to look at each questions with the eyes of a little child, who has no intellectual knowledge about how things work.
Imagine, that you are a five-year old child, and I am your five-year old friend. We are playing together in the kindergarten. Do you get the picture? :)

So while we are playing, you are trying to explain to me that how you know that the cup in your hands is real.

So what do you tell me (to your five-year old friend)? How do you know that the cup in your hand is real?

And how do you know that a ghost is not real?

If the question and resulting answer seems too simplistic, good. It's leading us where we need to go.

Vivien

We are only ever looking for FACTS of reality, but not knowledge of facts of reality.
You have to look at each questions with the eyes of a little child, who has no intellectual knowledge about how things work.
Imagine, that you are a five-year old child, and I am your five-year old friend. We are playing together in the kindergarten. Do you get the picture? :)

At first I thought you had asked me to describe a cup but when I came back to this and saw that it is to explain that it is real and a ghost is not, lots of beliefs showed up and prior information. I don’t know that the cup is real. I’m not even really touching it. All that’s happening is electrical impulses are being transmitted to the brain that somehow is translated into something I recognize and label, cup. I also do not know that ghosts aren’t real either. They are not physical for sure but not real, for me, is something else. But as I’m sure you’ll share with me, this is all speculative and nothing I KNOW. it’s really quite amazing how much information I have assumed as true that I have no idea if it really is.Or how much of other people’s knowledge I have absorbed as my own.

It seems, therefore for this, our definition of real is something that can be sensed by the 5 senses. Sight, hearing, touching, smell, tasting and I’ll proceed from there.

So while we are playing, you are trying to explain to me that how you know that the cup in your hands is real.
So what do you tell me (to your five-year old friend)? How do you know that the cup in your hand is real?

“You can see it, right? And here, hold it.” I hand the cup to you. “Feel how heavy it is? Your hand feels heavier than when it isn’t in your hand? And you can feel its hot because of the hot chocolate in it. Can you feel how solid it is? Try and squeeze it. Does it get any smaller or change shape? Put it down on the table. Now pick it up again. It didn’t disappear. It was still where you put it down.” Then I go and pick the cup up and drink all the hot chocolate in it. “Look, even with the hot chocolate gone, it’s still here. It hasn’t changed except now, feel it, its cooler. Now the chocolate is gone, lick the side. It tastes bland right? Except for any bits of chocolate left. And no smell but the leftover chocolate but that’s ok. Now look away for a minute.” I put the cup down hard on the table with a thud. “Hear that? Even without seeing it, you heard it hit the table. And I have it...” hand the cup to you, “now you have it. You see it. I see it. If we asked one of the other kids to come over, they’d see it too! If I put it down and went home and came back tomorrow, it’d still be there unless someone moved it.And even if I dropped it and it shattered into a hundred pieces, we’d still see the pieces. Still feel it. If I painted it a different color, it’d still be here just a different color. If I filled it up with the stuff they put in the sidewalks, you couldn’t drink out of it anymore but it would still be here. Be a lot heavier though! That’s real, Vivien.”

And how do you know that a ghost is not real?

‘What do you mean a ghost is real? Can you see it? Can you touch it? Does it make a sound? ‘
Vivien says, “No, but people say they wail at night.
” Have you ever heard this wailing?
“No”
“Can you feel this ghost?”
“No.”
“Can you take a picture of it for me?”
“No, I told you I haven’t seen one.”
“Then why say there is one and that it’s real?”
“Because people say they’re real.”
“Thinking doesn’t make it real, Vivien.”

Wow, we are slamming into some really strong beliefs here. I know we don’t discuss other teachings but it was so striking to me that this process, especially the second one, is diametrically opposed to a belief in “isness.” In fact an exercise given by a teacher are the same questions being asked here but instead of proving that something is unreal, the fact that this isness can be experienced even in the absence of the 5 senses is the proof that it exists!

But wait that’s not true, the exercise was truly in the absence of past and future, thoughts, imaginations.....said nothing about the senses. Aha! An assumption was made by Stella/me to fit what she had for a world view... hmmm.. and had I not looked at this closely I would have used it to support a belief that the physical world is not real. I know how weird that sounds but that’s ACIM for you. But even that, I’m now wondering if my beliefs about ACIM are also slightly off skew because of the same tendency to morph whatever comes my way to fit Stella/me’s view of what the world is rather than SEEING what the world is. Good stuff! ;)

All I know is what I experience and there’s always the sensations present. AND I don’t think this is the ending place so I’m open to continue on. I just wanted to be open about what else is arising as I do the exercises.

Ready to move forward,
Stella

Hi Stella,

At first I thought you had asked me to describe a cup but when I came back to this and saw that it is to explain that it is real and a ghost is not, lots of beliefs showed up and prior information. I don’t know that the cup is real. I’m not even really touching it. All that’s happening is electrical impulses are being transmitted to the brain that somehow is translated into something I recognize and label, cup. I also do not know that ghosts aren’t real either. They are not physical for sure but not real, for me, is something else. But as I’m sure you’ll share with me, this is all speculative and nothing I KNOW. it’s really quite amazing how much information I have assumed as true that I have no idea if it really is.Or how much of other people’s knowledge I have absorbed as my own.

Yes, these are all learned ideas and concepts. And these cannot be verified in experience.
That’s why I asked you to describe the cup as if you were a child, who has no learned intellectual knowledge of all the above.

‘What do you mean a ghost is real? Can you see it? Can you touch it? Does it make a sound? ‘
Vivien says, “No, but people say they wail at night.
” Have you ever heard this wailing?
“No”
“Can you feel this ghost?”
“No.”
“Can you take a picture of it for me?”
“No, I told you I haven’t seen one.”
“Then why say there is one and that it’s real?”
“Because people say they’re real.”
“Thinking doesn’t make it real, Vivien.”

This is awesome! Exactly. This is the direction we have to go.

Wow, we are slamming into some really strong beliefs here. I know we don’t discuss other teachings but it was so striking to me that this process, especially the second one, is diametrically opposed to a belief in “isness.” In fact an exercise given by a teacher are the same questions being asked here but instead of proving that something is unreal, the fact that this isness can be experienced even in the absence of the 5 senses is the proof that it exists!

There are lots of teachers out there. All sorts of teachers. And anybody can be a teacher.
And those explanation is just pure thought-fluff.

But wait that’s not true, the exercise was truly in the absence of past and future, thoughts, imaginations.....said nothing about the senses. Aha! An assumption was made by Stella/me to fit what she had for a world view... hmmm.. and had I not looked at this closely I would have used it to support a belief that the physical world is not real. I know how weird that sounds but that’s ACIM for you. But even that, I’m now wondering if my beliefs about ACIM are also slightly off skew because of the same tendency to morph whatever comes my way to fit Stella/me’s view of what the world is rather than SEEING what the world is. Good stuff! ;)

Nice observation. Right spot on. We constantly distort anything that we encounter according to our beliefs. We look at everything through the pink-tinted glasses of your beliefs.

Look at thoughts. Remember a cup in front of you is real, tangible. It "exists" in a way that can be examined with the senses. Anyway, the cup can be pointed to and verified.

Why doesn't that happen with thought?

Why can’t you touch a thought?
Why can’t you smell a thought?
Why can’t you feel a thought?
Why can’t you smell a thought?
Why can’t you point your finger to a thought?

WHY?

Can you see that there are ONLY TWO options:
Either EXPERIENCING something by touching, smelling, tasting, hearing, etc
or
IMAGINING = THINKING
Is this totally clear?

Does a third option exist?

Please really-really examine these questions. Be very thorough. Don’t rush through this, since this is the BASIS of everything we are looking at here.

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

Look at thoughts. Remember a cup in front of you is real, tangible. It "exists" in a way that can be examined with the senses. Anyway, the cup can be pointed to and verified.

Why doesn't that happen with thought?

Why can’t you touch a thought?
Why can’t you smell a thought?
Why can’t you feel a thought?
Why can’t you smell a thought?
Why can’t you point your finger to a thought?

WHY?

Deep sigh. This is a humbling experience. Without relying on all that acquired information, I have very little to share. The only thing that I can say is that thoughts are not a part of the sense world. I’d say it’s a mental process but hey, what the hell do I know! All i can honestly say is that you can’t find them with the 5 senses.

Can you see that there are ONLY TWO options:
Either EXPERIENCING something by touching, smelling, tasting, hearing, etc
or
IMAGINING = THINKING
Is this totally clear?

Does a third option exist?

I toyed with the expressions of thought, books, writing, art, creativity, etc... but if you can touch, feel, smell, taste, hear them....they are no longer thoughts, they are things. So no, look as I could, I could not find any other option than the sensible world and thinking.

there was quite the resistance to thinking that imagining=thinking. As you know ACIM’s premise (at least as I have interpreted them) state that mind is cause and the world we see is effect. So to think of it as imagination seemed to dismiss it as a serious and causative force. But I’m learning how to look closer now. And I looked to see if I could find anything in experience that showed this as true.

First, I found I know very little about thought. I don’t know where it comes from or why it shows up. Or why certain thoughts seem to show up. I don’t even know how I know I have thoughts. Where do they show up? They seem to be located inside my head space but that’s not even always the experience. As I sit here I know I’m thinking but where? How? It’s like trying to look really closely at a wisp of smoke, reach out and it disappears. I see no connection between the two options even though all my reading has told me there is. I cannot see it.

And so I do not see any experience that shows that what is thought creates what is seen. BAM! If anything, experience shows it is the other way around. What happens triggers the thought.

I cannot see where thoughts “live” or how it seems like I can access some kind of storehouse of thoughts to resurrect memories... sooooo many things that I have taken for granted as “given” cannot be seen in experience.

So yes, I can see there are only two options but finding out I know very little else...

Hi Stella,

This is a humbling experience. Without relying on all that acquired information, I have very little to share. The only thing that I can say is that thoughts are not a part of the sense world. I’d say it’s a mental process but hey, what the hell do I know! All i can honestly say is that you can’t find them with the 5 senses

But WHY thoughts cannot be touched, seen, tasted, smelled?

Because thoughts are NOT REAL.

Let me repeat.

Thoughts are just concepts. Not real, actual things. Just conceptual ideas.

Not matter what a thought is about, it’s always just an imagination. An illusion. Why? Well, try grabbing one. Trying touching it. Try holding onto a thought.

Is this totally clear that no matter what a thought is about it’s always just an imagination and not an actual, real thing?

First, I found I know very little about thought. I don’t know where it comes from or why it shows up. Or why certain thoughts seem to show up. I don’t even know how I know I have thoughts. Where do they show up? They seem to be located inside my head space but that’s not even always the experience. As I sit here I know I’m thinking but where? How? It’s like trying to look really closely at a wisp of smoke, reach out and it disappears.

Exactly.

And a thought is just a ‘wisp of smoke’, because it’s just an imagination, not a real thing. Is this totally clear?

I cannot see where thoughts “live” or how it seems like I can access some kind of storehouse of thoughts to resurrect memories... sooooo many things that I have taken for granted as “given” cannot be seen in experience.

Yes, nice observation.

Vivien

Hey Vivien,

But WHY thoughts cannot be touched, seen, tasted, smelled?

Because thoughts are NOT REAL.
Let me repeat.
Thoughts are just concepts. Not real, actual things. Just conceptual ideas.
Not matter what a thought is about, it’s always just an imagination. An illusion. Why? Well, try grabbing one. Trying touching it. Try holding onto a thought.

Is this totally clear that no matter what a thought is about it’s always just an imagination and not an actual, real thing?

And a thought is just a ‘wisp of smoke’, because it’s just an imagination, not a real thing. Is this totally clear?

Admitting real resistance to saying thoughts are not real. So silly really, I KNOW they are not real. It’s been seen, and yet, there it is. Last week or so, when I had that “no on is in the rain” session, I remember looking out the window and realizing what had been seen and wondering if there was any way back to shore...so to speak. So much of Stella/me’s life is based on so much of what is being dismantled here. Two groups that have been quite primary in her life, well, this just won’t fly. But then those are all just thoughts, not real. It’s the believing in them that’s the problem...Not looking to see if they are true in my experience.

So yes. YES, I am totally clear that thoughts are imaginations, unreal. And in any moment there are two options. The world of senses or imagination=thinking. And thinking isn’t a problem unless it’s believed...in fact in some instances, it could be very helpful. If my garden hose isn’t attached to the house, thinking would tell me to turn the connector to the right to tighten it. But then, it’s the actual doing of that, that tests the thought. If I thought to turn it to the left, it woudn’t work. So I’d know it’s wrong. But if I never tested it in my own experience I’d go around telling everyone I know that you turn it to the left. Even as I write that, how silly that would be and yet, so much of what I have done up till now is just that. Claiming knowledge without knowing but merely believing.

And my fear about the groups is supposition only. I have no knowledge of the future. The moment of return will be known when that moment happens and that’s not in my control no matter what so why entertain thoughts of worry and resistance? Silly.

So today’s lesson was clear. I do have a question. Is emotions included with thoughts? It’s my experience that they are linked and not caused by the 5 sense world. Would appreciate confirmation that this was clearly seen.

As always, many thanks.
Stella

Hi Stella,

I do have a question. Is emotions included with thoughts? It’s my experience that they are linked and not caused by the 5 sense world. Would appreciate confirmation that this was clearly seen.

Since emotions play a big role in the illusion of the self, let’s look at them them, and see what they really are.
Bring up an emotion, feel it, and let’s examine what is really going on.

An appearing ‘emotion’ like ‘fear’ or ‘happiness’ has two main ‘components’:

(a) a pure bodily sensation, like contraction or relaxation
(b) a mental label stuck to (layered over) the sensation, like “this is fear” or “this is contraction in the stomach” or “uncomfortable” or “I am happy”

So when an emotion is present, identify the sensation, and investigate:

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘peaceful’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’?
Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, are just mental labels on the pure sensation?

Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?

Is there REALLY ‘sadness’ or ‘sorrow’ or ‘suffering’, or are there only thoughts about ‘sadness’ or ‘suffering’?

So if you look very closely, you’ll see that there is neither sufferer, nor suffering. There are only thoughts ABOUT a sufferer and suffering. Can you see this?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

An appearing ‘emotion’ like ‘fear’ or ‘happiness’ has two main ‘components’:

(a) a pure bodily sensation, like contraction or relaxation
(b) a mental label stuck to (layered over) the sensation, like “this is fear” or “this is contraction in the stomach” or “uncomfortable” or “I am happy”

I could see that much of what shows up is the result an expectation, body sensation and thoughts. There are thoughts/beliefs about what should be happening in any moment and when it does or doesn’t happen that way, there’s contraction (for me usually in the chest) or expansion (sense of relaxation) and then thoughts about how terrible it is, that there’s happiness/sadness, etc...

So when an emotion is present, identify the sensation, and investigate:

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘peaceful’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’?
Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, are just mental labels on the pure sensation?

Totally dependent on the expectation/thought labeling it. Otherwise, it just is what it is. Today I came home from shopping and I had several bags to bring in. My husband was sitting in our gazebo and didn’t get up to help me. I expected him to and because he didn’t, my chest got tight and thoughts start to shoot up about yada yada yada....

“Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?

Is there REALLY ‘sadness’ or ‘sorrow’ or ‘suffering’, or are there only thoughts about ‘sadness’ or ‘suffering’?

So if you look very closely, you’ll see that there is neither sufferer, nor suffering. There are only thoughts ABOUT a sufferer and suffering. Can you see this?

Yes, I can see it. All thoughts. All unreal.
thanks.
Stella




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hi Stella,

There are thoughts/beliefs about what should be happening in any moment and when it does or doesn’t happen that way, there’s contraction (for me usually in the chest) or expansion (sense of relaxation) and then thoughts about how terrible it is, that there’s happiness/sadness, etc...

Exactly. So the reality of an ‘emotion’ is the sensation itself. And only thought labels the sensation as this or that emotion. Is this totally clear?

Now let’s go back to the previous topics we haven’t looked at.

Previously you wrote:

And what I found was that when I was what I have called “resting in awareness” where the feeling of being was most noticed, it was the absence of thoughts or their diminshment that was the difference. All the senses were present.

So WHAT is it that could rest in awareness?
And WHERE is this awareness you are talking about?
Can it be ACTUALLY SEEN as something is resting IN awareness?

In order to say that there is such thing as ‘resting in awareness’, there has to be two things present:

1. The restER (something/someone that is doing the resting)
2. An awareness

And these two still not enough, since this restER (1) have to be SEEN to be inside and rest IN awareness (2).

Just like a cup and tea.
The tea is IN the cup.
The tea and the cup both can be SEEN and experienced.
And also, it can be observed/seen that the tea is INSIDE the cup.

Now do the same with the notion of ‘resting in awareness’.

What or who is it that could REST (in awareness)?

And where is the container, the awareness (like the cup)?
How does this awareness-container look like?
How big it is?
What is it made of?
How is it experienced?

And if you were able to find and locate BOTH awareness and the ONE doing the resting, then and only then you can check if this ONE are actually RESTING IN this awareness. But can you?

Vivien

So the reality of an ‘emotion’ is the sensation itself. And only thought labels the sensation as this or that emotion. Is this totally clear?

Yes, this is totally seen and clear.

Previously you wrote:

And what I found was that when I was what I have called “resting in awareness” where the feeling of being was most noticed, it was the absence of thoughts or their diminshment that was the difference. All the senses were present.

So WHAT is it that could rest in awareness?
And WHERE is this awareness you are talking about?
Can it be ACTUALLY SEEN as something is resting IN awareness?

That is really how I used to look at things. I’m still amazed at how separation is almost built into the language used. I totally understand what you are relaying below. In order for me to rest IN awareness, there’s a lot of separation being conveyed with those words.

In order to say that there is such thing as ‘resting in awareness’, there has to be two things present:

1. The restER (something/someone that is doing the resting)
2. An awareness

And these two still not enough, since this restER (1) have to be SEEN to be inside and rest IN awareness (2).

Just like a cup and tea.
The tea is IN the cup.
The tea and the cup both can be SEEN and experienced.
And also, it can be observed/seen that the tea is INSIDE the cup.

Now do the same with the notion of ‘resting in awareness’.

What or who is it that could REST (in awareness)?

Well, there’s no one here, no separate self finding itself in anything. The only thing that masquerades as a self is a collection of thoughts and labels. Nothing that can be experienced. Not seen, not felt...all thoughts. Not real.

And where is the container, the awareness (like the cup)?
How does this awareness-container look like?
How big it is?
What is it made of?
How is it experienced?

Awareness has no substance. It is a thought. Awareness would also be a separate state from everything else... also not true. Both awareness and self resting are thoughts...can’t be seen, touched, heard, anything... not real.

And if you were able to find and locate BOTH awareness and the ONE doing the resting, then and only then you can check if this ONE are actually RESTING IN this awareness. But can you?

No, there is just this. What is. Now. The phrase was something learned, not something seen. An old habit and old thought.

Hi Stella,

No, there is just this. What is. Now. The phrase was something learned, not something seen. An old habit and old thought.

Yes.

Let’s continue with your previous comment (some days ago):

V: V: Is there both awareness AND objects?
You are saying that there is separation.

S: But isn’t this the very process we are doing here? Every time you ask me to look? When I look at the cup? Am I not verifying separation? But again, I’m back in my world of beliefs....

So the question is the same:

Is there both awareness AND a cup in reality?

Is there ANYTHING that is separate from what is seen (the cup)?

S: There is a separate impersonal awareness that is aware of objects, thoughts, etc.

V: So this assumes that there are 3 things present:
1. There is an independent separate impersonal awareness
2. There are separate objects, separate thoughts, separate sensations, etc.
3. And 1&2 are linked with the awareness aware-ing ability

S: 1. Looking
2. The cup
3. The experience of the cup
How is this different? I’m so confused.

How would you reply to this now?

Please look very carefully… don’t rush. Make sure that you are 100% certain of your reply.

Vivien

V: V: Is there both awareness AND objects?
You are saying that there is separation.

S: But isn’t this the very process we are doing here? Every time you ask me to look? When I look at the cup? Am I not verifying separation? But again, I’m back in my world of beliefs....

So the question is the same:

Is there both awareness AND a cup in reality?

Is there ANYTHING that is separate from what is seen (the cup)?

No the looking is all there is.

There is seeing and there is labeling being done by the thought mechanism. And we have already determined that the thought process is not real so no, there is only the looking happening. It’s an odd thing to see how the thought process tries to tie everything down to something stable, static which is impossible because there is only movement, seeing, hearing, etc....in truth, there’s no cup either, right? Cup is a label, there is only what is seen. No name, no label, not static...its a useful device for communication but subtly deceiving and misleading.

How would you reply to this now?

There is no “cup” per se, that’s a label. There is the looking. And never just “cup.” It doesn’t exist separately all by itself. It is part of all else in the what is. There is only looking. It is only thoughts that arise that label what is seen as separate things. But those are only thoughts, not real at all. And only seem to change the seen if they are believed.

This habit of needing a subject for every action, this habit of language is probably the hardest of beliefs to see and drop. But it seems to be the foundation of the thought of separate things, separation. And when looking without listening to labels what is seen is no different from the looking.There’s no wall, no place where the looking isn’t.

Even the term 5 senses doesn’t seem to be right. There’s sensing. No wall between seeing and touching, or hearing and tasting. It seems that there is that labeling process happening when we talk about 5 senses as well. True, one or the other may seem to come forward sometimes and sometimes another. So for me, when using the word “looking” I’m referring and experiencing all of them happening. And I would be comfortable also calling this aware-ing. One movement of what is.

Overall, repeating something learned as a statement of something known is when clear seeing is suppressed. If it sounds true, kind of fits Stella/me’s world view, even without realizing it sometimes, it just gets added to the repertoire of things she’s heard/learned and pulls out as need arises. This process has been so helpful in seeing that. Yesterday’s example of the garden hose was very like the no one standing in the rain. Made me laugh at the stupidity of it. Grateful for all the course corrections!

Stella