No Self Anywhere, Ever

[John DeLight]

Also, do you want to see the responses to the exercises?

[forgetmenot]

Hey John,

Take your time...if you have any questions while reviewing...it might be best to ask them before continuing on reading the thread...that way the questions are cleared up and the rest of the thread may then bring further clarity.

Love, Kay
xx

[John DeLight]

Thanks Kay. I'll be in touch.
Blessings,
John

[John DeLight]

There is no such entity as ‘awareness’. That is just another idea appearing in THIS. "Awareness" is not a thing. It is a concept that describes the process of thoughts arising about the thoughts that arise.

What is awareness aware of? How is it known there is awareness? What does this awareness feel like, look like? How big is it? Where does it end? You talk about it like you know it. Tell me as much as you can about it. Can you find it?

Kay, this brings up a question. I do realize there is no such entity as "awareness." You have said that all there is is THIS. If I have understood correctly, you have also said that all experience is THIS and that THIS is not experience. When I use the word awareness, I am referring to the inseparable knowing or cognizance which knows all experience - soundsighttouchtastesmellthought but is not limited to or by any particular experience. Is this different from what you are meaning to communicate by the use of the word, "THIS?"

[John DeLight]

Further, in my experience awareness could be said to take the form of every experience, i.e. the current smell, thought or color, but is somehow untouched by experience and is ever the same non-dual cognizance of now. Again is this what you mean to communicate by "THIS?"

[forgetmenot]

Hi John,

Kay, this brings up a question. I do realize there is no such entity as "awareness." You have said that all there is is THIS. If I have understood correctly, you have also said that all experience is THIS and that THIS is not experience. When I use the word awareness, I am referring to the inseparable knowing or cognizance which knows all experience - soundsighttouchtastesmellthought but is not limited to or by any particular experience. Is this different from what you are meaning to communicate by the use of the word, "THIS?"

I have said on several occasions that the words ‘experience’, ‘awareness’, ‘knowing’ and ‘THIS’ and ‘soundcoloursmelltastesensationthought’ are one and the same thing. So how can THIS not be experience if they are one and the same? All there is, is THIS (aka experience, awareness, knowing) exactly as it is. "Soundcoloursmelltastesensationthought " is aware…it is aware of itself.

The reason I don’t like using the word ‘awareness’ is that it gives the idea that there is an observer and the observed which points to a subject/object split. Experience (THIS) is self-aware…. it doesn’t observe itself or need thought tell it what it is.…it is self-evident as the appearance as thoughtsoundsensationsmelltastecolour. Whether thought calls this "multiple things", or "awareness", or "experience" or “THIS", the most important thing to check is whether there is any border between "knowing" and "known". So to keep it clear, instead of the word “awareness” and for the purposes of this discussion, we call awareness "knowing", and call experience "known". In actual experience is there a border where a thought stops, and the "knowing" of it starts?

Love, Kay
xx

[John DeLight]

Thanks for the clarification Kay.

In actual experience is there a border where a thought stops, and the "knowing" of it starts?

There is no border where thought stops and the "knowing" of it starts. In my experience "they" are simultaneous and mutually pervasive...

The letters, words and sentences are just black squiggly lines which thought describes as words, letters and sentences. Can you see this?

I see that thought is the known side of the indivisible knowing/known of THIS. Are you saying thought imputes or attributes the "meaning" that is experienced as I read your sentence? ...that the knowing of meaning is a function of thought? Experience is known; what is knowing? I am not sure my question is clear.

[forgetmenot]

Hey John,

In actual experience is there a border where a thought stops, and the "knowing" of it starts?

There is no border where thought stops and the "knowing" of it starts. In my experience "they" are simultaneous and mutually pervasive...

‘Knowing’ (aka experience/THIS) and ‘known’ (ie sound, thought, smell, taste, sensation, colour”) are one and the same = knowingknown. There is no one/thing that is knowing OF the known…that points to separation. There is no division between "knowing" and "known". They are one and the same thing. THIS that IS, is the knowingknown

The letters, words and sentences are just black squiggly lines which thought describes as words, letters and sentences. Can you see this?

I see that thought is the known side of the indivisible knowing/known of THIS. Are you saying thought imputes or attributes the "meaning" that is experienced as I read your sentence? ...that the knowing of meaning is a function of thought? Experience is known; what is knowing? I am not sure my question is clea

r.

What is a ‘meaning”…is it not content of thought? Do not definitions/meaning point to a label/thought and the explanation of what that label/word is/means? Is not that explanation the content of thought and therefore is further thought? So the meaning of the word/label “sky” is “the region of the atmosphere and outer space seen from the earth”, which is content of thought. The content of thought is further thought! And thought either points to actual experience or it points to further thought stories about AE.

How is ‘meaning’ experienced exactly and what is it exactly that is experiencing 'meaning'?

What is knowing the known? Sit and listen to a sound and see if you can find the dividing line between hearer and sound….and do this often until it becomes clear what is knowing the known. And the word 'the' is a concessionary word..as there is no knowing the known...there is only knowingknown.

Love, Kay
xx

[John DeLight]

How is ‘meaning’ experienced exactly and what is it exactly that is experiencing 'meaning'?

"Meaning" is experienced as the content of thought. The knowingknown of thought is experiencing "meaning"

What is knowing the known? Sit and listen to a sound and see if you can find the dividing line between hearer and sound….and do this often until it becomes clear what is knowing the known. And the word 'the' is a concessionary word..as there is no knowing the known...there is only knowingknown

. Hearing is hearer-sound...there is no hearer as such. Sound is both known and knowingknown. There is never actual experience which is not simultaneously knowingknown.

This means that all that is real is the actual experience or knowingknown of soundcolortastesmellsensationthought. All content of thought is thought and is either about actual experience or it is about thought. Most of the content of thought is actually meaningless, deceptive and misleading because it is not really about anything real. This is how I have been living as if there actually is a real, separate self when in fact, it is a mirage created by the unreal contents of thought. Yikes! And thank goodness I am beginning to see this more clearly.

I know this is all you have been saying the whole time Kay. Sorry I am such a slow, and, perhaps for you, frustrating, learner. In any case thank you!

[forgetmenot]

Hello John,

How is ‘meaning’ experienced exactly and what is it exactly that is experiencing 'meaning'?

"Meaning" is experienced as the content of thought. The knowingknown of thought is experiencing "meaning"

The label ‘meaning’ is the AE of thought. The meaning of the label ‘sky’, “the region of the atmosphere and outer space seen from the earth”, is AE of thought and is not the AE of sky or “the region of the atmosphere and outerspace seen from earth”. That is all thought story. Thought is actual experience but it either points to AE or it points to thought stories (fairytales) about AE. And thought is not aware of what ‘sky’ is as thought is not aware of anything. Thought IS an appearance, and an "appearance" is just another word for THIS (or 'experience') exactly as it is.

And meaning is not experienced as the content of thought. The label ‘meaning is AE of thought. ‘Meaning’ is made up of many other thoughts, and there is NOTHING experiencing the meaning of thought or the content of thought.

There is no knowingknown OF thought. The knowingknown IS thought…the knowingknown is appearing as thought…so thought is knowingknown. It cannot be separate and is not experienced by anyone or anything.

Experience doesn’t hear anything, experience is sound.
Experience doesn’t see anything, Experience is sight.
Experience doesn’t taste anything, Experience is flavour.
Experience doesn’t smell fragrances. Experience is flowers.
Experience doesn’t feel anything. Experience is sensation.
Experience doesn’t think anything. Experience is thought.
Experience doesn’t know anything. Experience is knowing.
Experience doesn’t experience anything. Experience IS.

What is knowing the known? Sit and listen to a sound and see if you can find the dividing line between hearer and sound….and do this often until it becomes clear what is knowing the known. And the word 'the' is a concessionary word..as there is no knowing the known...there is only knowingknown

. Hearing is hearer-sound...there is no hearer as such. Sound is both known and knowingknown. There is never actual experience which is not simultaneously knowingknown.

How can you have the knowingknown and a known? The ‘knowing’ (experience) is the ‘known’! Are there two things present? Sound AND knowingknown (experience)?

For a sound to be ‘known’ then there must be a ‘knowing’ of sound! Can a dividing line be found between the ‘knowing’ of the sound and the sound itself? Or is there only ‘knowingknown’?

Consider that, let's proceed on now to 'hearing' - Approach this in the same way - Just focus only on this one sense for the moment.

Rest for a moment and listen to the sounds in the room where you are, or sounds from outside. Whatever it is, I'll just refer to it as 'what can be heard'.

1) In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'?
2) Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only 'what can be heard'?
3) An 'I'? A 'Body'? A 'Person'? Can these be found? Or are these statements 'just a thought about it'?

Can a 'hearer' ever be found in 'what is being heard'?
Is that also confirmable experientially?
If that is all so, no INHERENT HEARER is found . . . so would anything suggested as the hearer be anything other than speculation / ideas / beliefs / thoughts etc?

This means that all that is real is the actual experience or knowingknown of soundcolortastesmellsensationthought. All content of thought is thought and is either about actual experience or it is about thought. Most of the content of thought is actually meaningless, deceptive and misleading because it is not really about anything real. This is how I have been living as if there actually is a real, separate self when in fact, it is a mirage created by the unreal contents of thought. Yikes! And thank goodness I am beginning to see this more clearly.

Yes, ALL content of thought is meaningless. Even when thought points to AE of colour, eg the label ‘blue’, the meaning it gives the blue is meaningless. The label ‘blue’ is itself words trying to describe THIS and THIS is indescribable.

The song of a nightingale is ‘heard’. Thought says the sound comes from a beautiful little bird and this is the song they sing. That is all story, because all that is appearing is sound. Even if the nightingale appeared, what is appearing is colour labelled ‘nightingale’.

Knowingknown = thoughtsoundtastesmellsensationcolour…they are one and the same thing. There is NO knowingknown AND thoughtsoundtastesmellsensationcolour. There is NO experience and thoughtsoundtastesmellsensationcolour, that is the same as saying there is experience and experience! There is no AND!

Is there sound AND the content of the sound?
What is the content of a sound?

Is there taste AND the content of the taste?
What is the content of a taste?

Is there smell AND the content of the smell?
What is the content of a smell?

Is there sensation AND the content of the sensation?
What is the content of a sensation?

Love, Kay
xx

[John DeLight]

Aside from thought there is no content of experience other than the experience itself.

Yes, ALL content of thought is meaningless

Please explain; I find the content of this quoted thought meaning ful.

Thank you,
John

[forgetmenot]

Hello John,

Yes, ALL content of thought is meaningless

Please explain; I find the content of this quoted thought meaning ful.

Where exactly is this "I" that finds "this quoted thought meaning ful"?
How is it known that the quoted thought is meaning ful?
Do any thoughts know the difference between meaningless and meaningful thoughts...that it understands something, that it knows something, and that it is having a hard time understanding or digesting something?

Thought may seem to be a useful tool for negotiating the illusion of a 'person in the world', but it's still all conceptual knowledge about an illusory world - it can't give you any genuine knowledge or meaning about reality. Yet you know *everything* about reality by being *directly aware* of it.

Love, Kay
xx

[John DeLight]

"I" is a convention of communication. There is no entity, no self that "I" represents. And yet, I am communicating with you and you are communicating with me. NO "I", no "you", no "me" and yet "we" are endeavoring to communicate. "You" are trying to help "me" to see that there is no self, no duality and nothing other than "THIS." "I" am endeavoring to realize no self, anywhere ever. "I" am not finding "your" communication helpful."I" know there is no self. "It" has been looked for repeatedly but has never been found. No hearer, no seer, no thinker, no smeller, no taster. Just the singularity of knowingknown.

What is meaning, Kay?

Why in the world would you choose the opening quote from A Course In Miracles, "Nothing real can be threatened; nothing unreal exists," as your signature line unless "you" found it meaningful? Of course, meaning is found in the content of thought. Actual Experience is NEVER in the content of thought. But rightly or wrongly within the content of thought is where we find or create meaning.

How is it known that the quoted thought is meaningful?

There is a thought about the thought. This second thought describes the thought as meaningful. This second thought is the AE of thought; the content of this second thought is not AE.

Do any thoughts know the difference between meaningless and meaningful thoughts...

Let's take two thoughts:
1-The purple sky fell in the rushing river and drowned.
2-In my heart of hearts I deeply long for freedom and being able to profoundly help others.
Upon considering both thoughts, a thought arises which says the first thought is meaningless and the second is very meaningful to "me." A further thought recognizes there is no "I," there are no "others" and there is no "me." But the significance of the thought #2 is deeply felt as a sensation accompanying the thought about its meaningfulness.

...that it understands something, that it knows something, and that it is having a hard time understanding or digesting something?

I do not know what it is that understands beyond thought but I do know that it is understood here that 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10 and it is understood that this is the content of the AE of thought about understanding. Further it is now known here that there never is, never was and never will be a duality of a knower and a known; there has arisen the knowingknown here that all that ever is, ever was and ever will be is a knowingknown. As described above there is an experience of sensation and thought which represents "a hard time understanding/digesting" your statement, "all content of thought is meaningless." In this case, "represents" is referring to the content of thought not the AE of thought.

[forgetmenot]

Hi John,

You are trying to give things meaning and have something mean something and all I am doing is pointing so you see through the construct of the illusory "I". I am not in the least bit interested in having a discussion about meaning. You either want this exploration or you don't. If you don't like my style of guiding, that is fine, we can just look for another guide for you...but I am not here to convince you of anything or to debate anything with you. That is the whole point of this exploration...it is for you to LOOK to see what I am pointing at and arrive at your own answers. Where is this separate self that likes to have meaning....that is the question and you are missing the whole point because you want thought to have meaning. So what is the fear here that you need thought to have meaning?

What is the content of thought...but more thought and thought is AE of thought. Actual experience is everything, except the "content" of thought, because thought, in and of itself does not contain any experience other than the AE of thought itself!

Love, Kay
xx

[John DeLight]

You are right. This doesn't seem to be a good fit for either of us. I think another guide might be best.

Thank you for your efforts Kay.

I wish you all the best.

Warmly,
John