Trying to experience the nothing that I am

[PhilipJerzy]

Hi Vivien,

And how would that realization would look like? What is it that you imagine?

Just that there would be no doubts that there is no real self. Right now it seems very clear, but intellectually. But I guess when I notice reality around me there is no self and it's clear enough for that moment.

What is it exactly you expect to happen, other than repeatedly seeing that there is no inherent, self-governing self?

I guess nothing, that just feels too easy after all this work ahaha.

How do you expect to see that there is no unicorn in the room with you?
What do you need to do in order to know with certainty that there is no unicorn standing next to you?

Hahaha there just IS no unicorn. I can look around the room and see. Over and over again if I have to if I keep forgetting there isn't one here haha.

How would you see the absence of a non-existent thing?
What other proof do you need then seeing that it’s simply not there?
Isn’t not seeing/finding the person is = the absence of a person?

Yes, I guess it's just a thought saying "there's still something there" that is slipping through the investigation. I can see even when that thought is present there is still only reality.

Is there a monster under your bed?
Isn’t not being able to find a monster under your bed, is equal to the absence of a monster?

As I looked under my bed my puppy zoomed under to where I was looking because she apparently hid a bone there and wanted to show me. So there is no monster but there is something Hahaha. I guess that something was just the reality of that moment. Even the "seeming" of identity for the moments that it happens is given and is happening to nobody.

Can you find it? If not, isn’t it because it’s simply not there, since it’s simply doesn’t exist?

It doesn't exist. It can only be thought about.

Now experiment with a dinosaur, and then with Santa, not a person being dressed as Santa, but the REAL Santa.

The real? Santa? haha. No I cannot see any of them.

Where is the dividing line between me and not-me?
How does the dividing line itself experienced?

This was a fantastic pointer.

There is no dividing line. There can only be a thought about a dividing line. I'm going to keep using this one, I think it's my new favourite.

But is there something or someone knowing / experiencing thoughts?

In reality no. There can be a thought about another thought. But in the moment a thought is arising there is no experiencer. That second thought can be arising almost simultaneously with another thought. Both thoughts have no experiencer. This is clear but I can see a benefit from looking at this again and again. It seems less clear than some other topics.

Is there a thought + the knowing of it? Are these two things? Or are these just different ways of describing the same happening; thoughts appearing?

There is no thought and the knowing of it. The knowing of a thought is the thought.

Is there a knower or experiencer separate from a thought?
Or knowing of a thought is inherent to the thought itself?

Well a thought cannot be aware of another thought since they have no beingness. And what else is there. Sensations aren't aware of thoughts .. etc. There is just a thought and then another thought about that thought.

Isn’t the happening of a thought IS ALREADY the knowing of it?

Yes

Is a thought experienced, or the thought is known directly by its existence / presence?

Thought is just known.

I explored a little with looking for this experiencer and I saw that what kept "appearing" like an experiencer was that image I mentioned before of my body but looking from the inside. Almost an awareness of where my body is in space, relative to other parts of my body, appearing as a thought image. After inspecting this for a while I realized this was just given as well, there is no self in it, and it is ok that it arises as proprioception type thoughts. This made things seem more clear.

While exploring today I found what was (perhaps partly) providing the illusion that the self might still be "somewhere."

When noticing reality, it is difficult to be with it for very long. Very quickly focus shifts from the Reality around to a thought. There is no difficulty in seeing, like we established, but that identification returns very quickly. And sometimes just as fast focus returns to reality. It sort of oscillates. Sometimes faster sometimes slower. The direct experience is just of focus moving from vision or sensation or sound to thoughts. But there is an accompanying thought story that reality is "difficult" to stay with. Almost "as if" it were scary to leave the mind for very long.

There is no problem with this. Just an excitement to slowly and consistently notice reality. Even if it is seen for a second it is seen.

Thanks Vivien,

Philip

[Vivien]

Hi Philip,

V: But is there something or someone knowing / experiencing thoughts?

P: In reality no. There can be a thought about another thought. But in the moment a thought is arising there is no experiencer. That second thought can be arising almost simultaneously with another thought. Both thoughts have no experiencer. This is clear but I can see a benefit from looking at this again and again. It seems less clear than some other topics.

OK, then please look at this more. And let me know what you find.

Here are some questions you haven’t looked at from previous posts:

Where would this experiencer of thoughts would be? In the head?
Do you find an experiencer in the head?
Can you find an exact location where a thought is known or experienced FROM?

Almost "as if" it were scary to leave the mind for very long.

Do you think that there is an entity that is moving back and forth between a mind and reality?
And this entity is scared to leave the mind?
Where is this OUTSIDE entity?

Your problem comes back to the same thing. There is a belief or an assumption that there is an I / self OUTSIDE of experience, outside of what is, and this self is moving its focus back and forth between thoughts and experience. But is this so?

But there is an accompanying thought story that reality is "difficult" to stay with.

For who is it difficult to stay with reality?
And what is it that is staying with reality?

Is there someone or something OUTSIDE of reality (experience), and this outside something has a difficulty staying with it?
Do you think that there is such thing as ‘not staying with reality’?

When the focus is on thoughts, then reality is gone?

Is it possible to be outside of what is?

Is it possible to be somewhere else than ‘in’ reality / experience?

When the focus is on thoughts, aren’t those thoughts are also part of what is?

Vivien

[PhilipJerzy]

Hi Vivien,

Felt a bit discouraged today and didn't look as much as usual, not enough to answer the pointers well.
I'll start fresh again tomorrow.

Thanks :)

Philip

[Vivien]

All right, thank you for letting me know.

Have a nice day,
Vivien

[PhilipJerzy]

Hi Vivien,

V: But is there something or someone knowing / experiencing thoughts?

P: In reality no. There can be a thought about another thought. But in the moment a thought is arising there is no experiencer. That second thought can be arising almost simultaneously with another thought. Both thoughts have no experiencer. This is clear but I can see a benefit from looking at this again and again. It seems less clear than some other topics.

OK, then please look at this more. And let me know what you find.

I can find no experiencer. There is only experiencing. Something that has always been happening but it has just been called by the wrong word, and misunderstood.

Where would this experiencer of thoughts would be? In the head?

Well that's the impulsive answer yes. But I look there and it only ever "seems" like it's in the head, but never actually experienced. In fact, there is no experience of experiencing. There are things happening that give the illusion of experiencing but it is all happening as one experience.

Do you find an experiencer in the head?

no

Can you find an exact location where a thought is known or experienced FROM?

Reading this right now I can understand it differently than I did this whole time working with it. The thought is known from the thought. The illusion of experiencing cannot experience it because it itself is being known from itself. This whole time I've still been seeing it like the thought is appearing as an image of space and I've been understanding that is just a thought image and not experiencing anything for real but I couldn't shake the belief. But just now I see. The illusion of experiencing has nothing to do with the actual knowing of thought. The illusion, however it appears in the moment, is also known the same way.

That reads a bit confusing. The exact location a thought is known is the thought itself. The exact location the image of space acting as an illusion of experiencer is known from is the thought itself. Even though it "appears" that one is happening in the other.

Do you think that there is an entity that is moving back and forth between a mind and reality?

Definitely not. There is no "mind," that is clear. There is also nothing outside of reality. It cannot be moving from a non-reality to reality. It's just the focus of experience moving from quiet, calm, reality to the thought content about reality. That being said...

While investigating this it frustrated me because no, I do not believe there is an entity moving back and forth. BUT I realized after a while that I believed "I" was experiencing the focus of experience moving. As if reality is happening, moving back and forth between reality and thoughts about reality but all that is being "experienced" by "me." Like there was a self looking, noticing as life moves on with no self. I'll come back to this after the next question.

And this entity is scared to leave the mind?

I wouldn't say there is an entity scared to leave the mind. I do a lot of somatic inquiry, so that plays a big part in all my inquiry, and so when I was investigating I noticed a rush of sensation in the body as focus was shifting from reality to thoughts about reality. The story of being afraid to leave the mind is just the way that was interpreted. I'm not claiming there is a separate entity that is afraid, simply that it is the habit of the body to react the way it does under certain stimuli, like withdrawing your hand from a source of heat. That was the experience in that moment.

Where is this OUTSIDE entity?

When there is thinking about it, it "seems" to be just in the background of things. This is super unspecific and a "seems" answer. It really only arises as a thought. When focus is on what is happening instead of on the content of thoughts, there is no "I" to experience it since focus isn't on the thought content. But very quickly when focus slides to thought content, the thoughts are about experiencing reality. Creating the illusion that reality was experienced, since it's now being commented on as if the thoughts were experiencing. In reality, focus is just shifting from one sense to another sense to a thought, without a self having anything to do with it. It's only when a thought is believed that the illusion appears real.

Your problem comes back to the same thing. There is a belief or an assumption that there is an I / self OUTSIDE of experience, outside of what is, and this self is moving its focus back and forth between thoughts and experience. But is this so?

In reality no.

For who is it difficult to stay with reality?
And what is it that is staying with reality?

I can answer this in two different ways.

At the end of the day there is no one that is having difficulty staying with reality. Life is just happening and unfolding and there are thoughts stories about the unfolding.

But also the experience of the body is a very real thing. What I was reflecting on was the tendency for this body to flinch when focus was on sensation or sight or sound for longer than a brief moment. The body stores a lot of information so I do not want to ignore it. As soon as focus lingered on reality without a thought story, a physical feeling of fear with uncomfortableness would arise and instantly focus was on thought content. That isn't to say that the focusing on reality CAUSED fear and caused focus to shift. This is simply all happening and unfolding on it's own. But in my experience these things need to be acknowledged, investigated and felt, rather than simply dismissed as thoughts.

Is there someone or something OUTSIDE of reality (experience), and this outside something has a difficulty staying with it?

No

Do you think that there is such thing as ‘not staying with reality’?

This was a great question. It led me to constantly inquire, "is this happening in reality?" Whenever it "seemed" like there was an "I" or something outside of reality. Even the illusion of identification is happening in reality. There is no such thing as not staying with reality.

When the focus is on thoughts, then reality is gone?

No

Is it possible to be outside of what is?

No, there is only what is. to be somewhere "outside of what is" would still mean being inside what is since it would "be."

Is it possible to be somewhere else than ‘in’ reality / experience?

No

When the focus is on thoughts, aren’t those thoughts are also part of what is?

Yes definitely.

Thanks Vivien. These last few inquires have felt very challenging. Excited to keep investigating.

Love,

Philip

[Vivien]

Hi Philip,

That reads a bit confusing. The exact location a thought is known is the thought itself. The exact location the image of space acting as an illusion of experiencer is known from is the thought itself. Even though it "appears" that one is happening in the other.

I find this confusing.
Why do you want to fit this into the box of subject object relationship? You cannot find a subject (experience or knower), but you still hold onto the idea that there must be an experiencer… so you come up with another idea that ‘the exact location of thoughts is known is the thought itself.’.

But is there ANY location of a thought? What if thoughts have no location?
And what if there is no knower or experiencer at all? And thus it’s literally not known from anywhere, it just is?

But also the experience of the body is a very real thing.

Let’s start to investigate the body and sensations. The illusion of the self is not just simply coming from thoughts, but also from the belief that “I am the body” or “I have a body” or that this or that sensation is ‘me’ or the location of the ‘me’, or that this or that sensation is happening to ‘me’. So the thought label ‘this is me’ and the appearing sensations are welded together, creating the seeming ‘sense of self’.

Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.
Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on verbal or visual thoughts:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

Is there an inside or an outside?
If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. Take your time, don’t rush. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, having a short break from work, walking, etc) before replying.

Vivien

[PhilipJerzy]

Hi Vivien,

But is there ANY location of a thought? What if thoughts have no location?

When I open my eyes I cannot find the location of thoughts, they have no REAL location. I see now that the location of a thought can only be imagined. There is only the thought. I sat for a few hours today just asking "where is the location of this thought." I slowly began to see that there is no frame of reference to where a thought is. The thought simply is. The knowing of the thought is the thought itself. It is so basic and simple but it's so easy to complicate it.

And what if there is no knower or experiencer at all? And thus it’s literally not known from anywhere, it just is?

It just is. What I was trying to say with my description is that any apparent subject is just a thought about a thought. But I see that how I was imagining it still contained a view of subject-ness. Again it felt today and recently that I have been looking for something. And again I'm realizing that I will never find this No-Self because it isn't a thing. I cannot find something that doesn't exist. The same way I can't find an experiencer because it doesn't exist. It's not one or the other. It seems to be easy to get distracted in looking for these non-existent entities instead of just noticing what IS. Like the thought being known, simply and without an experiencer.

So the thought label ‘this is me’ and the appearing sensations are welded together, creating the seeming ‘sense of self’.

YES exactly. In my line of work we call this Velcro. Once this velcro is investigated it loosens and it is much easier to see the truth of things, so to speak. But anyway, regardless of what I think I know about this process, there is lot's to investigate here. The following questions are exquisite.

Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on verbal or visual thoughts:

Well the first thing I notice is just how many thoughts there are on top of the pure sensation. Actually shocking.

Can it be known how tall the body is?

As I sat with this is became clear that height is not in the realm of sensation. Height is only ever a concept and cannot be felt. Not to mention that start and end of sensation as relative to the image of the body is a concept as well.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

No. There is no "weight" happening in reality. There is only sensation and thinking overlaying the sensation calling it weight. But even everything to do with weight is a concept. There is the pure sensation and then the concept of a defined body, the concept of gravity, the idea that there is a chair under me that the concept of a body is pressing against. the concept that gravity is pressing the body into the chair. But really there is only sensation with no meaning to it.

As for volume there is a tendency for thoughts to conceptualize the sensations as happening within the boundaries of the skin. But when investigating there is no such boundary in reality. and therefore no actual experience of volume. Just sensation as it appears. No experience of filling up space.

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

No. Just the felt perception through space, with no definable boundaries or forms.

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?

In reality no. It took a while to notice the thinking surrounding this. Thoughts conceptualizing that this sensation is clothing, and this sensation is arm. But in reality there is no such distinction between anything. There is only sensation. There is no experience of boundary or experience of separateness between the two. Just sensation.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

Same thing here. In reality there is only sensation. The thought artificially separates sensation into different categories but when sitting with pure sensation there is only the pure sensation with no experience of boundary or definition of something being chair or body or leg or floor. Just sensation not relative to anything.

Is there an inside or an outside?

Like I wrote above I noticed a tendency for thoughts to define the imagined image of skin as a boundary of inside and outside but no such boundary exists in reality. There is no experience of inside or outside or anything conceptual like that. Sensations cannot think. There is only sensation and sensation is only known as sensation not as lack of sensation outside of sensation. There cannot be an inside or an outside because sensations are in a completely different realm of experience from vision which is where inside/outside "seems" to appear. The concept that sensations are somehow related to the image of the body is just a concept. If I open my eyes and rub my fingers together it "appears" that the image of the body and the sensation of the body are related. But there is no experience of actual relation. There is no experience of location of sensations, it is just conceptualized that the sensation is happening where the image of my fingers are. With eyes closed sensations are floating with no definable location such as arm or head. All such things are visual thoughts. And so exactly like your next questions ask: Inside of what? Exactly, there is no actual felt sensation of an inside or an outside. Only a visual of the inside of the body and that visual imagined alongside real sensation.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?

It seems the label of body 'actually' refers to an imagined image of a body. It almost sounds silly to say "this body" because if it's just an image, then now that I have moved it's a different image. It's not the same "body" as it was before. The whole idea of body is just a concept. I see what you mean that the body creates the illusion of an "I." And I also see how that "I" cannot exist in reality. I noticed previously how the "I" that was imagined had no storage of I-ness. But I continued thinking that the body was a consistent storage of I-ness. But sensations are arising and vision is arising and the concept of body is constantly arising as new. There is no still-standing body, there is no still-standing mind. There is nowhere for the "I" to be held and stored or exist.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

The body cannot actually experience as it's just the thought image of something. Same way that verbal thoughts are imagined sounds of the voice. Body is just imagined sight of this that we call a body, arms, legs, etc.

Thank you so much Vivien. Sometimes it's so frustrating but other times it's so clear. Of course other times it seems clear but is still seeing illusion. Every day I feel lucky and grateful to be guided by you.

Gracefully,

Philip

[Vivien]

Hi Philip,

I slowly began to see that there is no frame of reference to where a thought is. The thought simply is. The knowing of the thought is the thought itself. It is so basic and simple but it's so easy to complicate it.

Yes, this is very simple :)

Again it felt today and recently that I have been looking for something. And again I'm realizing that I will never find this No-Self because it isn't a thing. I cannot find something that doesn't exist. The same way I can't find an experiencer because it doesn't exist. It's not one or the other. It seems to be easy to get distracted in looking for these non-existent entities instead of just noticing what IS. Like the thought being known, simply and without an experiencer.

Yes. It’s all about noticing what is. And when you see what actually is, it automatically gets clear what isn’t. It’s that simple.

There cannot be an inside or an outside because sensations are in a completely different realm of experience from vision which is where inside/outside "seems" to appear. The concept that sensations are somehow related to the image of the body is just a concept. If I open my eyes and rub my fingers together it "appears" that the image of the body and the sensation of the body are related. But there is no experience of actual relation. There is no experience of location of sensations, it is just conceptualized that the sensation is happening where the image of my fingers are.

These are excellent observations :)

But sensations are arising and vision is arising and the concept of body is constantly arising as new. There is no still-standing body, there is no still-standing mind. There is nowhere for the "I" to be held and stored or exist.

Beautiful description.

So do you see that the body is nothing else than just different name or label on sensations?

Is life happening TO the body, or AS the body?
Is life happening TO me, or AS a story of me?

Is the body separate from life / experience, having a life / experience? Or the body IS life / experience?

And yes, sometimes it could seem that there is something that is aware, but look, is there awareness …. gap… body or thought or world?
Is there a gap between ‘awareness of’ and the ‘awared’? Or these are just two different ways of looking at the same happening?

Like a coin. A coin has two sides, head and tail.
But isn’t the head referring the same coin, just as the tail?
Aren’t head and tail are just different perspectives of looking at the same coin (the same phenomenon)?

Thank you so much Vivien. Sometimes it's so frustrating but other times it's so clear. Of course other times it seems clear but is still seeing illusion. Every day I feel lucky and grateful to be guided by you.

You are most welcome :) this investigation is not linear. Sometimes there is clear seeing, sometimes there is confusion. It’s all normal, all part of the process.

Vivien

[PhilipJerzy]

Hi Vivien,

So do you see that the body is nothing else than just different name or label on sensations?

Yes. A label on sensations and on the visual image.

For some reason as I sat with this last night and through the day, the more I looked at "the body as just a label for sensation" the more that vision seemed covered in thoughts as well. The very idea that what I see is "outside" my self is a total concept. And as soon as I started to see that connection it flipped where it was like everything I see is actually happening inside myself, happening as thoughts, happening through these eyes supposedly, happening in this brain, supposedly. There is a bit of conceptualizing here happening, if its not outside of "me, it's not inside of "me" either, because what is the "me" in this situation.

But just the idea that if the visual of the body isn't me. Then what I always thought was outside of me isn't outside of me. The whole visual plane has nothing to do with me. Just another place that me-ness isn't happening. But almost shockingly so. The whole outside world that always felt so separate and outside of me has started to appear a lot less so. Like it's all happening in the same experience, with nothing outside of that experience. Yes that's a better way of saying it instead of what I wrote above. Not that it's all happening inside me but it's all happening in one experience with nothing outside of it.

Is life happening TO the body, or AS the body?

These questions are a bit strange. Life doesn't happen TO the body or AS the body. Body is just a concept. There is a thought story of life happening as the body. But I don't see a reality of life happening as the body. Life just unfolds. It's almost hard to say anything here because it's all just concepts. But there is no experience of things happening TO. Life is happening AS. There isn't two separate things for something TO do something. There is just a singular experiential unfolding.

Is life happening TO me, or AS a story of me?

As a story of a me.

Is the body separate from life / experience, having a life / experience? Or the body IS life / experience?

Yes sensation/body is the experience. The word body seems a bit odd and dissociated right now but I think I know what you mean by it. There is no separation between life and "body." More like, there is no separation between life and life, there is only life.

And yes, sometimes it could seem that there is something that is aware, but look, is there awareness …. gap… body or thought or world?
Is there a gap between ‘awareness of’ and the ‘awared’? Or these are just two different ways of looking at the same happening?

Could you please elaborate on this?

I think I know what you mean. Yesterday when investigating I kept trying to see without the gap. And eventually I realized there wasn't really a gap. That the "awareness of" is just a way of seeing what is experienced, without that really being an experiencer. I was constantly looking to notice the "awared" from inside of itself so there would be no "awareness of" and therefore no experiencer but finally looking I saw that "awareness of" didn't mean experiencer, it was just a way of seeing what's happening.

Not sure if this is what you mean and I would love to hear more about this.

But isn’t the head referring the same coin, just as the tail?
Aren’t head and tail are just different perspectives of looking at the same coin (the same phenomenon)?

Yes, this seems related to what I wrote above. I would like to look into this a bit more but I'm not sure if I'm clear on the question.

Thanks Vivien, this is so fun.

Philip :)

[Vivien]

Hi Philip,

This awareness-thing is very simple.

Please try to put aside everything you know about this while you read my comments bellow. Just be a clean slate, with an open mind.

Normally we believe that there are 3 separate things or happenings:

1. There is an experiencer / knower / aware-er (all these refer to a subject)
2. There is the experienced / known / ‘awarend’ (all these refer to an object)
3. And the subject and the object is being linked by the subject’s ability to experience / know / or be aware. In other words: experiencing / knowing / aware-ing

Examples:

The experiencer experiences the experience.
The knower knows the known.
Awareness aware of the ‘awared’.
I see the lamp.

But are there 3 things in reality?
Or there these are 3 different ways of describing the SAME thing, the SAME and ONLY phenomenon, not 3 separate things?

Vivien

[Vivien]

I see the lamp.

I: subject
see: is my ability
lamp: object

Are there 3 things happening? Subject (I) + ability of seeing + object (lamp)? Or only one?

[PhilipJerzy]

Hi Vivien,

But are there 3 things in reality?
Or there these are 3 different ways of describing the SAME thing, the SAME and ONLY phenomenon, not 3 separate things?

I see what you mean. Yes there is only one thing, looked at in different ways.

Are there 3 things happening? Subject (I) + ability of seeing + object (lamp)? Or only one?

No there is only lamp happening. Whether it appears to be seen, or seeing, or lamp, there is still only lamp, even without the concept of lamp.

Haven't had as much time the past few days to explore deeper and run into problems, just a very busy few days. So I've just been checking in with what is whenever I can.

Thanks Vivien,

Philip

[Vivien]

Hi Philip,

Haven't had as much time the past few days to explore deeper and run into problems, just a very busy few days. So I've just been checking in with what is whenever I can.

OK. Then please stay another day with these same questions, but this time really look.

Vivien

[PhilipJerzy]

Hi Vivien,

It has just gotten clearer today. Through the day when it seems that "I" am noticing something I take a closer look and notice there is no "I" really, and no "noticing" really. It seems that way but it cannot be found. The only thing that can be found is what's noticed. And when it's looked at like this there is no resistance to it "seeming" like there is a looker. It is simply seen through and not argued with. There isn't a lengthy search for the looker or the noticing or a search for the non-looker, it's just very clear what is there and what isn't and that the seeming is happening as a thought that doesn't need to be pushed away either but just "noticed" as well. Like you said in another post, "it is given as well", it is part of what is arising, but it doesn't have to be believed. I can imagine an apple without believing that there is a real apple. The imagined story is happening as thought alongside the real content.

I notice that even that which appears real, like sensations, vision, as soon as it's noticed/exists it falls away and is only left as a thought/memory. So I can never "know" that it is real I cannot even know that feeling is happening. It can only be. I cannot check in with thoughts to check if something really happened or not. There is only the current happenings. And even that is already gone.

What I'm trying to say is I can see there is a lot more depth to this, a lot more to investigate and unravel. Lots more to differentiate between thought and reality. There is a constant deepening already, a sense of oh wow that was all just thought? and then a few days later looking at that realization and noticing there was even more thought around it, still more layers.

Lot's to continue exploring and I love exploring. Nothing specific to mention, just constantly checking in with what is really happening.

Thanks Vivien,

Philip

[Vivien]

Hi Philip,

There isn't a lengthy search for the looker or the noticing or a search for the non-looker, it's just very clear what is there and what isn't and that the seeming is happening as a thought that doesn't need to be pushed away either but just "noticed" as well.

And what is it that could push it away?
Or to choose whether to push it away or not?

I can imagine an apple without believing that there is a real apple.

Please close your eyes, and imagine an apple.

What is it exactly that is doing the imagination?
And what is it that has the possibility to believe it to be a real, or not believe it?

Lot's to continue exploring and I love exploring.

And what is doing the exploring?
And what is it that loves exploring?

Vivien