Die before you die

[Rachszk]

Yes thanks I've done the log in remember me, didn't realise it logged out after an hour. I've tried the save button before it didn't work. might be because I'm using a tablet rather than a laptop . Anyway I only have a bit of time so I'm going to restart the questions and hopefully finish them bit later.

. But just because there is a thought “you know it” – does this make it so?

Yes, this suddenly became much clearer yesterday, thoughts! Lying little buggers. Whilst again looking for the 'knower' I realised, thought played a much bigger part than I had realised. I am so used to habitually believing what thoughts say and I had never really questioned their validity. While 'i' was looking for the knower, my attention went to the 'looker' the sense that there was a me looking for a 'knower' , again there was only sensation, but also the realisation that thought constantly says 'i' or 'me' but it isn't true. There was one sensation, allegedly! Looking at another sensation, I could see in actual experience it was two sensations and there was no link. The looker wasn't looking at the other bodily sensation, it couldn't, all there was was two sensations and an unquestioned thought that said' 'i am looking'. It's like throwing carpet over a hole, to make you think there's solid ground beneath it. The mind or thoughts constantly labelling sensations 'i' to hide the fact that there's no one there. On the realisation that 'i' is simply a one letter word, I had to look at 'belief' as I felt I 'believed' this thought. Was there really someone who could believe in thought. So looking at 'belief' I used the exercise you gave. I saw the word belief, just a word, then looked for the sensation, by stating things I did and did not believe, there was a mild diffence in bodily sensations. There is a relaxation or the body remains relaxed when something feels true and their is mild tensing when something feels untrue/lie/disagreed with. So again there is sensation and thought that labels the sensation 'believe' . But believer or believing do not exist. I did the same exercise with the feeling of 'intention' , I hadn't realised the belief in 'i' resided in so many sensations .

. An what is the ‘I’ that would be doing the knowing?

So this morning I just feel like 'i don't know' , I'm really sorry to bring this up again but thoughts say 'what am I?' And then thought moves quickly to stick an 'i' on a sensation or thought, but it doesn't seem to stick so well. (Hope that makes sense) . Like it's having a panic, chucking ,'i''s all over the place to see which one I'll believe. But the only belief I'm really scared to look at is that there is no 'i'. But I have to go out soon, so I need to walk my dog and I'm going to carry on looking whilst on the walk and I'll feedback later and try and finish the questions.

[Rachszk]

The idea of 'no me' , I tried to stay with this whilst out walking, all that happened is the me feeling jumped around, and I kept doing the looking exercise, several times, and then it jumped somewhere else, then somewhere else and in the end I just thought this is pointless, because I don't really believe there is no me , or in other words, I believe there is a 'me' somewhere and I can't shake the belief at all. I know you say keep looking keep going re-doing the exercise over and over till it's clear. But what if you can see clearly that there is no you, but you can't believe it. Like my mind won't accept it. I'll carry on with the exercises. Maybe I'm not seeing it as clearly as I think.

.
Labelling that awareness/knower as ‘I’ is just labelling. But the ‘I’ label wouldn’t magically transform that supposed awareness/knower into a self. It’s all just imagination. Can you see this?

Yes I do realise that a knower or the belief in awareness as a stand alone tangible object is a figment of my imagination.

.
Where that awareness waiting in the background for an object to appear and then latch onto it with its knowing or aware-ing ability?

Lol, no

.
it’s a logical conclusion. This is nothing else than the CONTENT of a THOUGHT. But where is the experiential proof for this?

There isn't any. When I look in actual experienceI I can see this is pure fantasy.

I'll answer the rest of the questions tomorrow.

Thanks Rachel
,

[Rachszk]

.
“I have always been hoping for some sorts of realization” – What is saying that? what is it that was hoping for a realization?

“And when I look for awareness or the knower I don't actually find anything” – What is saying that? what is it that is looking for the awareness and not finding it?

“and no experience well that's pretty much what I equate death with” – who/what is saying that?

What is equating no experience with death?

Who is hoping? I hope... There is the thought, I hope, just words arising , there is sensation, and then there is imagination, that there is a me doing and feeling, I cannot find hoping, there is no hoper. I can see more clearly that the hoper, or the 'me' part of each thought/sensation experience is not there, so thought arises, well what am 'i' , just a word , a figment of of my imagination. The thought 'what am I' is just a thought too. Asked on behalf of nobody.

Looking for awareness or the knower - again a sensation arises a focal point, my thoughts say , 'i am looking' but really the sensation is not looking, it's just a label placed over sensation by mind/thought.

What equates no experience with death? - I thought arises, alongside an uncomfortable sensation, labelled fear, thought says 'i am afraid to die' this is a sentence created by the brain, the sensation of fear is felt, I can't see how they are linked , I cant find fear, I can't find a 'me'.

. “the thought 'i never existed' feels as scary as 'i am going to die'” – scary for WHAT EXACTLY? – Look, don’t just answer from thoughts, but look!

“I turn away from looking” – what is it exactly that is turning away from looking?

Scary for what? - Again there is thought and sensation, I can see I thought holds no truth, sensation is felt and , 'i never existed' yes at this moment, that seems true, somewhere along the line the belief or idea of a seperate me was born, perhaps with the first 'i' thought.

So it’s not just about not finding awareness… since even though awareness cannot be found, there is still a belief that there is an ‘I’ (separate even from awareness) that could be equated or not with awareness. Do you see this?.

Yes that would be the 'looker' , I look and I cannot find, but the 'i' that looks, again this is a sensation, a focal point. It cannot look for anything, it does not know anything. It is not a me. Only thought says, 'i cannot find awareness, but actual experience says sensation. In the head, chest and stomach, but there is no finding, no looking, just sensation and mind labelling.

I'll come back to the questions tomorrow. As I'm doing the looking, every so often the thought arises, 'there is definitely a me here' and instead of looking for a me, I am looking at the thought, it keeps popping up, i look at the words, then look at bodily sensations, until I see the thought is untrue. All that has happened is sensation has moved from the original spot. The moment this happens thought quickly comes up' there is an I here' but actually it's just a new sensation.

[Vivien]

Hi Rachel,

I'll come back to the questions tomorrow. As I'm doing the looking, every so often the thought arises, 'there is definitely a me here' and instead of looking for a me, I am looking at the thought, it keeps popping up, i look at the words, then look at bodily sensations, until I see the thought is untrue. All that has happened is sensation has moved from the original spot. The moment this happens thought quickly comes up' there is an I here' but actually it's just a new sensation.

Very good. Just keep looking. You’re doing well. I will reply when you finished with all the questions.

Vivien

[Rachszk]

I feel sensation which confirms awareness” – how on earth a sensation confirms awareness?

A sensation is a sensation. How is the conclusion made that the sensation is more than a sensation?
How is the conclusion made that sensation = awareness?

No it doesn't confirm awareness in actual experience.

. The belief in the ‘I’ is jumping around from the body to awareness, then to a sensation, then back to the body, then to the knower…. going in circles. Can you see this?

Just even try to image this: how could a shapeless, formless, boundaries, non-tangible, non-locatable awareness, what cannot be even labelled as a ‘thing’, rather just a pure knowing, be surrounded by a buddle of light? In order this to happen, this supposed awareness has to have a shape, form, boundaries, location in space and time at the first place for this to even be considered as a slightest possibility. Can you see the impossibility of this expectation?

Yes, that made me laugh. I think the problem is ever since I heard of consciousness or awareness and believed that somehow I could find this as a true self, I imagined somehow this would be tangible. Its kept me looking for 'something'. I'm not exactly sure what I've been up to for the last 20 years but I've definitely wasted a lot of time. I have realised I can't take for granted what thought says. And I feel like I understand, go straight for the 'i' everytime ,everything else is just wasting time.

I think I've answered all the questions.

Thanks Rachel

[Vivien]

Hi Rachel,

The mind or thoughts constantly labelling sensations 'i' to hide the fact that there's no one there.

Exactly!

But what if you can see clearly that there is no you, but you can't believe it.

Seeing no self is not a belief! If you want to get rid of the old belief of the self by replacing with a new belief ‘there is no self’, then it just would be another belief, layering over on top of the old belief.

Knowing that there is no-self doesn’t require a belief. Do you need a belief that Santa doesn’t exist? Or the tooth fairy? Or unicorns?

It’s quite the contrary. To say that there are unicorns or the tooth fairy requires a belief.
But knowing that there are no unicorns or a real Santa, doesn’t require any belief. Can you see this?

I can see more clearly that the hoper, or the 'me' part of each thought/sensation experience is not there, so thought arises, well what am 'i' , just a word , a figment of of my imagination. The thought 'what am I' is just a thought too. Asked on behalf of nobody.

Nice looking.

I have realised I can't take for granted what thought says. And I feel like I understand, go straight for the 'i' everytime ,everything else is just wasting time.

Exactly! Just keep looking for the ‘I’ every time it seems to be there.

So does it matter what thought says?
Thought will continue to appear suggesting that there is a separate self and that there is subject/object split and that life is happening TO someone/something. Just because thought appears suggesting this…does it make it so?

But the only belief I'm really scared to look at is that there is no 'i'.

Is this still the case?
What is it that is afraid of looking for the absence of an ‘I’?
What is having the fear?

Let’s dig a bit more and see how thoughts create all sorts of things that aren’t really there in the actual experience.
Have a look at an apple. If you have a ‘real’ apple, you can use it for this exercise (or any other fruit will do).


When looking at an apple, there's colour; a thought saying ‘apple’; and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."
What is known for sure? Colour is known and thoughts are known.

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?
Actual experience does not refer to thoughts ABOUT something…because that is only just more thought. Actual experience is sound, thought, colour, smell, taste, sensation.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?
Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in actual experience.

This is what is meant by ‘looking in actual experience ‘. What you know for sure, and, is always here.

Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known

However, is an apple actually known?

Vivien

[Rachszk]

H Vivian,

It's been along day with work and stuff, I've read through your reply, thanks, I probably won't be able to finish it tonight but I'll come back to it tomorrow.

.
Knowing that there is no-self doesn’t require a belief. Do you need a belief that Santa doesn’t exist? Or the tooth fairy? Or unicorns?

It’s quite the contrary. To say that there are unicorns or the tooth fairy requires a belief.
But knowing that there are no unicorns or a real Santa, doesn’t require any belief. Can you see this?

Yes, it's not about 'believing' but knowing, and I obviously don't know, so that statement, 'i know there's no self but I still believe' is a bit dumb now I read it back.

. So does it matter what thought says?
Thought will continue to appear suggesting that there is a separate self and that there is subject/object split and that life is happening TO someone/something. Just because thought appears suggesting this…does it make it so?

No. Just as I assume the sensations I call 'me' or the focal point will also continue to arise. Neither of these are a 'me'. And I'll still say 'i love you' to my children even though when I look at the actual experience, there's no 'me' and there's no 'love' .

. Is this still the case?
What is it that is afraid of looking for the absence of an ‘I’?
What is having the fear?

That's exactly what I have been asking. Rather than letting fear be a distraction, I look. So fear seems to have turned to sadness, again it comes back to non existence and death. When I die I will miss..... thoughts arise like, my children, trees, sun on my skin etc.... it's hard, but I stop , I look at the words arising, "I will never see the sky again" just words, then the
sensation in my stomach, which thought labels sadness, but there is no 'i'. Generally the feeling starts to dissipate and either mind moves on to other matters or there is a more heightened sense of awareness or groundedness. I don't want to say fear is gone but my approach to it now is different.

I've read through the fruit exercise and I'll do that tomorrow, and let you know how it goes,

Thanks Rachel .

[Rachszk]

. Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?
Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

I don't know' if I'm understanding this correctly, but, actual experience of apples , is seeing colours, shape and depth. The word apple is just a label.

.
Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known

However, is an apple actually known?

? I'm not sure? I'm going to say an apple is experienced , through the senses, sight, touch, taste and smell. So yes, there is knowing of colour, taste etc...sorry not sure I understand this exercise.

Thanks Rachel

[Vivien]

Hi Rachel,

Neither of these are a 'me'. And I'll still say 'i love you' to my children even though when I look at the actual experience, there's no 'me' and there's no 'love' .

Yes, exactly :)

Rather than letting fear be a distraction, I look. So fear seems to have turned to sadness, again it comes back to non existence and death. When I die I will miss..... thoughts arise like, my children, trees, sun on my skin etc.... it's hard, but I stop , I look at the words arising, "I will never see the sky again" just words, then the
sensation in my stomach, which thought labels sadness, but there is no 'i'. Generally the feeling starts to dissipate and either mind moves on to other matters or there is a more heightened sense of awareness or groundedness. I don't want to say fear is gone but my approach to it now is different.

That’s very good. If we look at this from a psychological point of view, when fear turns into sadness, then it means that the thing what seemed to be so fearful before is now gradually being accepted, which brings up sadness as the process of grieving of what is seeming being lost to be felt. This will pass too.

I don't know' if I'm understanding this correctly, but, actual experience of apples , is seeing colours, shape and depth. The word apple is just a label.

We cannot even say that.
There is ZERO AE of an ‘apple’. And not just because of the word ‘label’ apple.
But because the colours is NOT the AE of an apple, but the AE of colour/image.

Shape and depth is cannot be experienced either. Just as sensations don’t have shape and form, the visual sight/image/colour also don’t have shape or form or depth.

Shape, depth, form is just INFERRED BY THOUGHTS.
But it’s usually harder to see, since we take this mental overlay as reality.

I’d like to ask you to put an object (apple, orange, cup, whatever) into a clean flat surface, like a table.
And start to investigate if you can see anything else then colours?
When it seems that this object (apple) has a shape, look how do you know exactly that it has a shape?
Look at the edges where the apple ends and the background (table) starts. Do you really see a shape?
Or just the colour changes and thoughts say that here ends the apple and that starts (with the other colour) the table?

Also look, how do you know that there is a depth?
Depth are usually implied by shadows? What is a shadow? Isn’t it just another colour?

Vivien

[Rachszk]

Hi,

.
I’d like to ask you to put an object (apple, orange, cup, whatever) into a clean flat surface, like a table.
And start to investigate if you can see anything else then colours?

Yes, just colours.

. When it seems that this object (apple) has a shape, look how do you know exactly that it has a shape?
Look at the edges where the apple ends and the background (table) starts. Do you really see a shape?
Or just the colour changes and thoughts say that here ends the apple and that starts (with the other colour) the table?

Yes I see where one colour ends and the next one begins. Yes mind says there is a dividing line between the item and the table. And yes that would be where one colour end and another begins.

. Also look, how do you know that there is a depth?
Depth are usually implied by shadows? What is a shadow? Isn’t it just another colour?

Yes I can see light and dark shades create depth or 3d, effect.

Thanks Rachel

[Vivien]

Hi Rachel,

Yes I see where one colour ends and the next one begins. Yes mind says there is a dividing line between the item and the table. And yes that would be where one colour end and another begins.

So, is there an AE of an apple? Or a cup?

Is an apple (or a cup) actually known?

I would like to ask you to sit quietly and close your eyes and just listen to the sounds for a few minutes that can be heard both inside and outside of the room. Really hear them.

Tell me ONE sound that you heard when doing this? (Make sure it is a sound that you will be able to hear again for part 2 of this exercise).

Vivien

[Rachszk]

Hi

. So, is there an AE of an apple? Or a cup?

I'm not sure I'm quite clear in this. But going back to when you asked me can you actually experience a body part, I'd have to answer 'no', I experience colour, when I look, and when I hold the cup I experience a sensation of cold.But this feels a bit intellectual. I've sat with a bit. And all I can see is that these colours create a cup. And so I would say although it's not a physical or felt experience of a cup. It's a visual experience of a cup. Which I would say is an ae.

. Is an apple (or a cup) actually known?

Yes but only through sight.The pattern of colours creates a cup.

[Rachszk]

Hi sorry had to break off.

So going back to the cup once more, there is colour, there is sensation, hard/cold and the word 'cup' arises in thoughts, maybe along with thoughts about the cup. So I want to say no in ae there is no ae of cup, but this doesn't feel clear. I tried today to do this with other items, and weirdly sometimes I understood it and then it was just gone, I clearly remember looking at my dog and seeing colour, movement, thought labels, and I could hear panting, and thinking, where is 'dog' , dog actually does not exist, it's a label for all sense input that brain labels dog. The same too when I put my shirt on earlier, I realised I cannot experience shirt, I saw colours, and felt sensations as it brushed against my body but I could not actually experience 'shirt'. But it doesn't feel so clear now. I'm not even sure if that's what you mean. Can you give me an example of how you see an apple?

. Tell me ONE sound that you heard when doing this?

The sounds I heard may not be repeated when I do this. So I could put the TV/radio on? There are sounds, but I can't guarantee they'll be the same when I sit again to write.

Thanks Rachel

Thanks Rachel

[Vivien]

Hi Rachel,

And all I can see is that these colours create a cup…..It's a visual experience of a cup. Which I would say is an ae.

Visual image = colour. When there is a visual image there is nothing else then colour. There is only AE of colour.

Only thoughts suggest that certain colours are certain objects. Only thoughts suggest that this colour is the cup but that colour is the table. Only thoughts say that this colour is the end of the cup, and the other side of the dividing line is a different colour which is the table.

So there is only the AE of colour, and cup is just inferred by thoughts. ‘Cup’ is just an overlay over the AE of colour.

The same too when I put my shirt on earlier, I realised I cannot experience shirt, I saw colours, and felt sensations as it brushed against my body but I could not actually experience 'shirt'.

Yes.

But it doesn't feel so clear now. I'm not even sure if that's what you mean. Can you give me an example of how you see an apple?

As I mentioned before, the aim of these exercises is not the change anything, not to remove the conceptual overlay, the aim is only to see (when looking) that what is really going in is different than what thoughts are saying what is going on. I see the cup just as you.

So I could put the TV/radio on?

Radio would be good.

Now can you please repeat the exercise and tell me:

Without thought, how is it known that the sound heard was the "sound of the radio"?
In other words, what is it that suggest the sound was a radio?

What is the actual experience (AE) of hearing ‘sound of radio?

So what is known is label + sound + thoughts, however a radio in actual experience is not known.
Can you see this?

What is actually appearing is sound which thought then overlays with a story about the sound being radio.
The label ‘radio’ is AE of thought and not AE of radio.
The sound labelled as ‘radio’ is AE of sound and not AE of radio.
Can you see this?

Vivien

[Rachszk]

Hi,

.
Without thought, how is it known that the sound heard was the "sound of the radio"?
In other words, what is it that suggest the sound was a radio?

I wouldn't know.

. What is the actual experience (AE) of hearing ‘sound of radio?

Just sounds, labelled words/music.

So what is known is label + sound + thoughts, however a radio in actual experience is not known.
Can you see this?.

Yes, totally, radio is not found in the sound, or the word radio, or the machine that plays the sound.

. What is actually appearing is sound which thought then overlays with a story about the sound being radio.
The label ‘radio’ is AE of thought and not AE of radio.
The sound labelled as ‘radio’ is AE of sound and not AE of radio.
Can you see this?

Ok, if I just use slightly different words? . If I swap radio for song, as I think of radio as the actual machine that's plugged in. So if I say I hear a song instead. But actually what is a song -, sounds, which mind might label, music, or words. But 'song' is not the actual experience of a song. Music and words are not ae of music or words. Words cannot capture the experience of sound. So yes I can see, radio or song, neither are actual experience.

Thanks Rachel