6 years sober spent seeking the truth

[DoctahL]

Is there a thought + the knowing of it?

A thought is known as soon as it appears. Noticing verbal thoughts now. No one can be found thinking them and likewise no one can be found hearing them. But they're known. How? With sense perceptions, there are all these concept structures about how they work and how they get experienced. Sight/eyes, hearing/ears, etc. But with thoughts there's nothing. You can't ACTUALLY see thoughts or hear them through anything. Yet there they are. As images, as talking...having trouble making sense of this.

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

No. Looking now they just appear and are known simultaneously. Or at once? How to say this? There's no interpreting thoughts, they're just known. There's a story or an assumption there regarding someone "in there" processing thoughts but...thoughts come and are known...and then gone.

Where does the thought end and the knowing of it starts?

It's just...instantaneous.

Noticing happens – but is there someone or something actually doing the noticing?

No effort necessary and no entity found doing the noticing or listening.

Is the noticing something other than, different to, or separate from experience?

Everything is just "on". How could there be "experiencing" without "noticing"? There would be no experience without the knowing or awareness of it. Might need more time with this one.

Can you find anything at all that is called "noticer", or do you just find experience?

No "noticer" but "noticing" or "knowing" as you put it. A flow of experiencing.

Still feeling sort of scrambled with this.

[Vivien]

Hi Chris,

I would like to ask you to stay with these same questions for another day, or even for 2 days. Look very carefully, and also read the questions carefully. You not always replying to the questions. Your first reply was intellectual, that's why you feel you are having trouble with it. Put thoughts aside, and only investigate what is here now, REGARDLESS of thoughts.

After another day or two looking, please reply to the same questions again.

Vivien

[DoctahL]

Is there a thought + the knowing of it?

Stuck with the question here today. Meaning when looking, the question was used as the thought being looked at. It was just repeated throughout the day. "is there a thought + the knowing of it?" The instant it appears, it's experienced loud and clear. Or there is only the thought in other words. No "perspective" of it. No vantage point of it or separate knowing from some knower "in there". The question/thought appears and that's it. This was noticed with musical thoughts too. Lots of random songs come in thoughts and the awareness is just automatic. Comes with the package so to speak. Seems weird to write about because the word "thought" and "aware" in this instance aren't 2 things. Even if I say it happens simultaneously that word implies 2 things happening at once. It's not. It's just the experience of a thought.

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

No there's no boundary of something "knowing" it, it's just known as it happens.

Where does the thought end and the knowing of it starts?

The thought is the knowing of it. The thought happening IS the knowing of it. That's one way to put it. No boundary or delay even. If there was a delay, that wouldn't be known. All that can be known of it is what can be known of it lol. Ya know?

Noticing happens – but is there someone or something actually doing the noticing?

No someone is found "doing" anything. The thought/knowing of the thought comes and goes without any effort or doing.

Is the noticing something other than, different to, or separate from experience?

No. It couldn't be. There would be no experience without the knowing of it. Experience requires it being known. It's not 2 words.

[Vivien]

Hi Chris,

You did an excellent investigation! :)

The thought is the knowing of it. The thought happening IS the knowing of it. That's one way to put it. No boundary or delay even.

Exactly!

So what about Chris? What is Chris?
Can you find Chris in this very moment?

Is Chris living life? Doe life happening to Chris?
Or life is happening TO the body?

What does life happening TO?
What is having this experience?

Is there any other time and space than this very moment as it is?

And does this moment have parts or elements? Or it’s just one seamless stream of existence or happening?

Vivien

[DoctahL]

So what about Chris? What is Chris?

Chris is a thought composite of an assumed experiencer and doer. This so called "I". An "I" that only shows up in thoughts to claim ownership of thoughts and senses and actions that are just happening naturally. There are things that occur that have always been considered to be "mine" because there's a unique quality to them. Like a sense of humor. Or talents. Preferences. Being bi-pedal being able to read. These don't need a character to explain or be the one responsible for them. Everything is unique but still does what it does.

Can you find Chris in this very moment?

There is no character "Chris" present right now. Only the experience of the moment. Typing is happening and reflecting the words that thoughts provide. There is relaxation and quiet because the kid is napping which brings some relief.

s Chris living life? Doe life happening to Chris?

"Living" is happening all by itself. There's no "Chris" "in there" running the body machine and thinking stuff. Waking up is automatic and things get done. Learning happens and turns into routine without the need for a belief in "someone" responsible. The processes happening in this particular experience i.e. thinking, seeing, walking, etc...can't seem to be differentiated between any other natural process noticed "out there". So it's all just happening. Not TO any one thing including a "me".

This is something that occurred middle of the night last night. Woke up all the sudden at 3am. There was no "I" that did anything to wake up. And certainly no "I" that could do anything to get back to sleep lol. Thoughts were occurring about "nature". Trees don't get a choice to grow into the unique trees they grow into. According to conditions, that's just what happens. That's what they do. They grow toward the sun and provide what we breathe etc. But they make no choices in doing so. Life doesn't happen TO them. All sorts of conditions may affect them and the way they grow and turn out but they are growing as an expression of life. What's the difference between this experience and that one really?

Or life is happening TO the body?

The body here doesn't seem to be any different than a tree or a blade of grass. More stuff going on with it but nevertheless just doing what it does, which includes thinking and walking and talking etc. All products of conditions present. Convention. Reminds me of Ram Dass talking about how you see a tree and you just allow it. It may be all gnarly or something but it's just understood that it didn't get enough light and just grew that way or whatever. Life responding to life.

What does life happening TO?

The processes and "phenomena" from this perspective just seem to be part of the larger process of life that creates and moves everything. Impersonally.

What is having this experience?

There's all these processes happening AS the body and that was pretty much what used to be assumed to be the "experiencer". Now there is awareness that this body/mind is BEING experienced. Directly. Right now. No experiencer just the directness of experience being known as experience. Right along with the experience of all the sensory stuff outward facing.

Is there any other time and space than this very moment as it is?

Right now is the only reality. The DE of the moment is the only thing everything else is concept in thought.

And does this moment have parts or elements? Or it’s just one seamless stream of existence or happening?

Honestly, here something still doesn't seem clear. Has to do with seeing. Seeing "things". Sight has been a tough one through the entirety of the inquiry. Don't feel there's any "doing" with seeing. Aware that what is seen is color and thoughts label "things". It's seen that "the body" is just part of the tapestry and labeled as "mine". The perspective still feels separate or convincing or something.

I'll stay with this.

Thank you for your help. Really.

[Vivien]

Hi Chris,

Thank you for your beautiful replies :)

Honestly, here something still doesn't seem clear. Has to do with seeing. Seeing "things". Sight has been a tough one through the entirety of the inquiry. Don't feel there's any "doing" with seeing. Aware that what is seen is color and thoughts label "things". It's seen that "the body" is just part of the tapestry and labeled as "mine". The perspective still feels separate or convincing or something.

All right, let’s look into this.

Take an object, like a cup, and put in front of you.

The cup is there. It’s seen.
But is there a seer? Is there something seeing the cup?

Is there even the perception of seeing, or there is only what is seen, the colors and shape labelled ‘cup’?

As you look at the cup, try to find the exact location where it’s been look at or seen FROM. Is there such location?

Is there something separate from the knowing of the colors + shapes, called ‘cup’?

Vivien

[DoctahL]

But is there a seer? Is there something seeing the cup?

No separate "seer" can be found doing the seeing. Instant color appears.

Is there even the perception of seeing, or there is only what is seen, the colors and shape labelled ‘cup’?

You mean like something "perceiving" seeing? No perceiver found. There's nothing like a screen that is being looked at from a different perspective other than what is seen.

As you look at the cup, try to find the exact location where it’s been look at or seen FROM. Is there such location?

Is this what you mean by the last question as well? Got confused here. There seems to be a specific vantage point "in the picture" or a perspective relative to the "cup"...i.e. "seen from the couch" or even "above the cup"...but more than what is perceived as "the cup" is present in what's seen. There's no space or division found between the entire image of what is seen and some perspective of seeing it.

Is there something separate from the knowing of the colors + shapes, called ‘cup’?

There is only the awareness of the colors and any other explanation to what is doing the seeing or knowing the image is conceptual. No found "knower".

It's not like looking at a picture or watching tv from "back here". It's like being the tv.

[Vivien]

Hi Chris,

V: As you look at the cup, try to find the exact location where it’s been look at or seen FROM. Is there such location?

C: Is this what you mean by the last question as well? Got confused here. There seems to be a specific vantage point "in the picture" or a perspective relative to the "cup"...i.e.

The general belief / assumption is that I am somewhere inside the head, and I look out through the eyes, like two windows, and I’m seeing the world which is out there, from here, from inside, from behind the eyes.

So when I ask, where is the cup being looked at from, I’m pointing to this imaginary place inside the head, behind the head, where I, the subject, the seer, supposedly reside.

When you don’t look in your everyday life, isn’t this is how for you? That I’m inside the head, somewhere behind the eyes, and I look out through the eyes, like two windows?

So where is this exact location in the head, where seeing is supposedly happening from?

It's not like looking at a picture or watching tv from "back here". It's like being the tv.

Yes :)

Vivien

[DoctahL]

When you don’t look in your everyday life, isn’t this is how for you? That I’m inside the head, somewhere behind the eyes, and I look out through the eyes, like two windows?

Oh sure. There's an "'Im in here seeing out there" story. The AE of seeing, minus thoughts, is just the imagery and the eyes are assumed.

So where is this exact location in the head

This cannot be found in AE. "Inside the head" cannot be found. "Head" even is just sensations and can't be seen so it's assumed. Only corroborated by a mirror or picture.

[Vivien]

Hi Chris,

This cannot be found in AE. "Inside the head" cannot be found. "Head" even is just sensations and can't be seen so it's assumed. Only corroborated by a mirror or picture.

OK, let’s look into the mirror. :)

Please go and look into the mirror, and look into your eyes.

Is there a place or FELT location inside the head, where the image in the mirror is being looked at from?

As look at the image in the mirror, and focus on the eyes, do you see the looker / seer / I / self there?

As you stand there, is there anything that is separate from what is seen?

Are the sensations separate from the seen (image)?

Are the sounds that are present separate from the sensations and the image?

Are thoughts separate from the sounds, sensations and the image?

Or all part of experience (sensations, colors, shapes, sounds, thoughts, tastes, smells) are not actually parts, but rather one and whole, with not division between them?

Vivien

[DoctahL]

Is there a place or FELT location inside the head, where the image in the mirror is being looked at from?

No place can be seen or felt inside the head to be the "looking point." There's a learned story there but the experience is just that there is an immediate image present.

As look at the image in the mirror, and focus on the eyes, do you see the looker / seer / I / self there?

All that can be seen is black in the pupils. Nobody in there with goggles on, waving out. Nothing that would constitute a "self".

As you stand there, is there anything that is separate from what is seen?

No. There is the mirror with the image of the face and torso and there is an extension of that image "in front of" the mirror including the arms and hands but it is also just a part of the seen image as a whole. nothing separate. Just what is seen with no apparent boundary of someone "in there" seeing it.

Are the sensations separate from the seen (image)?

Um what!? The sensations present, say, in the hands on the sink, are known just as the image is known. There appears to be nothing that separates the "knowing" of these.

Are the sounds that are present separate from the sensations and the image

All happening simultaneously in one experience. No found boundary anywhere.

Are thoughts separate from the sounds, sensations and the image?

Nothing apparently separate! Attention may focus on one but they all arise as one experience! Far out!

Or all part of experience (sensations, colors, shapes, sounds, thoughts, tastes, smells) are not actually parts, but rather one and whole, with not division between them?

They can't be separated except by way of thoughts telling a story. All are present and flowing as one experience.

Starting to see what is meant by "flow of experience". The experience is in constant variation but always as one thing happening.

So there is just the experience. Always changing. So is this what they mean by "Gateless Gate"? Moving from a place of belief in "Personhood" i.e. "the thinker, doer, seer etc..." into a recognition of just BEING the knowing of experience?

[Vivien]

Hi Chris,

So there is just the experience. Always changing. So is this what they mean by "Gateless Gate"? Moving from a place of belief in "Personhood" i.e. "the thinker, doer, seer etc..." into a recognition of just BEING the knowing of experience?

But isn’t saying that ‘just BEING the knowing of experience’ is still about a self or an I, just in a subtle form?

What is it that could BE the knowing of experience?

Do you see the subtle desire for identification? To identify as being the knowing of experience”?

So what is it that needs an identity?

Are there 3 things there:
- the BEING
- the knowing
- experience?

How many of these are actually there? 3? 2? 1? None?

Vivien

[DoctahL]

But isn’t saying that ‘just BEING the knowing of experience’ is still about a self or an I, just in a subtle form?

Ok. yes.

What is it that could BE the knowing of experience?

Nothing has been found that could BE the knowing of experience.

Do you see the subtle desire for identification? To identify as being the knowing of experience”?

Yes. Some "thing" to grab onto.

So what is it that needs an identity?

Outside of thoughts, there's nothing.

Are there 3 things there:
- the BEING
- the knowing
- experience?

There's nothing found BEING anything...that is to say nothing found primary to then BE something secondary.

And there is no found boundary between experience and the knowing of it. (Tried to pinpoint "awareness" without "experience" and there doesn't seem any way. Experience is always on in one form or another and if it's not, there doesn't seem any way of knowing).

How many of these are actually there? 3? 2? 1? None?

In the sense that we are using labels, then none...but SOMETHING is happening. Something is always happening so in that respect it's just one thing.

Spent some time with these questions today. Felt a little frustrated honestly.

[Vivien]

Hi Chris,

And there is no found boundary between experience and the knowing of it. (Tried to pinpoint "awareness" without "experience" and there doesn't seem any way. Experience is always on in one form or another and if it's not, there doesn't seem any way of knowing).

Exactly! And this is very important, and needs to be seen lots of times to really sink in. Since sometimes it SEEMS as if there were an independent awareness. And from this it’s just a small jump to say “I am awareness’.

In the sense that we are using labels, then none...but SOMETHING is happening. Something is always happening so in that respect it's just one thing.

Yes. And for the sake of our conversation, we can label this ‘one thing happening’ as experience or existence.

Spent some time with these questions today. Felt a little frustrated honestly.

And what is this frustration about?
Is there something that is not totally clear?
Or feeling that something is missing?
Is there any doubt?

Vivien

[DoctahL]

And what is this frustration about?

Um. Thoughts trying to reconcile...how awareness and experience can be one thing. How present experience is possible. Thoughts are trying to grab onto something. Hard to explain. Thinking got painted into a corner when you asked what could BE the knowing of experience.

There's one experience happening that's always changing. There's a perspective here but it's automatic and effortless. Everything is accounted for with the body and nothing separate is at the center in charge of it including thinking. Thoughts just did not know what to do with that. Did not compute. There were thoughts about being stuck. Probably just believed that at that moment. Really there's just nowhere else to look.

Story about "me and my...etc...job, fam, history" popped up throughout the day but it's not taken seriously now. Starting to see the story will still go on but that's ok. Thoughts doing what they do.

Is this really that simple? Nothing separate running the show? Just beliefs getting seen through?

I think this is sinking in. LOL "I" think!

Is there something that is not totally clear?

Gonna keep looking into all the senses being one thing (which is pretty trippy) and experience and the knowing of it being one thing. But seeing there is just a piece of "life" so to speak, expressing itself as this body/mind/perspective without any separate "self" controlling all of it, is seen.

Or feeling that something is missing?

Experience being the knowing of it might need some further investigation. It's just got thoughts spinning in circles.

Is there any doubt?

No. No doubt. Just a desire to see everything clearly.

If it's just the recognition that everything is happening without a separate doer or thinker or feeler that we're after...then that is seen. It seems kinda crazy that that never got put together before. Not really seeing "everything as one" perfectly clearly but that might be an expectation.