advaita vedanta lead me to solipsism - please help!

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

Nothing precedes intention. Intention is another name for thought and appears as such.

Yes, but the question was about something else.

Make an intention about something (like intending to stand up, walk, do the dishes, put something aside, etc.), but before you do that, check out if you can know in advance what the intention will be, BEFORE the thought of it arise.
So?

I’ll report back on the truth of this later today. Gonna see if I can find a mind...

Yes. Please look very thoroughly. Make sure that you have shred of doubt left with your reply.

Vivien

[robbiemac]

Morning Vivien,

Make an intention about something (like intending to stand up, walk, do the dishes, put something aside, etc.), but before you do that, check out if you can know in advance what the intention will be, BEFORE the thought of it arise.
So?

I can honestly say that I have no idea what intention is coming or when it is coming. Whatever comes comes as and when it comes. There is no ‘making’ an intention, as such. Before the intention arrives there is just nothing.

Yes. Please look very thoroughly. Make sure that you have shred of doubt left with your reply.

I can’t find a mind. I used to believe that the mind created thought and triggered action. But I see that thoughts and actions come from nowhere. Sure, sometimes they seem to converge. But they originate from nowhere. There is no mind.

Does this make any sense?!!

RM

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

Does this make any sense?!!

Absolutely!

Is it totally clear then that there is mind outside of words that speak of one?
That there is no mind independent of thoughts are that imagined to come from a mind?

Previously you wrote:

Then, I wonder what the mind (which I feel to be a basket of thoughts anyway) creates dreams with!

So is there a creator of dreams?

And do thoughts have any origins?
Or all that we can say that at one moment a thought is there, and in the next it isn’t? Can anything else to be said about thoughts?

Vivien

[robbiemac]

Hi,

Is it totally clear then that there is mind outside of words that speak of one?
That there is no mind independent of thoughts are that imagined to come from a mind?

Yes this is clear.

Previously you wrote:
Then, I wonder what the mind (which I feel to be a basket of thoughts anyway) creates dreams with!
So is there a creator of dreams?

There isn’t a creator of dreams. The content of dreams appears as thoughts (pictures and words) do. Some of it seems to share its contents with aspects of the waking state. But some of it is ‘fresh’ - for instance people and environments appear that have never been experienced in waking. Just an observation and something I’m curious about.

And do thoughts have any origins?
Or all that we can say that at one moment a thought is there, and in the next it isn’t? Can anything else to be said about thoughts?

They don’t originate from anywhere. Or you could say that they come from nowhere. There is no thinker of thoughts. But the nature of the content interests me. And why wouldn’t it?! Their nature can feel like ‘my’ predominant experience!

RM

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

The content of dreams appears as thoughts (pictures and words) do. Some of it seems to share its contents with aspects of the waking state. But some of it is ‘fresh’ - for instance people and environments appear that have never been experienced in waking. Just an observation and something I’m curious about.

All explanation would just speculation. This is something unknown.

Now let’s go back looking at control.

Is there anything that does not happen automatically?

Is there anything that needs your doing? Or everything is just happening?

What do you do in order to be?

What do you do in order to see?
What do you do in order to hear?
What do you do in order to feel?
What do you do in order to taste and smell?

What do you do for thoughts to be?

What do you do in order for the body to be?

Please investigate each questions thoroughly many times throughout the day.
Let me know what you find.

Vivien

[robbiemac]

Hi Vivien,

Is there anything that does not happen automatically?

It seems to me that all things happen automatically. I have been trying to find something that doesn't and I have failed!

Is there anything that needs your doing? Or everything is just happening?

There is nothing that needs my doing.

What do you do in order to be?

Nothing.

What do you do in order to see?

Nothing.

What do you do in order to hear?

Nothing.

What do you do in order to feel?

Nothing.

What do you do in order to taste and smell?

Nothing.

What do you do for thoughts to be?

Nothing.

What do you do in order for the body to be?

Nothing.

What to say? I don't know! Everything just happens without me. But I am still central to the experience of all this happening that is going on. I may be 'nothing' but this 'nothing' is still conscious and sentient - almost beholden and subject to anyTHIING and everyTHING that is just happening. It's weird!

RM

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

What to say? I don't know! Everything just happens without me. But I am still central to the experience of all this happening that is going on. I may be 'nothing' but this 'nothing' is still conscious and sentient - almost beholden and subject to anyTHIING and everyTHING that is just happening. It's weird!

We can look into that tomorrow.

But for now, let me give you more specific exercises on decision.

Look very-very closely during the day, when decision seemingly happens (almost every minute). Then you’ll have plenty of opportunity to observe what is really going on.

Pay very close attention to thoughts. Decision seemingly happens in thoughts. Look very carefully how thoughts about a chooser, or choice or decision appear.

For example, when you sit in front of your computer, how is the decision made when to move the hands to type?
How is the decision is made which finger to move when typing?
How is the decision exactly made what to type?

When finished, just sit there. And see if there is a decision to sit there a bit longer, or to stand up to do something else.
How is the decision made to stay sit or to stand up?
What is making the decision to stand up?

When eating, observe very carefully. How is it chosen which piece of food to put onto the fork and eat next?
How is it decided EXACTLY to choose the next piece of food (or whatever is on the plate) to be the next?
What is the ‘thing’ that is making the decision about the next piece of food?

When driving, observer very carefully how the decision is exactly made to turn left or right?
When braking, how is the decision made to press the brake pedal?

When dressing up, how is the decision made what clothes to choose?
Observe the movements of dressing up. How is the decision made when to lift the arms or legs, and which clothes to put on first?
What is making the decision? - Find the location

When showering and towelling, how the decision is made where to move the hands, and in which sequence towel the body?

When shopping in a supermarket, observe the thought processes how the decision is made which line to go in?

Let me know what you find.

Vivien

[robbiemac]

Hi Vivien,

I’m sorry but I am frustrated. I have tried and tried all day to work out what is going on with every decision. I will try some more tomorrow but for now it is a mess.

Mostly there is never a decision. Not even a thought. But then I remember (a thought from nowhere) your instructions (‘I’ wake up to them) and this is how it goes...

The thought comes... Why is that piece of food on the end of my fork? Was there a choice involved? No. Was there a chooser/decider? No. Are you going to eat this piece of food? Possibility. Why this piece and not another piece? I don’t know. No, I’m going to eat another piece instead. I’ll take this other piece of food.... And then the hand uses the fork to pick up the other piece of food and the body does the rest.

What is this? I can accept that the everything just happens until there is the thought appearing from nowhere ‘I can use this opportunity to investigate the decider in this process’ and at this point a decider appears. Then there are thoughts/choices, decisions that are made and actions that are taken.

In these instances, have I decided? Yes. Is there an I? Yes. Wherever ‘I’ am alive to the process of decision making, I am present. I am aware of my thoughts. And I choose which thought to act on. Which means I may not be the thoughts but I am the body choosing which thoughts to act upon.

I am never my thoughts but occasionally (when awake/alive/present/conscious etc etc) I am the one who decides which one to act out. It is the way all these processes go and I am only fooling myself into believing otherwise.

One more example... I am driving along... no thought related to the action of driving. And then the satellite navigation system wants me to turn right. I ‘wakes’ up from the ‘happening’ and the thought appears ‘the satnav could be wrong, should I stay on the road until the next turning?’. And another thought ‘yes, I will stay on the road until the next turning.’. I turn right at the next turning and the thought appears ‘why did you override the satnav and who overrode the satnav?’.

As I said, it is a mess. I am not here most of the time but I am very much here for moments of it and very much so in those moments that require me to investigate. It is very unclear right now.

RM

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

This is going to be long reply. Please read it many-many times, and stay with it for days. Really look.

I’m sorry but I am frustrated.

Where is the one who is frustrated?
What is it exactly that frustration happens TO?
What is FEELING frustrated?
Is the thought ‘I am frustrated’ frustrated?
Or is the contracted sensations are frustrated?

What is this? I can accept that the everything just happens

But seeing that there is no doer and decider doesn’t depend on the acceptance of an imaginary self, called Robbie.
Robbie’s acceptance or lack of appendance has nothing to do with SEEING that there is NO REAL Robbie making things happen.

Can Batman accept that he is just a fictional character, therefore he doesn’t make things happen?

Seeing no control is not about seeing that “I don’t do anything”… rather it’s a discovery that there is no I whatsoever, who could do anything at all.

There is no control not because I don’t have control, but because there is no I to have control in the first place.

until there is the thought appearing from nowhere ‘I can use this opportunity to investigate the decider in this process’ and at this point a decider appears.

If you REALLY see that thoughts happens from nowhere, then how can a decider appear?
And what FORM is this decider appear?
Is it a sound? Color? Sensation? Taste? Smell? Or it’s just an imagination?

Then there are thoughts/choices, decisions that are made and actions that are taken.

Yes, there are thoughts, decisions and actions. We are not denying that.

The question is rather there is SOMEONE thinking?
Someone deciding?
Someone acting?

It’s not about whether there are thoughts, choices, decisions or actions.
Rather if there is thinker, chooser, decider, doer, actor.

In these instances, have I decided? Yes. Is there an I? Yes. Wherever ‘I’ am alive to the process of decision making, I am present. I am aware of my thoughts. And I choose which thought to act on.

You are mixing the everyday language about an I and nondual expression of “I am that which is aware”.
This is exactly why I find the “I am awareness” pointer misleading and sometimes causing more harm than good.

Just because there is an awareness of thoughts of decision, it doesn’t not follow that “I am awareness”.
It doesn’t even follow that there is an I.
It’s just simply that there is an awareness of thoughts of decision. Period.
But without an I.

Awareness is not an independent entity standing apart from the ‘aware-d’ (from what is happening).
Just because there is an awareness of something, it doesn’t mean that there is an independent awareness in the background.
As long as awareness being imagined to be an entity observing, noticing and being aware, the self illusion is active just hiding under the cloak of an awareness.

I am aware of my thoughts. And I choose which thought to act on.

This is exactly the mixture of the two beliefs.

There is no I to be aware of thought. Rather, there is an awareness of thought, or more precisely the KNOWING of thoughts, but NO knower.

The problem comes from the misunderstanding of the word ‘awareness’. Since it’s NOT a noun, knowing is a verb.
There is no nouns… only verbs (knowing happening).
I am aware of my thoughts. And I choose which thought to act on.
So you personify awareness and equate with an I, with an entity, who does things.
First, it is aware, and then it chooses which thought to act on.
But ultimately, this is still the belief in the self. Just now masquerading with an identify as being awareness, but the same entity.

And I choose which thought to act on. Which means I may not be the thoughts but I am the body choosing which thoughts to act upon.

Robbie, there is no I whatsoever. Period.

There is no I as thought.
There is no I as a body.
There is no I as an awareness.
There is no I. Period.

There is only what is happening, and the knowing of it.
But even the what is happening and the knowing of it are not two separate things.
They are the same.
What is happening = knowing

I am never my thoughts but occasionally

But there is no I whatsoever to be or not be thoughts.
Let this really sink in.

It doesn’t matter if I = thoughts, or I not = thoughts, because there is no I in the first place.

I am never my thoughts but occasionally (when awake/alive/present/conscious etc etc) I am the one who decides which one to act out.

There is only ever the knowing (verb) of what is happening.
But you personify this knowing (verb) and make it into a noun (knower – awareness).
And then you dress up this personified noun into a decider and a doer.
So the loop is closed. Since it’s the same story as being a person, called Robbie.
You are still in the same loop. But instead of believing the me being Robbie, you now believe it to be awareness.
The same belief, only the label has changed.

It is the way all these processes go and I am only fooling myself into believing otherwise.

That’s the good part.. that you are willing to be radically honest with yourself.

I am driving along...

If the I were awareness, then this is a false statement.

Is awareness driving alone?

And then the satellite navigation system wants me to turn right.

Is the GPS wants awareness to turn right?

I ‘wakes’ up from the ‘happening’ and the thought appears ‘the satnav could be wrong, should I stay on the road until the next turning?’.

So what makes this thought appear?
What is it that first created and then thought this thought?

Is there anything that created and then thought this thought? Or the thought just appeared on its own, to no-one, and done by no-one? Just as raining isn’t done by anyone?

And another thought ‘yes, I will stay on the road until the next turning.’.

And what made this thought to appear?
Or maybe this thought is also just appeared on its own, to no-one, done by no-one? Just as a tree grows without a grower?

I turn right at the next turning and the thought appears ‘why did you override the satnav and who overrode the satnav?’.

And was there someone deciding in advance to think this thought?
Or this thought also appeared out of the blue, unasked, unmade by anyone, just as waves of the sea happens automatically and spontaneously, without done by a waver?

Vivien

[robbiemac]

Hi Vivien,

Where is the one who is frustrated?

All that can be said about the whereabouts is that whoever or whatever experiences/knows the frustration is here.

What is it exactly that frustration happens to?

I don't really know. There is the thought 'I don't see this and it's frustrating' which coincides with the sensation of contraction. They are experienced. Or known. Perhaps it is best to say that the experience of frustration is known. At that moment, perhaps I could have known this as just a thought and a sensation. I mean if you look at it closely... there is just a thought and a sensation. 'I' am neither of these. But there is an experience of them. To who or what? I cannot really answer. To whatever makes this what it is. Whatever is always present now.

What is FEELING frustrated?

There isn't really anything FEELING frustrated I guess. There is just the thought and the sensation. They are experienced as 'frustration'. Or are they?! It is difficult to answer these questions!! FEELING frustrated could in fact be just a belief. There is no FEELING of frustration. There is the experience of the thought and the sensation. I am repeating myself a lot, sorry. Anyway, the FEELING of frustration is an idea that relates to another idea - that of Robbie. You see the FEELING is a belief/thought that is not perhaps an accurate representation of the experience - thought and sensation. And WHAT is FEELING frustrated? Robbie or the notion of Robbie but could this again be a belief? Why? Because of the temporal nature of every single component part of Robbie. It feels as though ever-presence is the only ever-presence. Okay, that sounds weird. But if 'I' was to be one thing - it would be this ever-presence. I'm going off track and I don't know how I ended up doing so but I am 'thinking' in realtime!

Is the thought ‘I am frustrated’ frustrated?

No.

Or is the contracted sensations are frustrated?

No.

But seeing that there is no doer and decider doesn’t depend on the acceptance of an imaginary self, called Robbie.
Robbie’s acceptance or lack of appendance has nothing to do with SEEING that there is NO REAL Robbie making things happen.

I am not sure I entirely understand this. There is no one to see that there is no doer or decider? Doing and deciding are just actions and thoughts? They 'belong' to the notion of Robbie which is an idea founded upon a story/belief/idea about thoughts, sensations and perceptions that appear. In fact, it is only when they are united that thought tries to make sense of them by attributing them to a person. I mean, if we look at them all independently, the idea that they appear to a person falls apart right? Each object means nothing on its own. Again, I am thinking realtime so bear with me, please! I don't know why I keep coming back to experience but here I am again... the only thing that is ever 'always' and 'here' is this ever-presence. Everything else comes and goes. Sometimes, there is a thought and sometimes a thought about a thought. There are beliefs and ideas. They are only appearances in what is 'always' and 'here'. I'll keep going for a moment... it seems there are many many objects that appear and sometimes they appear in quick succession followed by the thought of an owner Robbie who is not always 'present'. Certainly not in the way I presumed. Anyway, I'm rambling. Have I understood your original statement?

Can Batman accept that he is just a fictional character, therefore he doesn’t make things happen?

There is no Batman to accept that he is a fictional character. There is only the knowledge of the objective elements that bring about the idea (another object) of a Batman. Can this be right? In other words, there is no control because he (Batman) does not exist as an entity in his own right. In the same way, 'I' do not have control because the very notion of Robbie does not exist. It is not so much seeing that 'I' as Robbie does not have control but seeing that 'I' as Robbie does not exist.

Vivien - I should add that I have looked at these last 2 statements/questions of yours time and time again without really grasping them. So I may be on completely the wrong track but whatever... it has been quite a ride trying to work through them!

Seeing no control is not about seeing that “I don’t do anything”… rather it’s a discovery that there is no I whatsoever, who could do anything at all.

There is no control not because I don’t have control, but because there is no I to have control in the first place

Haha. You know I read all of this a couple of times and then I find an hour or two to go through them sequentially. Oddly, I didn't remember having read these statements as I wrote the above comments. But they must have triggered something!

If you REALLY see that thoughts happens from nowhere, then how can a decider appear?

I really see that a decider is a thought that makes a temporary appearance.

And what FORM is this decider appear?

Only in thought-form but a decider doesn't really exist.

Is it a sound? Color? Sensation? Taste? Smell? Or it’s just an imagination?

It is imagination. Another thought appearing.

The question is rather there is SOMEONE thinking?
Someone deciding?
Someone acting?

No there are thoughts and actions 'appearing' and the decider and doer appear as thoughts too.

It doesn’t matter if I = thoughts, or I not = thoughts, because there is no I in the first place.

Can we say then that there is just here and now?

Is awareness driving alone?

No, there is a body doing what it does.

Is the GPS wants awareness to turn right?

No, the GPS makes an instruction.

So what makes this thought appear?

Nothing makes it appear. It just does.

What is it that first created and then thought this thought?

Nothing created it or thought it. It just appears.

Or maybe this thought is also just appeared on its own, to no-one, done by no-one? Just as a tree grows without a grower?

Yes. An appearance here and now. As any thought always is. In fact, as anyTHING always is.

And was there someone deciding in advance to think this thought?

No. There is no one deciding in advance to think this thought. There is no one as such. Just a series of things appearing as and when they appear. Such as the notion of an 'I' which is a story about a collection of objects.

Or this thought also appeared out of the blue, unasked, unmade by anyone, just as waves of the sea happens automatically and spontaneously, without done by a waver?

Sure. This is it. What to say..?

So where am 'I' at? There is just here and now. Things appearing here and now, including thoughts about how they appear and whom they appear to. Can this be right? Hmmmmm...

'I' have swapped the 'I' for here and now. The 'I' doesn't exist. There is just here and now and everything passing through it. Can this be right? Some of the thoughts especially about the 'I' are so repetitive. They may be just thoughts but the nature of them (speculation you say!) is compelling. To whom though? No one. Just an idea/story (and therefore thought) of an 'I'. It's all just appearance after appearance and thoughts (appearances in themselves) relating to appearances. Really?? Although the 'I' is now seen as a notion, there is still some dualism there...

Where to next Vivien? The previous message exercises you sent? Unless you tell me otherwise, I will look at those over the weekend.

RM

[Vivien]

Hi Robbie,

Please read my comment very carefully again and again.

ll that can be said about the whereabouts is that whoever or whatever experiences/knows the frustration is here.

But how do you know that there is someone or something standing apart from experience knowing it?

Knowing is happening, yes.
But is there someone separate, knowing what is going on?
Or knowing is inherent in experience itself?

At that moment, perhaps I could have known this as just a thought and a sensation. I mean if you look at it closely... there is just a thought and a sensation. 'I' am neither of these. But there is an experience of them. To who or what? I cannot really answer. To whatever makes this what it is. Whatever is always present now.

Knowing is happening. But based on this, you imagine that there is someone or something experiencing or knowing what is happening.
But there is nothing separate from the here-and-now experience.

It feels as though ever-presence is the only ever-presence.
You are personalizing this ever-presence.
This is a belief in separation.
That there is something separate from experience, which is always here BUT separate from everything that is happening.
And this separate entity is just passively watching what is happening.

But what if there is nobody and nothing being separate from experience, watching it?
What if experience itself is self-aware? Or in other words, knowing is inherent experience itself? Without a separate knower / subject?

I am not sure I entirely understand this. There is no one to see that there is no doer or decider?

Exactly! There is no watcher/noticer/knower standing apart from the appearance of doing and deciding, thus there is no entity/knower/noticer to recognize that there is no doer and decider.

Knowing and experience are not two things. They are the one and the same.

Doing and deciding are just actions and thoughts? They 'belong' to the notion of Robbie which is an idea founded upon a story/belief/idea about thoughts, sensations and perceptions that appear.

Exactly.

the only thing that is ever 'always' and 'here' is this ever-presence. Everything else comes and goes.

This is a logical mistake.

What is always here is experience itself. And knowing is an inherent characteristic of this ever-changing experience.
There is no separate ever-presence being here, which is observing the changing experience.
There is no split between the two.
Since there is no two.

What you call ever-presence = the changing experience itself

They are only appearances in what is 'always' and 'here'.

But what if thoughts are not appearances IN what is always here?
What if ‘what is always here’ is the ever-changing experience itself?
Including thoughts ABOUT an separate ever-presence?

V: Seeing no control is not about seeing that “I don’t do anything”… rather it’s a discovery that there is no I whatsoever, who could do anything at all.
There is no control not because I don’t have control, but because there is no I to have control in the first place

R: Haha. You know I read all of this a couple of times and then I find an hour or two to go through them sequentially. Oddly, I didn't remember having read these statements as I wrote the above comments. But they must have triggered something!

It seems that you have a big resistance to it. I mentioned these same statements when we talked last time. And then you asked me to repeat it. Do you remember?

There is just here and now. Things appearing here and now, including thoughts about how they appear and whom they appear to. Can this be right? Hmmmmm...

Yes, there is just here and now.
But are things + here-and-now mean two different things?
Or they are pointing to the SAME happening, just using different words?
Is the 'here-now' something different than the appearing things?

'I' have swapped the 'I' for here and now. The 'I' doesn't exist. There is just here and now and everything passing through it. Can this be right?

If you swap the I for here-and-now, then it’s still the same belief. Still a belief in an entity.
You personalize this here-now, as if it were an I, the subject of experience.

But experience has no subjects, just as no objects.
There is only experience, without subject and object.
There is no division. There is no separation.

It's all just appearance after appearance and thoughts (appearances in themselves) relating to appearances. Really??

Really!! This is all there is.
The ever-changing experience which is self-aware, or knowing itself.
But there is no knower + the known.
There is only experience.
And this ever-present experience is constantly changing.

Vivien

[robbiemac]

Hi Vivien,

Thank you for your time earlier.

But how do you know that there is someone or something standing apart from experience knowing it?

I don't. There is a presumption that: for something to be known there must be a knower knowing it.

But is there someone separate, knowing what is going on?

Not a someone as such. But I had felt a knower (yes, separate) to know what is known.

Or knowing is inherent in experience itself?

This is difficult to agree with because it undermines the subject-object relationship. An idea, belief etc that has been long held! But why not? It is less conceptual and more experientially accurate perhaps.

But what if there is nobody and nothing being separate from experience, watching it?

I can agree that there is nobody separate from experience. I can also agree that I cannot find any 'place' from which experience is seen.

What if experience itself is self-aware? Or in other words, knowing is inherent experience itself? Without a separate knower / subject?

Yes, I can see this.

But what if thoughts are not appearances IN what is always here?

Again, one and the same. Could it be that thoughts don't actually appear in anything? In fact, 'here and now' is a conceptualisation? Could it be an idea? It is easy to see that references to the past and future are appearances in the present and that only the present is? But perhaps this isn't quite true either. There is just appearances and the idea that they appear in any dimension of time is just that, an idea.

What if ‘what is always here’ is the ever-changing experience itself?

Yes! 'Here and now' is downstream of appearances. I believed it to be a frame/backdrop for experience - which is highly conceptual. But it feels as though 'here and now' are the inherent qualities of knowing which is one with appearances. In other words, 'here and now' is not quite what I believed it to be. There is no 'here and now' in the conceptual context of time. Rather, 'here and now' is an inherent part of knowing which is one with appearances. Hmmmm... I think I may getting a bit lost!!

Including thoughts ABOUT an separate ever-presence?

Yeah, thoughts about a separate ever-presence are just that... thoughts. I was reaching for a subject to explain the objects. But I have been unable to find a subject, as such. This means there are no objects either. There is just 'appearances' at one with this 'knowing' of them. And they are one and the same because there is no appearance without the knowing of it and there is no knowing without any appearances. And whatever we want to call this is always here and now. It does not take place IN here and now. Rather here and now is this too.

But are things + here-and-now mean two different things?
Or they are pointing to the SAME happening, just using different words?
Is the 'here-now' something different than the appearing things?

Appearances, the knowing of them, and here and now are codependent elements. To say this is probably inaccurate but you can understand what I am pointing to? But do we even need 'here and now'? The phrase points to there being something other than this which is entirely conceptual. So maybe there is no need for 'here and now'. Appearances and the knowing of them is all that is. In fact, the word appearance presumes a knowing. So we could reduce it further to say that there is just - appearance. Hahahahahahah... goodness I don't know... I am just firing out some contemplations!!!

Just to refresh...it was the impermanence of all appearances that undermined the notion of a Robbie. It left me with the idea of 'knowing' as a loose subject and a sort of personification of this 'knowing'. I have been unable to find this 'knowing' as a separate subject but it is common in all appearances. In fact, there is no appearance without knowing and there is no knowing without appearance. Appearance and knowing are one and the same. The very nature of appearance is the knowing of it. All that is... is appearance/experience. Meaning that 'I' am everyTHING?

This makes sense but it is a conceptual understanding only. I don't look at my computer and feel it to be 'me'!!!

Thanks for all.

RM

[Vivien]

Hi Bjorn,

The five senses and the mind (the activity of thinking).

There is an experience of the ‘activity of thinking’?? Are you sure?

How do you experience of the ACTIVITY of thinking? Is there really such thing as ‘activity’?
Or there are only thoughts appearing one by one, but no actually activity going on?

If there were an ‘activity of thinking’ then there must be a thinker.
So what is the experience of a thinker?

The five senses and the mind (the activity of thinking). Just because it’s not always real or true

You say that not ALWAYS REAL…

Is there any moment when a thought content is real?
Tell a thought, any thought that ever has a real content?

I used the word knowing as a synonym for awareness.

But mind cannot be known. The mind can only be imagined or thought of. But it has no reality.
Mind is just a fiction, a myth.

Can you see that there is no such thing as a mind? That it’s just an invented fictional thing?

I don’t experience mind. I experience thinking

Are you sure that you experience thinking?
Thinking is an act, a doing.

So if there is an experience of thinking, then you have to be able to OBSERVE the PROCESS or the ACT of thinking itself. Not the thoughts themselves, but the ACT of thinking.

So what is the experience of the ACT of thinking?

Can you see that experience = color, sound, smell, taste, sensation, nothing else?

Vivien

[Vivien]

Ohh, sorry, I sent you a wrong message. I meant that to someone else :) just ignore it.

But here is yours:

This makes sense but it is a conceptual understanding only. I don't look at my computer and feel it to be 'me'!!!

Of course you don’t :) You will never FEEL to be a computer :) since seeing that there is no separation is not a feeling. It’s a recognition of being a fact of reality.

You replied quite fast after we talked. So I would like to ask you to stay with these pointers for a few more days. We are at a point where you don’t have to reply daily, but investigate daily. These are deeper waters, so please be thorough.

Just stay with these questions and marinate in them :)

I stent you a message on skype about two methods of investigating emotions.

Vivien

[robbiemac]

Hi Vivien,

I understand. Actually, I use my 'reply-time' as the opportunity to marinate!! So I use this forum as the opportunity to put down my contemplations and review them again and again. Please do not feel the need to reply to each and every one!

But how do you know that there is someone or something standing apart from experience knowing it?

I don't. This has been presumed. For something to be known there must be separate knower. A belief. Experientially disproved. I cannot find a knower. I cannot find I.

But is there someone separate, knowing what is going on?

There is no separate knower. Knowing is what is going on as one with appearances.

Or knowing is inherent in experience itself?

Yes, one and the same.

But what if there is nobody and nothing being separate from experience, watching it?

Agreed. There is no subject-object because there is no subject to be found. Experience and watching/knowing are one and the same.

What if experience itself is self-aware? Or in other words, knowing is inherent experience itself? Without a separate knower / subject?

Yes, I can see this clearly now.

But what if thoughts are not appearances IN what is always here?

Can we say that thoughts are part of what is always here? The appearing and knowing elements to them are one and the same. They are not seen by anyone from anywhere. So can we say that the nature of thoughts is this appearing and knowing as one?

But as with yesterday, I am not sure I agree with this idea of here anyway. It implies a there. So perhaps we should just say that thoughts just are and their appearance is one with inherent knowing.

What if ‘what is always here’ is the ever-changing experience itself?

Yes! 'Here and now' is a retrospective conceptual framework that implies a 'there' and a 'past and future'. This is false. What is is. I guess I needed to frame the appearances in time and space. But in this 'new seeing'... time and space feel downstream of what is. They are thoughts and ideas about what is.

Including thoughts ABOUT an separate ever-presence?

'Ever-presence' is also a conceptualisation. It was used to explain a subject-object relationship which is not as it is. It has been collapsed. Knowing is one with appearances.

But are things + here-and-now mean two different things?

Here and now is the framework used to describe the appearance of things. As above, it feels to be conceptual. There are just appearances appearing.

Or they are pointing to the SAME happening, just using different words?

Yes, you could say this I suppose. But I would suggest they do not even feature in the way I believed them to. They feel like a conceptual overlay or byproduct of simply what is. The moment we step into words like 'here and now' we move away from what is and into division. It's funny!! A few days ago, I need these words to prop up 'me' up. Now, they feel false. Hmmm....!

Is the 'here-now' something different than the appearing things?

I think I have said enough on 'here and now' for today, sorry! But I will take a stab at describing yesterday's contemplations more succinctly...

Really, there are just appearances. The word 'appearance' suggests a knowing. I presumed this knowing to be me, then it shifted to this ever-presence or here-and-now. Now, it is seen that appearances and knowing are one, and there is just appearances. Ever-presence, here-and-now and 'me' are all misunderstandings (thoughts) on what is.

Thanks for all.

RM