Not an arising

[Molly]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
The fact that, when you look, 'a person' can't be found. There are arisings such as thoughts, sensations, images. The distinction between 'me' and 'not me', or inside and outside, must be an error because each arises in the same way, they are 'equally known' - one isn't known better or more personally eg whether my leg or chairleg.

What are you looking for at LU?
Despite the above, it continues to appear as if experience is divided into the categories 'me' and 'not me' - sometimes less so, sometimes more so. Oh, now there's the thought ☝️ is also just a thought - experience isn't actually showing a division into me and not me! Thinking is just stating so! That means nothing is ever known if it's always just another thought? More thinking. It would be great to chat if guides have the time, many thanks.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
There's a thought now questioning why this communication continues when it is seen that everything is just another thought, including the thought that something needs to be done, which must be believed for this request to be written. But what does 'believed' even mean? Language doesn't work - expressed through language.
First there were some posts by Vivian I read that were so direct and clear, then 'The Gateless Gatecrashers' - remarkably direct - it would be great to interact in this way.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
The reading of non dual texts and inquiry for more than 2 years since an abrupt, hard-hitting message that all there is is the Now.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?
10

[Vivien]

Hi,

Welcome to Liberation Unleashed. My name is Vivien and I can assist you with your inquiry.

This is going to be your inquiry. I will not be giving you new ideas and beliefs; only assisting you in examining and questioning the ones that you already have. We can have a conversation and see where it takes you.

The purpose of which would be for there to be a realisation, more than just intellectually, that there never was and never will be a separate self, as, such. All our efforts will focus on that.

I will tend to ask many questions. That's my job here. These, will be pointers towards investigating that what it is that you mistake for a self. It will be for you to examine your experience to find out what's true or not.

I would like to ask you to write only from your experience as you see it, what feels true, with whole honesty.
And also post daily. If you cannot post, or need more time, please let me know.
Can we agree on these?

When you say, you want to be guided to realise that there is no self, what do you expect that this realisation should look like?
What benefits do you expect from seeing no self?
What would stay the same?
What you do not want to happen?

Please look at these and reply with some detail and full honestly.

Vivien

[Molly]

Fantastic, many thanks for writing Vivien! 😁

When you say, you want to be guided to realise that there is no self, what do you expect that this realisation should look like?

The more looking that happens, the clearer it is that the content of thoughts literally say one thing, which, when checked in experience, isn't at all the case. Looking happens anyway, it's a story that has momentum in it to look, there's a pull to look. Then reading some of your guidance material, Vivien, it seemed to sculpt the looking that was happening, made it really precise like a surgeon, this is great!
In answer to your question, there isn't an expectation any more of what realisation would look like - just to have more of this ☝️ would be great!

What benefits do you expect from seeing no self?

The truth will not change because there already is no self, so in terms of truth there's nothing to benefit. Thoughts of relief used to come up about this - in a way it's an intellectual knowing that you're already home and dry no matter what appearances say!
To be truth knowingly, in terms of experience, it's a beautiful thought - but nowadays there's a good deal of caution around thoughts of any shape or size!

What would stay the same?

Yesterday, something you wrote in someone else's guidance about space or location, started an inquiry which resulted in noticing that the 'outline' of the body shape, which made it seem separate from other visual colours around it, isn't actually there in direct experience - there's no line, there's just colour next to colour without barrier. Everything looked exactly the same, but for a short time there was the seeing that when looked at this way, there is no body there, there's just colour. Accompanying this, was the thought ''emptiness'.
The relevance of this to your question is that things don't actually change because it already is this way and thought is superimposing its restrictions and labels on top of it. The more looking that happens, the more this thinking and labelling process seems to be seen to be something added on top of what is.

What you do not want to happen?

There is no longer any concern about this.
There used to be a very strong, believed in, reaction of fear to the idea 'I do not exist', which arose initially as a kind of panic to the sudden introduction of this - and would arise after each new seeing to a lesser extent. But nothing arises now when this question is posed.

Lots of thank yous!
Molly

[Molly]

I would like to ask you to write only from your experience as you see it, what feels true, with whole honesty.
And also post daily. If you cannot post, or need more time, please let me know.
Can we agree on these?

Yes for sure, agreed ✅

[Vivien]

Hi Molly,

Fantastic, many thanks for writing Vivien!

You are welcome :)

The more looking that happens, the clearer it is that the content of thoughts literally say one thing, which, when checked in experience, isn't at all the case.

Yes, seeing thoughts clearly is essential.

In answer to your question, there isn't an expectation any more of what realisation would look like - just to have more of this would be great!

And what is it that wants more of this?
Is there someone separate from experience, standing apart, and wanting more?

What does realization or awakening happening TO?

Is there someone that awakens?

The relevance of this to your question is that things don't actually change because it already is this way and thought is superimposing its restrictions and labels on top of it. The more looking that happens, the more this thinking and labelling process seems to be seen to be something added on top of what is.

Yes, exactly. Reality doesn’t change, since reality has always been the way as it is at any moment.

But look carefully, aren’t the labelling thoughts are also part of (or an aspect of) what is happening?
Yes, the content of thoughts add, but aren’t thoughts (as a phenomena) also reality/experience?

The truth will not change because there already is no self, so in terms of truth there's nothing to benefit. Thoughts of relief used to come up about this - in a way it's an intellectual knowing that you're already home and dry no matter what appearances say!
To be truth knowingly, in terms of experience, it's a beautiful thought - but nowadays there's a good deal of caution around thoughts of any shape or size!

Please have a deep (or several deep looks) on the appearance of a self. What do you find?
How does the self/I show up?

Are you saying that you can clearly see it in experience that there is no separate self in a way it was thought of, or you are saying that this is just an intellectual understanding?

How do you see, what is the difference between intellectual understanding and the experiential recognition of it?

Despite the above, it continues to appear as if experience is divided into the categories 'me' and 'not me' - sometimes less so, sometimes more so.

Could you please write a bit more about this? In what way experience is divided into me and not-me?
How does this division appear?

That means nothing is ever known if it's always just another thought?

Just notice the totality of experience. All the colors, sounds, tastes, smells, sensations, and even the appearance of thoughts and mental images (which also thoughts). Even thoughts appear.

Isn’t experience known directly, without any middleman (thought)?

Isn’t the presence of a mental movie directly known?
Isn’t the thought itself “that means nothing is ever known?” directly known?

Does a thought needed to know the present sound or color, or the current sensations?

Vivien

[Molly]

Hello again Vivien,

And what is it that wants more of this?
Is there someone separate from experience, standing apart, and wanting more?

Ok, no, when you look there is never a 'someone separate', 'standing apart' to be found - and there 'can't be' because all there is is arising after arising, equally known, this is experienced, there is never a 'one' seen, standing aside. When you look it's like all there is is being these arisings - eg 'looking at my husband's face' is more like 'being the aliveness of it all', flashing by. But if this were really seen to be true, would there be this interaction now. The story line still pulls when it arises. It says: there used to be a pattern of thinking about a one who was longing, seeking, wanting for something in the future. These no longer arise - future doesn't exist. But now there is 'the one who sees' the overlooker', not in the future - now. Then there is the observation that this 'overlooker' is just a word in this current thought. This often leads to giving up, only to start up again after.

What does realization or awakening happening TO?
Is there someone that awakens?

Realization doesn't actually happen to anyone. There are arisings but there's no 'one to whom they arise'. The feeling that there's a 'noticer' overlooking is a feeling/ thought like other arisings - it's not more intimately known than the other arisings are. Inside the content of thinking, there's a character 'I' who's supposedly getting insights etc. But that character can't be found outside of the thoughts (the image of the body is known just like thoughts are known - it's made of knowing, the mind is just the current thought, the insights are just current arisings- it's all just direct knowing).
So when it is thoroughly seen that this character/ these 'ones' are nothing more than a thought, then the story collapses?

But look carefully, aren’t the labelling thoughts are also part of (or an aspect of) what is happening?

Yes! 100%! Each arising is equal. Hmm this seems different somehow. So, whether it's a 'full of illusion' storyline thought or an image of the plant on the window-sill makes no difference in reality in fact? Yes, all the arisings just come, then are gone - they are all colour, sensation, thought, sound....so in a way thought isn't different from the 5 senses in that it is all just known, just another arising, it shows up like another object shows up, like an image of a car shows up, an image of my leg shows up, an image of my husband's face' shows up, a bird shows up, it's all the same ultimately.

Yes, the content of thoughts add, but aren’t thoughts (as a phenomena) also reality/experience?

Yes, in fact isn't it just each independent arising, unlinked, fresh and new, made of knowing. It arises then it's gone.

Please have a deep (or several deep looks) on the appearance of a self. What do you find?
How does the self/I show up?

The 'supposed separate self' only appears to exist because of language, it is the letter 'I' in the sentence. There have been many 'supposed I identities' - patterns of thinking. Some have dropped away, some are still there but at reduced frequency/ intensity. One is the thought content which claims there is an I that sees, tries (and fails) to understand truth with language. There is no such thing as 'tries', just a slight pushing sensation. Since there is no I to be found, what is 'seeing'? A thought can't see or understand, nor can a picture of a body. But there is something which is always there, always knowing - that is not to do with language, not to do with arisings.

How do you see, what is the difference between intellectual understanding and the experiential recognition of it?

Storyline to demonstrate - the storyline is that, after the sudden, loud and clear message out of the blue 2 years ago, about what is real, (the Now), and what is not real, (a picture of 'me') there wasn't 'a sustained seeing of this truth', but there was an 'intellectual understanding' that was more believed than anything that had been formerly believed - the story goes that a new belief took over- a 'belief' because it was only seen in thought content, not a felt reality. So the story goes that now, sometime later, separation feels less strong because separation is less a felt reality- which is 'the experiential recognition of it'?
But actually the reality is that all there ever 'was' is arisings and all there ever is is arisings, all equally known - nothing's changed - arisings are still just being known, just are - only the content of the arisings have changed.

quote]Are you saying that you can clearly see it in experience that there is no separate self in a way it was thought of, or you are saying that this is just an intellectual understanding?[/quote]

When plain looking, it is clear that there isn't a separate self - each time the image of the body is checked and seen to be not containing a self, just colours joining colours, and labels labelling the parts, which seems more innocent now - it's not like the labelling makes them any more concrete actually, it's just another arising. This does not mean though that a separating-out effect can't seem to come into play, it is never actually directly experienced in itself but if the arisings are frequent and subtle such as 'the observer', it can give that effect until checked and seen to be nothing other than a very repetitive thought pattern arising.

Could you please write a bit more about this? In what way experience is divided into me and not-me?
How does this division appear?

Looking shows that it doesn't appear at all actually....there's just appearance after appearance, each as equally intimately known as the next - now you ask, it actually seems quite odd to speak of it being divided, like a line down the middle of a page. What actually happens is that there is a greater interest in some, those identified as 'me' than those identified as 'not me' and then this energy seems to drive more of the same - and the frequency of the specific 'me' arisings is like 'habit' of specific thinking patterns - it's still only content though - whatever the content there's still only arisings being or being known.

Isn’t experience known directly, without any middleman (thought)?

This is really fantastic, it's true that the totality of experience is just known directly, it is 'being' experience... because what else can be found ever? What is the truth of an I 'standing outside'? What is 'outside'? Even if a hundred thoughts claim to be an 'I' that stands outside of thoughts, does that make them not a thought?

Isn’t the presence of a mental movie directly known?

Yes the mental movie is 'being lived'. There is no reality of a bird, no concrete 'bird' outside of 'experiencing bird' - this experience includes colour and sound right now- the arising and the knowing is the same thing. The thought 'I see a bird' is still an arising and the knowing of it at the same time - there's no difference between the 2 thoughts in reality, only an imagined one, an imagined real person that the 'I' refers to. But there is never anything concrete outside of any thought to which it refers, not the bird nor the I. It's just that the stories around the 'I' get more and more abstract and crazy, unlike the 'bird', and as a result starts seeming to be a problem.

Isn’t the thought itself “that means nothing is ever known?” directly known?

Wow this one is incredible! Yes the thought is directly known. The words don't refer to anything real, it's talking about an imagined world supposedly existing outside of the thought that expresses it. Rather it ☝️should say, 'that means there is no outside world to which the thought refers'. So, thoughts are experienced and therefore exist, but the world they talk about is an imagined world which doesn't exist outside of the thought that expresses it, a concrete 'the world' is not experienced. While no concrete object exists outside of the arising that it actually is (there is no 'other place' outside of experience), the presence of a chair for example can easily marry up to the observations of 'someone else' whereas thoughts often become abstract and then no longer marry up. Either way the chair doesn't exist in a concrete way, only as colour, letters 'chair', sensation if touched etc ..only as arisings, only as mind, only as thoughts.

Does a thought needed to know the present sound or color, or the current sensations?

A thought can't know anything, it is known like an image of the curtains is known. And any subsequent thought claiming to not just be a thought, claiming to be an 'I' outside of thought which is 'the knower', is just as much only a thought despite expressing the opposite.

Lots of thank yous Vivien!

[Molly]

Missed one!

And what is it that wants more of this?

'Want' can't be found. Only a pulling sensation and words, no actual wanting. But yet the words were written that more of this interaction was wanted. So language carries on but it isn't actually true, because despite the sensation and thoughts saying so, it's not actual wanting, it's just happening that way.
Thanks again

[Vivien]

Hi Molly,

But if this were really seen to be true, would there be this interaction now. The story line still pulls when it arises. It says: there used to be a pattern of thinking about a one who was longing, seeking, wanting for something in the future. These no longer arise - future doesn't exist. But now there is 'the one who sees' the overlooker', not in the future - now. Then there is the observation that this 'overlooker' is just a word in this current thought. This often leads to giving up, only to start up again after.

Do you expect that the story should change?

Or there shouldn’t be self-referential thoughts at all?

Or there shouldn’t be an identification with any thought or emotion ever again?

Or seeing should be there 24/7, continuously?

Please really investigate your expectations here.

The feeling that there's a 'noticer' overlooking is a feeling/ thought like other arisings - it's not more intimately known than the other arisings are.

Exactly.

Inside the content of thinking, there's a character 'I' who's supposedly getting insights etc. But that character can't be found outside of the thoughts (the image of the body is known just like thoughts are known - it's made of knowing, the mind is just the current thought, the insights are just current arisings- it's all just direct knowing).
So when it is thoroughly seen that this character/ these 'ones' are nothing more than a thought, then the story collapses?

Ohhh… so you expect the story to stop, don’t you?
Why would the story of Molly stop? There has never ever been a real me, a real Molly in reality, and yet there has always been a story about her. So why would this change?

And more importantly… who wants this to change? Who wants the story to stop?
For what purpose?

so in a way thought isn't different from the 5 senses in that it is all just known, just another arising, it shows up like another object shows up, like an image of a car shows up, an image of my leg shows up, an image of my husband's face' shows up, a bird shows up, it's all the same ultimately.

Yes, thoughts are arisings too, just as anything else. The only difference is that the content of a thought is never ever a real experience.

This is important: A thought is DE (direct experience), it can be noticed right now, but its content isn't DE.

Think of yesterday’s dinner. There can be a picture brought up, smell and taste remembered, all content of a thought, but you won't be able to eat it right now.

And why? Since the dinner is not experienced, it’s not real.
Imagination is real, but not the dinner. Can you see this?

One is the thought content which claims there is an I that sees, tries (and fails) to understand truth with language. There is no such thing as 'tries', just a slight pushing sensation. Since there is no I to be found, what is 'seeing'? A thought can't see or understand, nor can a picture of a body. But there is something which is always there, always knowing - that is not to do with language, not to do with arisings.

And how do you know that there is anything seeing?

Just notice that any doer (like a seer), is also just assumed by language. All duality exists only in thought/language.
Language assumes that there is always a subject and an object. A seer/knower (as a subject) and the seen/known (object). But is this really how it is in reality? Is there really separation?

Seeing, knowing is happening, yes… but is there an actual seer, knower?
Is there something standing apart from the seen, known, looking at it and seeing it?
Or there is no separation whatsoever?

So the story goes that now, sometime later, separation feels less strong because separation is less a felt reality- which is 'the experiential recognition of it'?

Neither separation nor non-separation cannot be felt. Since it’s not a feeling.
Separation is only ever created by language/ thoughts, by assuming a subject-object split.
But in reality, there is no separation, it has been.
It’s always been just assumed by thought. Can you see this?

When plain looking, it is clear that there isn't a separate self - each time the image of the body is checked and seen to be not containing a self, just colours joining colours, and labels labelling the parts, which seems more innocent now - it's not like the labelling makes them any more concrete actually, it's just another arising. This does not mean though that a separating-out effect can't seem to come into play, it is never actually directly experienced in itself but if the arisings are frequent and subtle such as 'the observer', it can give that effect until checked and seen to be nothing other than a very repetitive thought pattern arising.

This totally normal. At the beginning, for almost everybody, there is a flip-flopping back and forth between seeing and identifying. Even after the self is seen through. The old conditioning of identifying is still strong, and there is a pull back to identify. So at this stage, which can last some time (and it cannot be known in advance how long it will take, maybe years), looking should go on to help to stabilize this flip-flopping.

there's no difference between the 2 thoughts in reality, only an imagined one, an imagined real person that the 'I' refers to. But there is never anything concrete outside of any thought to which it refers, not the bird nor the I. It's just that the stories around the 'I' get more and more abstract and crazy, unlike the 'bird', and as a result starts seeming to be a problem.

Yes, and the emphasis on the word SEEMING :)

Wow this one is incredible! Yes the thought is directly known. The words don't refer to anything real, it's talking about an imagined world supposedly existing outside of the thought that expresses it.
So, thoughts are experienced and therefore exist, but the world they talk about is an imagined world which doesn't exist outside of the thought that expresses it, a concrete 'the world' is not experienced.

Yes :) Nice observations.

Vivien

[Molly]

Wow those messages and questions were so helpful Vivien! As always MANY thankyous!
They're in a different order from how you wrote them because the first questions were affected by some understanding that came from something written at the end.

Neither separation nor non-separation cannot be felt. Since it’s not a feeling.

Oooooooh!! So this 'feeling' that there's less separation are more story arisings!!! Of course!!! The story goes that there's a character who gets insights, and the insights are arisings - story! Ok so this is right, right?
So then there's no need in any way to look into anything, right?!!
All the 'looking into' is language play in a little story shown in a little book of thoughts....so there's no awakening at all ....it's a storyline that has a thing called 'awakening' in it which has no meaning whatsoever because it's language talking about not believing language.

But in reality, there is no separation,
It’s always been just assumed by thought. Can you see this?

Yes. I do see this! There never has been any separation - so there can't be any 'upgrade' on that! Any change is a story change. Any 'looking into' is a story 'looking into' in which a dream character 'tries to look into truth' with intent to find out. But there is nothing to find out, nothing can be 'found out', its a story of finding out written in thought, the only possible end being that the energy that is 'invested in finding out' isn't being renewed over and over, round and round, imaginary searching to 'find'. It's imagination!
This sentence that you wrote: "Neither separation nor non-separation cannot be felt. Since it’s not a feeling." This sentence is so helpful! The brilliant no-brainer here is that whether 'This feels like separation' is thought, or 'This feels like separation is less strong' is thought, it doesn't make any difference, because they're just thought content saying so! They're just imaginary changes in an imaginary story!

Ohhh… so you expect the story to stop, don’t you? Why would the story of Molly stop? There has never ever been a real me, a real Molly in reality, and yet there has always been a story about her. So why would this change?

Yes it showed a hidden assumption! Dreamwise, a list of a hundred Mollys - or rather patterns of thinking / reactions - seemed to be whittling down eg 'the one who feared x' , 'the one who was nervous when x'. Also 'the one who is the doer' and 'the one who is the body'- they were showing up less or not being 'a problem'. So this reducing seemed to leave everything simpler, more peaceful etc.
And with this, there was a hidden assumption that change WAS happening ie that change was real, not in the dream - that it was kind of moving from the unreal to the real. And because of that there was 'a problem' - the problem of needing to look, needing to find out. But there's no such thing because every spec of that 'moving' or change is dream - there is no gradual movement to truth. All there is is the recognition of that.

Do you expect that the story should change? Or there shouldn’t be self-referential thoughts at all?

No this is clear - change is inside the story, in truth there never is any change.
It doesn't matter about self referential thoughts because it's within the dream, and there's no gradual graduation from dream to truth - you could say it's all just as much truth, or that could be confusing - it all just is, period!

Or there shouldn’t be an identification with any thought or emotion ever again?
Or seeing should be there 24/7, continuously?

If there is identification, it is part of the story. So, if there is identification, it is just thoughts saying 'there is identification' - the content of this thought has nothing to do with seeing/being. Seeing/being is just seeing/being whether the content says it is or it isn't!

And more importantly… who wants this to change? Who wants the story to stop?
For what purpose?

The wanting of change was to do with belief that there was something that should be found out. But all the looking, finding, insights - all in the story - all without being a single step in the direction of truth.

This is important: A thought is DE (direct experience), it can be noticed right now, but its content isn't DE. Think of yesterday’s dinner. There can be a picture brought up, smell and taste remembered, all content of a thought, but you won't be able to eat it right now. And why? Since the dinner is not experienced, it’s not real.

Yes the dinner example makes it so clear! All of the above is clear.
About the sentence: "Imagination is real, but not the dinner", could you explain it a bit - the word 'imagination' in this context pls?


And

how do you know that there is anything seeing? A seer/knower (as a subject) and the seen/known (object). But is this really how it is in reality? Is there really separation?
Seeing, knowing is happening, yes… but is there an actual seer, knower?
Is there something standing apart from the seen, known, looking at it and seeing it?
Or there is no separation whatsoever?

There was an assumption that seeing meant a seer, the habit of subject object. No separation is experienced - it's just that and nothing else, the seeing IS the knowing of it, is the being of it, it's made of seeing, the arising is made of seeing. Nothing could be apart...there's nowhere else than this.

Thank you very much Vivien

[Vivien]

Hi Molly,

Thank you for your beautiful replies :)

All the 'looking into' is language play in a little story shown in a little book of thoughts....so there's no awakening at all ....it's a storyline that has a thing called 'awakening' in it which has no meaning whatsoever because it's language talking about not believing language.

Yes, who would awaken? Is there someone or something separate from the story that could awaken from it?

Yes. I do see this! There never has been any separation - so there can't be any 'upgrade' on that!

Yes, there is no upgrade. :) there can be small shift of perceptions back and forth between believing the story about separation, or not believing it, but that’s normal.

If there is identification, it is part of the story. So, if there is identification, it is just thoughts saying 'there is identification' - the content of this thought has nothing to do with seeing/being. Seeing/being is just seeing/being whether the content says it is or it isn't!

Excellent observations.

Yes the dinner example makes it so clear! All of the above is clear.
About the sentence: "Imagination is real, but not the dinner", could you explain it a bit - the word 'imagination' in this context pls?

By imagination I mean the imagined visual thoughts of the dinner.
Those thoughts / mental images are there, undeniably.
The thoughts / images themselves are real as phenomena, but what they are about, the dinner itself, is not real.

So what is happening is not the real food, but just an imagination.
Food is not real, but the imagination/thought is a real phenomenon, meaning it’s actually happening.
Can you see this clearly?

There was an assumption that seeing meant a seer, the habit of subject object. No separation is experienced - it's just that and nothing else, the seeing IS the knowing of it, is the being of it, it's made of seeing, the arising is made of seeing. Nothing could be apart...there's nowhere else than this.

Yes.

Is there any division in reality? In anywhere? Or only ever thoughts talk about division/separation without any grounds in reality?

Here is a lovely exercise, which will deepen what you already found:
Go out into nature and spend some time watching the movement of the whole. See how clouds move, trees swing, leaves wiggle, grass moves, insects, birds.

Then focus on sensations and see how they too are in constant motion, thoughts come and go, just as sounds, colours, sensations come and go.

Notice that everything is part of one movement.

Then close your eyes and see if there is a line between you and out there, between you and life itself. If yes, where is the boundary?

Is there an inside and an outside of Life?
Is there something which is not included in the movement of the whole?

Is there a witness that is watching life happening from a distance?
Or is witnessing part of the one movement too?

Is there anything which is not just happening?

Let me know what you find.

Vivien

[Molly]

Vivien, thank you for your feedback and for this exercise which sounds very enjoyable!

I have written a response to one piece of your feedback (so useful- I really can't thank you enough!) and am posting this.

If ok, I would like to do the exercise later on today or tomorrow morning if time gets tight so that there's no element of rush?

So what is happening is not the real food, but just an imagination.
Food is not real, but the imagination/thought is a real phenomenon, meaning it’s actually happening.
Can you see this clearly?

Wow! There's something strangely potent about this that you've so simply written here. It's' something which seems to totally obliterate the idea of past and future, of there being any existence of anything outside of now - it's like the single most effective tool at seeing that there's this and this only, that there's nothing possibly lurking in the shadows somewhere unseen.

But this interest and recognition is dream isn't it Vivien..... .If interest arises then that is ALL there is: interest is. And talking about it is trying to freeze- frame it, make it stay still so it can be held and kept, but it's always already gone, always fluid, can't be made a statue of.

I will be back with the exercise - thank you Vivien! :)

[Vivien]

Hi Molly,

If ok, I would like to do the exercise later on today or tomorrow morning if time gets tight so that there's no element of rush?

Yes, of course, no problem, you don’t have to rush.

Wow! There's something strangely potent about this that you've so simply written here. It's' something which seems to totally obliterate the idea of past and future, of there being any existence of anything outside of now - it's like the single most effective tool at seeing that there's this and this only, that there's nothing possibly lurking in the shadows somewhere unseen.

Excellent observation! :) You are doing really well.

Vivien

[Molly]

Dear Vivien,

Your guidance is crazy! Your questions are sculpting knives! Just reading the actual questions and nothing else, sometimes over and over, seems to have the answer within them, like magic! Thank you doesn't quite cut it, but thank you!

The exercise you gave me I did outdoors and applied later when indoors too. (and the 'I' used here I know is just a nothing thing that doesn't matter whether it's there as part of the expression or not, because it has no meaning so there's nothing scary about it! Yay!)

Is there an inside and an outside of Life?
Is there something which is not included in the movement of the whole?
Is there a witness that is watching life happening from a distance?
Or is witnessing part of the one movement too?

The specific arisings that are usually labelled as 'I' are arisings in exactly the same way as those usually labelled 'not I'. Examples: 1) All there is is a bird image, 2) All there is is bird song, 3) All there is is thought phenomena. There is no 'elsewhere' anywhere - there is no place outside of experience to be found where a real actual witness could be hiding - there is just that which is now. So if the word 'I' had to be used, it would be equally throughout all 3 of the examples.

There can only be the claim of outside - otherwise how could it be known if it were actually outside of experience? If 'outside'' appears as an idea, it's always that an arising has come up with some fictional content about there existing something called 'outside', but inside and outside haven't ever been experienced. No matter how much fictional content phenomena come up with about 'I', 'witness', 'outside' or 'separate', it cannot ever even slightly affect the fact that they are ALREADY a known part of the whole, by arising as phenomena they are already 'what is'.

If it seems like a witness is standing apart from experience, it is because the content of the current thought arising now is saying so - Eg a sensation may feel located because of an accompanying thought or an image of the body with a label 'me'.

But this 'witness' which claims to be 'outside' is absolutely included and a part of experience, it's a part of the whole, it's arising now just like every other arising, just a movement of phenomena arising now and going now, happening without reason or cause, it's free of a controller like breathing is - it's not 'moving' as in 'progressing' because it's not actually changing, it's always at the same point - the 'change' that is seen is within the whole, the whole itself is unchanged - what I mean is, if you think there's a lion and a deer, and the lion eats the deer (sorry!) then it looks like a big change has happened, but if the whole includes everything, all experiencing, which is all equally known and intimate, then addition or subtraction can't exist - it's still as much just a whole.

Notice that everything is part of one movement.

Vivien, I think I might know what you mean.
You speak of 'one movement' - is it this.... It's dark in the night. It's like the night is all one stillness, and within and part of that one absolute stillness there's 'movement': the gentle breathing of breath, the quiet creak of footsteps, the crumpling sound of moving sheets. But they aren't made by different beings, the sounds aren't labels of who's doing what - neither the 'who' nor the 'what' - there's no picture or word determining what the sound is - or rather, there is briefly but that's just for the purpose of there seeming to be a diverse world in existence - when actually it's a flow of sound created by and within one life or one living being - and the one living being is absolute stillness. There's not actually any movement. The movements of breathing creaking and crumpling are expressions of the one silence and stillness that couldn't possibly move anywhere.

Lots of gratitude to you Vivien :)

[Vivien]

Hi Molly,

Your guidance is crazy! Your questions are sculpting knives! Just reading the actual questions and nothing else, sometimes over and over, seems to have the answer within them, like magic! Thank you doesn't quite cut it, but thank you!

You are most welcome :) but I am just giving you pointers, you are the one who is willing and open to look.

There can only be the claim of outside - otherwise how could it be known if it were actually outside of experience? If 'outside'' appears as an idea, it's always that an arising has come up with some fictional content about there existing something called 'outside', but inside and outside haven't ever been experienced. No matter how much fictional content phenomena come up with about 'I', 'witness', 'outside' or 'separate', it cannot ever even slightly affect the fact that they are ALREADY a known part of the whole, by arising as phenomena they are already 'what is'.

Beautiful :)

Now let’s check different aspects of the self to make sure that everything is totally clear.

Please look very carefully one-by-one with the following questions. Spend a several minutes with each. Literally scan through the whole body from head to toe, with particular attention on the head. Look behind the eyes, into the forehead, the top of the head, the throat, look everywhere. Also scan through all aspects of experience, thoughts, sensations, feelings, everything.

Is there a thinker?

Is there a doer?
Is there a decider?

Is there a seer?
Is there a feeler?
Is there a hearer?
Is there a taster?
Is there a smeller?

Is there an experiencER?

Is there anything having the experience of whatever is happening?
Is there anything what the experience is happening TO?

Is there an enduring, autonomous, independent self, separate from the rest of experience?
Has there ever been an independent separate self?

Is searching/seeking still going on?

Is there anything that is not totally clear and you would like to look at?

Vivien

[Molly]

Hello Vivien,

Sorry for a bit of delay, and thanks for your directions yesterday on how to thoroughly check.

I've checked the body and checked thought content (and linked sensation) for identification, and have sort of written on whether the identification that arises in thought content is believed- but it causes a funny situation because there is no such thing as believing, it's just talking about identification again but once removed... and on and on.... it's always story, even when it's trying to stand apart and make a judgement about story .....Gosh I don't envy you reading this! 😂 And apologies as it's likely repetitive in an attempt to be clear! It'd be great to have managed to convey this and get your take on it.

The first thing is that no matter what is stated in arising content, there seems to be a natural dismissal, following it, of any suggestion that there could exist something 'outside' which is watching the arising - because there is no outside. All arising identification is also an arising and part of the story, and this seems to be known, so there isn't actually any identification happening, just content using those words. There's no such thing as identification because there's nothing that could be doing the identifying and nothing that could be identified with.

Is there a thinker? Is there a doer? Is there a decider? Is there a seer? Is there a feeler? Is there a hearer? Is there a taster? Is there a smeller?
Is there an experiencER?
Is there anything having the experience of whatever is happening?
Is there anything what the experience is happening TO?
Is there an enduring, autonomous, independent self, separate from the rest of experience?
Has there ever been an independent separate self?
Is searching/seeking still going on?

Checking each in turn, the answers arise clearly as 'no' - but the sense that there is an experiencER is the only one which causes a pause. It's the one that seems to arise the most subtly. It is the least 'seen' of arising phenomena but there are undoubtedly thoughts arising that there is an I who is the experiencer. And when it comes to the topic of truth, there's still a sort of energetic movement towards it.

But the bottom line is that this is, as always, an arising - and no content, words, knowledge, identifying etc are anything other than an arising. So, a 'feeling' (which seems in fact to be a semi- seen thought) that 'I am the experiencer', even when it's not 'fully seen' (can't imagine what this means!) , doesn't seem to result in anything that feels like 'real believing' in a separately existing experiencer. Or in the case of interest in truth, it doesn't feel like there's anything to lose or gain, it's more just like an energetic movement which probably perpetuates thoughts about truth, but without the belief that there's someone to gain or something to find out - because all and any content is always, without exception, just arisings arising. It's just happening for the sake of it, and it happens to be interesting?

In summary, thoughts containing identification arise. Also opinions, old stories ( some of which are more seen through than others) etc. But they don't really matter - they don't feel heavy, real or 'invested in' like the word 'seeking' suggests. The change in story is this: when first writing, the thought content included the idea 'something is not clear / something needs to be understood' - this no longer arises - thought content and sensation is settled, with the recognition that there is nothing to be sorted, protected or worried about.

Is there anything that is not totally clear and you would like to look at?

Could I check with you whether you think the above sounds like a fair representation, or whether anything written exposes possible hidden assumptions of etc?

Much thanks again Vivien 😁😁😁