Direct experiencing

[poppyseed]

Of course :)
Love
Rali

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

Ive had some time to sit with just seeing, feeling/sensing, hearing, etc. so let’s see if I can answer your last questions/comments.
I would already like to say that Im sorry to keep coming back to this point about awareness, but I feel like I would be pretending that I don’t think this is truth if I don’t mention it, so I hope you can bear with me.

I really appreciate your openness and willingness to look. I know it could be difficult to challenge strongly held believes. You are doing great!

Thank you for your patience.

So if awareness cannot be experienced (seen, smelled, etc - DE) how is it known then that it is there (or is it assumed)? All you have is see, smell, taste, hear, and feel (experiencing). Thinking provides the explanations/descriptions/meaning


Yes agreed, thinking is needed to derive the “awareness”in the DE’s. All there actually is are the direct experiences (hearing, smelling, tasting, touching/feeling, seeing etc).

Do the senses describe objects? Like apples? Are they tools? Or the senses are what is happening?

Yes the senses are all there really is. They are what is directly happening. Thoughts are what describe/label objects, like an apple.

Let’s explore seeing in a bit more detail…
Gaze at an object. 
 What is happening when "seeing" is happening? 
 If it is a tool then what is doing the seeing and how? 
 What is being seen? 
 What does "seeing" consists of? 
 Do you first perceive the object using some other sense, and then see it later? 
 Can you find a dividing line between the object and the seeing of it? 
 Or are the object and the seeing of it inseparable? 
 Is there a describable entity experiencing the seeing (like awareness)?

OK - Looking at the cat. 
When seeing is happening there is experience of light, shapes, colors.
It is not a tool, it is all there is.
What is being seen is light, shapes, colors.
Seeing consists of the direct experience sight, seeing.
The object is seen directly, but not as an object, but as light, shapes, colors. When thought is added these are labelled as an object (cat).
I guess you could say the dividing line between the object and the seeing is thought, because the object only is labelled as an object when thoughts label it as such.
But there is no dividing line between the seeing and the seen light, shapes and colors, it is one/inseparable.
There is no separate entity that is experiencing the seeing.

Close your eyes.
With eyes closed, you will now experience 'blackness'. There may be other things you can find going on, sure. If you are looking at a bright light, there may be a red glow. 
 There may be sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics.
Just to make things simple, whatever you can see with eyes closed, I'm going to refer to it as 'black' or 'blackness' just for simplicity.
1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness' as I mentioned?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?
3) Can what is seeing/witnessing the blackness be found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me'/Marina, an entity be found that is witnessing the blackness? Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?
What do you find? What is there?
Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found? 
 Would anything that is suggested as the see-er (awareness, observer, experiencer, witness, ghost in the machine, knower, etc), be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

1. What is experienced is seeing of some dark color and some shapes, that thought has labelled darkness.
2. No there is nothing else, just the seeing and the darkness as one.
3. No what is seeing the darkness cannot be found.
4. No the seeing/blackness is all there is that can be found directly. There is no watcher or I that can be found.
There is just the seeing that is there, which I would maybe describe as aware seeing, not an awareness that sees (separate) but one aware seeing.

Look at whatever is in front of you like your screen. Is seeing separate from what’s seen (the screen)? Is there any awareness (or anything else) separate from experience or is there just experience (e.g. seeing)?

There is only one thing, the seeing. But in my experience it has an aware quality to it. And also the other DE’s. But I don’t experience a separate awareness. It is all one.

Are seeing and knowing (of it) separate or are they one and the same. Is there seeing AND colour or are they one and the same seeingcolour?
Are there two things present - colour AND experience (knowing)? Or are colour and experience one and the same? Is there colour that is not experienced sitting as a potential? Is there experience that is not experienced or that is an oxymoron?

Seeing and knowing are one. Seeing color is one experience, there is not seeing and the color separate from it. There is not a thing existing separate from seeing called a screen or a color, it is all the seeing, that is clear. There is no such thing as experience that is not experienced. There is only that which is.

Labels give solidity and inherency/existence to experience – colour is assumed to exist inherently and have the property of being experienced/seen.

Labels don’t give existence to experience. They only give existence to concepts. Direct Experience is all there is already, no labels needed.

Regardless of whether thought calls experience "multiple things", or "awareness", or "experience", or just THIS the most important thing to check is whether there is any border between "knowing" and "known" (seeing, feeling,...). If they are one and the same then where is the Awareness that is seeing them? Is the seeingseen not just happening without a someone/something that is doing/knowing of the seeingseen?

Yes the seeing/seen is all there is, but as I mentioned I experience it as an aware seeing/seen. There is no separate awareness that is watching. It is all one.

I cannot find a sensory experience called awareness. Awareness is present in all direct sensory experiences, but it is not a sensory experience itself.

That sounds like a riddle. What is it that's noticing "awareness" that is present?

I just meant that I cannot directly experience something called awareness (separate), that would be similar to seeing, sensing or hearing.
The nature of awareness that it is aware including aware of itself (so aware of being aware). It is not a separate thing being aware of another thing, it is all one.

Can there be noticing something without there being separation whatsoever?

Yes.

What is the DE of “sensory experiences being inseparable from awareness”?

All the DE’s are experiences that have a quality of awareness to them.

If they are inseparable how is it known what the separate ingredients are (or is it deducted/labelled into existence)?

There are no separate ingredients, as they are all one/inseparable.

Yes I can see that these are all one experience. Although what I do experience is that all the DE’s can be distinguished from each other (by thought yes but still they directly are also experienced as different from each other), as sensing is a different experience than seeing or hearing, but what is the same in all of those experiences is the awareness part, which is not separate from them, it is interwoven with them, but it is always the same. And this is something I do directly experience.

What makes seeing a different experience from feeling or hearing without the labels? Can they even be isolated?

They are indeed only seen as separate/different when thought comes into play, and labels them.

With your eyes still closed, listen to whatever sound is present for several moments. Now open your eyes and notice colours.
Do the colours appear in a different “place” to thoughts and sounds? Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides sounds and colours, or is that division a mental construct?

No they all appear in that which is.

We don’t experience our senses individually. Rather, these are different aspects of experience. Mind tells us that our senses are separate streams of information. We see with our eyes, hear with our ears, feel with our skin, smell with our nose, taste with our tongue. In DE, though, it is seen as a one experience. Senses affect each other. Although speech is perceived through the ears, what we see can change what we hear. In this video, a man produces the same syllable over and over again. If you watch his mouth, you’ll hear the syllable “fah,” but if you look away, you’ll hear “bah.” Although your ears hear “bah,” your eyes see “fah”. This phenomenon is known as the McGurk effect. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k8fHR9jKVM )

That is very weird but indeed proves that the senses are not separate from each other.

Another example of sensory interaction is how both taste and smell are vital for savouring food (flavour). If smell is lost or impaired, for instance, the taste of food will also be impaired, even if taste receptors on the tongue are working fine.
Here is a fun video that demonstrates how a relationship between sight and touch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DphlhmtGRqI
Even though it might look as there are clearly defined senses, DE shows a different story. So even the senses are not inherently existing.

Oh yes I have seen this one before, very interesting.

I can’t say for sure as I would need to be fully stripped away of my senses, and this is of course impossible, even in a sensory deprivation chamber you always still have some subtle senses, breathing etc. So based on direct experience I have to say no.

If there is 'awareness' of nothingness, that is often a subtle image of nothing with very subtle sensations. True nothingness means absolutely nothing. So if there are no sensations and there is nothingness, that's often a subtle thought that is trying to create something. This could also be called aliveness, presence or I AM, but even that is a label, is it not? Is there anything here that is not the senses? 

No there is nothing else.

The way I look at sensations is that they include anything that is sensed, such as touching a cup or a feeling of expansiveness/nothingness. The feeling of expansiveness is a plethora of sensations happening in quick succession, making it seem and feel expansive. But it's good to remember that we can only experience see, hear, feel, taste, smell and thought. Anything not in the first five is thought. So when you say that senses aren't present, I want to question it, because you may be reifying something that isn't there.
Many have a feeling of I AM, presence, awareness, but even that has to be let go of at some point.
Without the label “nothing”, do you notice that these are also sensations?

Yes I can see that now, subtle as they might be, they are indeed sensations, sights (darkness) etc.


*Example of experience broken down into DE
Doing the dishes:
Seeing the dishes = light/shape and colour (seeing)
Hearing the water flowing = sound (hearing)
Feeling the sponge and soap in my hand = sensation (feeling)
Smelling the soap = smell (smelling)
Thought about doing other stuff = thought (thinking)

[poppyseed]

Hi Marina

Wonderful looking! I really appreciate your effort and willingness to look!

I would already like to say that Im sorry to keep coming back to this point about awareness, but I feel like I would be pretending that I don’t think this is truth if I don’t mention it, so I hope you can bear with me.

No problem at all. We can stay as long as it is needed :)

Yes the seeing/seen is all there is, but as I mentioned I experience it as an aware seeing/seen. There is no separate awareness that is watching. It is all one.

The nature of awareness that it is aware including aware of itself (so aware of being aware). It is not a separate thing being aware of another thing, it is all one.

Can seeing be “unaware”, or “aware” seeing is how seeing is actually experienced? If you say there is "unaware" seeing as seeing that is not labelled as "what is happening" how is that different from thought about seeing? How is “aware of being aware” experienced in DE? Remember seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling and/or thinking (but not the content of thought). If it’s not in the first five then it is thought content.
So you saw even the senses are not inherently existing, there is just experiencing/THIS/ what IS. In Buddhism the term “suchness” or “thusness” (whatever is happening) is used, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations (i.e. characteristics of being aware) and the subject–object distinction. I like the word “THIS” as it is more like a pointing word – pointing to whatever is directly experienced like an arrow with no extra meaning – rather than labelling the experience. The label “experience” can be loaded as it implies an “experiencer” but there is no separation.
This video might also be helpful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lm3G0_ ... ex=17&t=8s
Love
Rali

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

Thanks for your reply, I missed the email notification last friday so wasn't aware you replied already.
I'll get back to it later tonight when I am at home.

Love,
Marina

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

Hope all is good on your end and you’ve had a good weekend.

Can seeing be “unaware”, or “aware” seeing is how seeing is actually experienced?

There can not be unaware seeing. You could replace the word awareness by existence, and there cannot be something that doesn’t exist, as the nature of non existence is that it doesn’t exist. Likewise, something that happens outside of awareness is non existent since awareness is all there is. Seeing is a modulation of awareness, how it is experiences in that form.
You could say that even seeing is a label of this “aware all there is”/“aware oneness”.

If you say there is "unaware" seeing as seeing that is not labelled as "what is happening" how is that different from thought about seeing?

I don’t recall saying this as this is not possible. There is only aware seeing.

How is “aware of being aware” experienced in DE? Remember seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling and/or thinking (but not the content of thought). If it’s not in the first five then it is thought content.

Being aware of being aware is a subjective experience. You cannot point to it like you can identify a particular DE.
If you ask me, are you aware of the experience you are having now? I would say yes (without thinking about it). I did not use any particular DE to come to that conclusion. It is self evident without having to find anything or look anywhere (Direct).
Is this not also your experience?

So you saw even the senses are not inherently existing, there is just experiencing/THIS/ what IS. In Buddhism the term “suchness” or “thusness” (whatever is happening) is used, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations (i.e. characteristics of being aware) and the subject–object distinction. I like the word “THIS” as it is more like a pointing word – pointing to whatever is directly experienced like an arrow with no extra meaning – rather than labelling the experience. The label “experience” can be loaded as it implies an “experiencer” but there is no separation.

Yes I have heard of this before and this is indeed how you also could refer to this “aware all there is” - as thisness, or suchness.

This video might also be helpful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lm3G0_ ... ex=17&t=8s

Hmm, this video seems to be made by someone who didn’t really understand the point of non-dual understanding. It assumes a lot of stuff that I do not agree with. For example they say that awareness means there has to be 2 and this is not my experience, nor is this the point of non dualism, as it is baked in the name (there is no 2, no separation). I would agree that there are “teachers” who also do not have a full grasp of things (and I’m also not saying that I do) and that they covey the wrong understanding, but some of them do convey that there is nothing to do or get, as thing are already as they are, and that is all there is and that they are not more of less “enlightened” than you, whatever that may mean.
Also in the end they are referring to wholeness, which is basically the same as consciousness or awareness, or even better you could refer to it as being or existence (not a noun, but a verb).
Us having this discussion could not take place if there wasn’t any awareness. If it was just sights on a screen that were never registered by some kind of awareness, it would not exist.

*Example of experience broken down into DE
On a walk in the forest with the family:
Hearing the wind through the trees = sound (hearing)
Feeling my feet touch the ground = sensation (feeling)
Seeing the beautiful nature = light/shapes and colours (seeing)

Smelling the forest air = smell (smelling)
Thought about how wonderful this fall is = thought (thinking)

[poppyseed]

Hi Marina
I appreciate you sticking around and your honesty when dealing with stubborn beliefs!
There is still a desire to identify as a something. Calling this awareness and "not I" or Marina....changes nothing. There is still a someone /something that is seeking and that life is happening to/suffering. If you are not seeking then it must be awareness. Problem solved, right? Sorry to be so blunt, but where have all these concepts got you to date? Would you be here if they have worked?? If there is fear of letting go we can explore it…Look! Why is there a resistance to letting awareness go as a concept? Be honest with yourself! Holding on to ideas creates limitation, boundaries, opinions, differences, and even wars. Trust that all you know about life is not what it is. It never was and it will never be. Then just look. What is going on?

Being aware of being aware is a subjective experience. You cannot point to it like you can identify a particular DE.
If you ask me, are you aware of the experience you are having now? I would say yes (without thinking about it). I did not use any particular DE to come to that conclusion. It is self evident without having to find anything or look anywhere (Direct).
Is this not also your experience?

That sounds like Rupert Spira’s experience :)
But ALL you have is direct experience (Is this not also your experience?) – how do you know then if you didn’t “use” it? How exactly is self-evident? Would you be able to show it to me? Can DE be used or is all there is?
If what is saying is true than there are DE and awareness that uses DE (aka duality, subjective experience), or that sometimes awareness is DE and sometimes it is not. That would also mean that you can experience no experience (awareness without DE), is that even possible? No experience what so ever?? No seeing, no feeling (sensations of aliveness/existing) nothing??? LOOK into your experience don’t try to remember teachings!!!

If I ask you “are you aware of the experience you are having now” , that in DE would be a thought about hearing/sound (interpreted by you – hearing and thinking), just because you answer with “yes” is no proof for anything – it just shows your current interpretation of your DE (that we might agree or not upon).
Again, is there awareness of experience and experience or just what is/experience? What is the difference between being aware of seeing and actually seeing? If you are aware of seeing then you are conceptualising seeing (cutting it off from the whole with no separation) = you are having a thought ABOUT seeing. So how is being aware of seeing different from having a thought about seeing (describing experience)? How is "being aware of" different from "thinking"? https://psyche.co/ideas/how-feelings-ab ... -our-world
Why do you insist on the aware part – there must be unaware part to compare it to? Everything that has specific properties (e.g. being aware) involves conceptualisation around what it is not (e.g. not being aware). Which brings me to:

as the nature of non existence is that it doesn’t exist.

How is it known? Or this is a logical conclusion (of the opposite), an assumption? All you have is existence ;). Have you experienced non-existence? Is it possible? Or that is just hypothesised?

Here is the Heart Sutra for your contemplation:

The Bodhisattva of Compassion,
When he meditated deeply,
Saw the emptiness of all five skandhas
And sundered the bonds that caused him suffering.
Here then,
Form is no other than emptiness,
Emptiness no other than form,
Form is only emptiness,
Emptiness only form.
Feeling, thought, and choice,
Consciousness itself,
Are the same as this.
All things are by nature void,
They are not born or destroyed;
Nor are they stained or pure,
Nor do they wax or wane.
So, in emptiness, no form,
No feeling, thought, or choice,
Nor is there consciousness.
No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind;
No colour, sound, smell, taste, touch,
Or what the mind takes hold of,
Nor even act of sensing.
No ignorance or end of it,
Nor all that comes of ignorance;
No withering, no death,
No end of them.
Nor is there pain, or cause of pain,
Or cease in pain, or noble path
To lead from pain;
Not even wisdom to attain.
Attainment too is emptiness.
So know that the Bodhisattva
Holding to nothing whatever,
But dwelling in Prajna wisdom,
Is freed of delusive hindrance,
Rid of the fear bred by it,
And reaches clearest Nirvana.
All Buddhas of past and present,
Buddhas of future time,
Using this Prajna wisdom,
Come to full and perfect vision.
Hear then the great dharani,
The radiant peerless mantra,
The Prajnaparamita
Whose words allay all pain;
Hear and believe its truth:
gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha

Love
Rali

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

I appreciate you sticking around and your honesty when dealing with stubborn beliefs!
There is still a desire to identify as a something.

I appreciate you sticking around as well :)
Indeed there seems to be a stubborn identification with being aware for some reason.
I can see that it is just my mind that is having a fit and saying like: but if there is no awareness (verb not noun) how can any of this be known?
I can see that these are just thoughts that are seen. Do I then just ignore this and put attention to what is actually there?

Calling this awareness and "not I" or Marina....changes nothing.

I can see that, yes, it is still identification. It does have a different feeling to it than when I refer to I or Marina though, like more primal/subtle, so I think that is what is getting me stuck there.

There is still a someone /something that is seeking and that life is happening to/suffering. If you are not seeking then it must be awareness. Problem solved, right? Sorry to be so blunt, but where have all these concepts got you to date? Would you be here if they have worked?? If there is fear of letting go we can explore it…Look! Why is there a resistance to letting awareness go as a concept? Be honest with yourself! 

Yes, I know this and that is why I am here, cause I know that I am stuck somewhere, I just didn’t realise that the awareness part was also an identification. I assumed it was obvious reality.
I guess the fear of letting that go is losing myself (which I cannot find in the first place by the way) or not understanding all of this (which I know is thought/mind)…. this sounds ridiculous, but it is like an existential fear that comes up.
The longer I am looking to find the thing I fear of losing, the more it becomes clear that there is nothing there. There is only the DE’s. My mind is also trying to make sense of it but that’s impossible…and exhausting. “It is saying things like: there has to be a quality of awareness somewhere in order for this life to be known/experienced. How else would you explain this? Otherwise there would be no existence!”
Im not actually asking you to explain this, but that’s what my mind is on about, and I feel like an unrest not having the answer. I can see that this is all just thought and the answer cannot be known. My mind has always kept me very busy as you can see ;)

Holding on to ideas creates limitation, boundaries, opinions, differences, and even wars. Trust that all you know about life is not what it is. It never was and it will never be. Then just look. What is going on?

I can’t really say anything about this, cause it will not be what is actually going on.

That sounds like Rupert Spira’s experience :)

Haha, yes busted. It does make sense though, and also it does feel that way sometimes, like there is a subjective knowing of everything . I see that this is all also conceptual and thought based.

But ALL you have is direct experience (Is this not also your experience?) – how do you know then if you didn’t “use” it? How exactly is self-evident? Would you be able to show it to me? Can DE be used or is all there is?

It feels like it is a part of the direct experiences, like a quality of direct experiencing. I can’t show it, no. I’m probably just falling back into thought…
How can I catch this, the really subtle stuff? Do I just remain in DE’s (meditation) and try to remain there as much as possible…
Did you go through this kind of thing yourself at some point? This is the first time Ive ever spoken about these things, to anyone, so I really appreciate this. Thank you so much.

If what is saying is true than there are DE and awareness that uses DE (aka duality, subjective experience), or that sometimes awareness is DE and sometimes it is not. That would also mean that you can experience no experience (awareness without DE), is that even possible? No experience what so ever?? No seeing, no feeling (sensations of aliveness/existing) nothing??? LOOK into your experience don’t try to remember teachings!!!

I didn’t really think of it as 2 separate things. It was more like awareness is all there is, and it takes the form of hearing, seeing, touching etc. so it is still one thing, not 2.
No I have never experienced “no awareness”. I have experienced seeing, thinking, touching/sensing, smelling, tasting and hearing for sure.

If I ask you “are you aware of the experience you are having now” , that in DE would be a thought about hearing/sound (interpreted by you – hearing and thinking), just because you answer with “yes” is no proof for anything – it just shows your current interpretation of your DE (that we might agree or not upon).

Wen you say interpreted by you… what do you mean with you? I assume you mean interpreted by thought? 
So thought is interpreting a question and answering based on a concept. But what I am a bit stuck on, is that thought would never answer No to that question. Because it is clear that there is something here (in contrast to there being nothing at all, not even seeing hearing thinking etc). And something must be there to acknowledge this… some kind of existence.
Are you saying there is no existence? there is no aware quality to existence at all?

Again, is there awareness of experience and experience or just what is/experience?

There is only that which is.

What is the difference between being aware of seeing and actually seeing? 

It is one thing, one experience. - all there is.

If you are aware of seeing then you are conceptualising seeing (cutting it off from the whole with no separation) = you are having a thought ABOUT seeing. So how is being aware of seeing different from having a thought about seeing (describing experience)? How is "being aware of" different from "thinking"? https://psyche.co/ideas/how-feelings-ab ... -our-world

I dont think I referred to it as being aware of seeing. It was more that the seeing had an aware quality to it.

IWhy do you insist on the aware part – there must be unaware part to compare it to? Everything that has specific properties (e.g. being aware) involves conceptualisation around what it is not (e.g. not being aware). Which brings me to:

as the nature of non existence is that it doesn’t exist.

How is it known? Or this is a logical conclusion (of the opposite), an assumption? All you have is existence ;). Have you experienced non-existence? Is it possible? Or that is just hypothesised?

I guess the reason I keep coming back to the aware part is because it feels like there is an aware quality to experience. It feels like experience is being registered somehow. Like there is a light on.
From this feeling I have made logical deductions (this feeling and deducting happened when I was fairly young by the way - like 12, before I had heard of any of this non duality or DE stuff).
It is:
Everything that is (existence), exists, because that is the nature of existence. It cannot not exist.
In a similar way, non existence does not exist, since its nature is non existence/not existing.
So existence is all there is and can ever be. Non existence can never be.
This is of course all thought based and conceptual, but this has been with me for a long time and has been solidified. I think this is also where the awareness part comes from, cause existence (or being) in my experience has an aware quality to it. I do not see it an a separate awareness, separate from experiences. It is all one.

Here is the Heart Sutra for your contemplation:

Thank you, it is beautiful


*Example of experience broken down into DE
Getting dressed in the morning:
Hearing the rain outside of the window = sound (hearing)
Feeling the cold as get dressed = sensation (feeling)
Seeing the clothes = light/shapes and colours (seeing)
Smelling the flowers = smell (smelling)
Thought about doing laundry = thought (thinking)


Love
Marina

[poppyseed]

Hi Marina

I can see that these are just thoughts that are seen. Do I then just ignore this and put attention to what is actually there?

YES! That’s what LU is about. Thought content is not DE – the presence of thought is, but not its content. I’ll give you an example to illustrate this. If I describe what sour soap (a local fruit) taste like and smells like, would you be able to smell it and taste it? You can certainly try to imagine but the raw rich experience is just not there. Thoughts are approximation, an interpretation of reality but not reality at all. So look what is actually the thought I’m aware/I exist pointing to.
You're grappling with a common paradox: recognizing that thoughts are not inherently "true" or reflective of ultimate reality, yet acknowledging their undeniable presence and practical utility in daily life.
Thoughts, while useful for communication and practical tasks, can create a layer of abstraction that distances us from the immediacy of our experience. They know nothing whatsoever about reality. This is not about completely abandoning thought but rather about cultivating a discerning mindfulness of its nature and limitations. The key lies in embracing the paradox of thought—accepting its presence and utility while simultaneously recognizing its limitations and potential to create illusions. Thoughts are not to be negated or denied but rather to be seen as empty , impermanent, impersonal mental events that arise and pass away.

When you say interpreted by you… what do you mean with you? I assume you mean interpreted by thought? 
So thought is interpreting a question and answering based on a concept.

Yes of course, “you” is synonymous with “thoughts”, what else?! All that thought “knows” is based on previous experience, it cannot “know” stuff that hasn’t happen yet (otherwise you are a real fortune teller). Just consider that just as you/self/awareness don't know what you don't know, you also don't know what you do know (until you do - there is no container of thoughts that you can go and choose from, thoughts just appear…). Also, consider that the world “out there” is a projection over experience. What seems to be “Marina’s world,” the totality of your experience of all that is happening, is a creation of language, and words are the building blocks that create the story about it. The world is built of “apples” and “cups of coffee” :). The world is like a dream, an illusion, a bubble, or a shadow, imposed over DE. The world as perceived by Marina is unique to her – her bubble of reality. Marina’s world is entirely inside her “head”. Take it further and to look AT.. you are only looking at what exists… in your imagination. That is everything seen is an interpretation unique to you. It is seen from a perspective that is shaped by your history (memories) and DNA (sensations/experience).

But what I am a bit stuck on, is that thought would never answer No to that question. Because it is clear that there is something here (in contrast to there being nothing at all, not even seeing hearing thinking etc). And something must be there to acknowledge this… some kind of existence.
Are you saying there is no existence? there is no aware quality to existence at all?

I guess the reason I keep coming back to the aware part is because it feels like there is an aware quality to experience. It feels like experience is being registered somehow. Like there is a light on.
From this feeling I have made logical deductions (this feeling and deducting happened when I was fairly young by the way - like 12, before I had heard of any of this non duality or DE stuff).

I guess the fear of letting that go is losing myself (which I cannot find in the first place by the way) or not understanding all of this (which I know is thought/mind)…. this sounds ridiculous, but it is like an existential fear that comes up.

The notion of I AM/existence is the most fundamental way in which we identify with experience, or perhaps better, identify as experience. It is so fundamental, and so persistent, that it doesn’t need to be connected to or proven by a mind, body or anything else. It is the most subtle level of identification. Even though there is not a tangible sense of a “me”, there is still a tangible sense of an interiority, the subtlest boundary of all, which is experienced and dwelt within, which seems to prove that "I Exist". This apparent interiority is an illusion, however.
Rather than the sense of “me/something” experiencing what is happening, there is simply experience happening. Rather than “I am everything”, it’s just “everything”.
But let’s explore this…

So you say there is “something must be there to acknowledge this… some kind of existence”. What is this something? Let’s have a proper LOOK (not in thoughts)! It might seem as though there is a tangible awareness, but please continue to watch when, why and how the sense of “it” arises, in situations, so you become sensitive to what the sense of "it" is like.

When the physical sensations start to change, and prior to fully developing the full sense of "it "/”I exist”/”I’m aware” arising, what seems to create and then notice the incipient separation between "it/me" and "not it/not me"? For example, it might feel like:

• a separator that carves out "my" portion of experience
• a distinguisher, differentiator or discriminator that notices and highlights that a bird call or anything else is what it is, and also that it is "not me"
• a filter or screen that selectively sifts through experiences and isolates "me" from "not me"
• a lens that provides a certain perspective
• an innate sort of awareness that naturally or inherently has a “me” sense to it.
When that sense arises, it may seem as though something knows and see the fact that "oh, this is me and mine, and all else is not". What discerns, differentiates, filters or otherwise "processes" experience, by which there is knowing what is me/mine/awareness, and what isn't, and by which that sense of there being an inner, controllable aspect to experience is known? Before you protest that there is no self/me, you're looking for a "what", not a "who" (or a "me").

Since there are no “things” (perception of DE) it might be tempting to conclude that whatever it is you are looking for (awareness, etc.) must be looking at itself, or similar. So concentrate on that.

That subjective “aware/me” flavour might not last very long, particularly if you try to look too intently - a softer touch of more noticing experience is likely helpful in that regard. Otherwise, it might feel as though it slips through your fingers. So, please take some notes when any of those sorts of "flavours"/sense arise (whether or not a strong sense of "me" accompanies them), and what it seems that creates or notices that flavour. Don't be in a hurry to conclude, be really curious like an explorer. If and when that sense of "knowing" arises, what creates and/or notices/knows it? Notice the felt sense of awareness or separation, without any concepts providing commentary about what you are looking at is or isn’t. It won’t of course be a physical separation, but more of a sense that a portion of experience is enclosed, and able to be labelled as awareness, presence, knowingness, beingness or similar, regardless of whether or not the label “me” is also applied.

Keep on asking...Decisively not-finding this "what" will take care of the "me/awareness/something" as well. Please try to make the looking impersonal: instead of "me" looking for anything, allow it to be simply "looking". It might help to silently drop in "simply looking... simply looking..." now and again, to keep it more impersonal. Thus, just allow the looking for what perceives whatever is "not me", perhaps as if whatever it is detects or recognises the "not me-ness" of whatever you are currently separate from.
Also, look…what exactly is "awareness"? What does the term mean, or refer to? And having experienced a "me" your whole life: was it because you identified with an aspect of experience, or identified as an aspect of experience? Is/was there a difference between identifying with and identifying as something?

Here is an exerp from the Bahiya Sutta for your enjoiment and contemplation:

A third time Bahiya said to the Lord: "It is difficult to know for certain... Teach me Dhamma, Sugata, so that it will be for my good and happiness for a long time."
"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.
"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

Love
Rali

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

Thank you for this feedback. Please give me some time to contemplate this and just sit with it as I think thats what I need most, instead of just replying with thought.
I'll get back to you by end of the week.

Love,
Marina

[poppyseed]

Hi Marina

Are we still doing this inquiry?

Thank you for this feedback. Please give me some time to contemplate this and just sit with it as I think thats what I need most, instead of just replying with thought.

There is nothing to contemplate (think about), it's more about looking right now and seeing how it is...
Love
Rali

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

Thanks for getting back to me.

Are we still doing this inquiry?

Yes of course.. I mentioned I would reply to you by end of the week, and here I am :) I hope everything is okay on your side!

There is nothing to contemplate (think about), it's more about looking right now and seeing how it is...

Indeed contemplate was probably not the right word. I have taken some days to just look and notice and I have some stuff to report to you.

Basically what I have noticed is that when I am just looking at things or a scenery (seeing) there is also a visual concept/mental construct of that thing that comes up in my mind (I am very visually driven and I think in images basically) and I catch myself dwelling in a kind of day dream where I see an image in my mind of that particular object or scene, instead of looking at that thing directly. Which is very strange and probably happens a lot without me even noticing.
I have been trying to pay attention to it to notice when it happens and then to focus back on the direct seeing and what is there instead of the mind construct. This happens mostly in the seeing, and not in the other senses.

Another thing I have noticed is that when there is DE (direct seeing/hearing/sensing etc) happening, there are no issues, questions or things to do. Everything just is as it is. It is only when the content of thought comes to the foreground that it appears as things are not as they should be or a story is constructed to keep itself entertained.

Also to get back to your earlier questions:

I can see that these are just thoughts that are seen. Do I then just ignore this and put attention to what is actually there?

YES! That’s what LU is about. Thought content is not DE – the presence of thought is, but not its content.

Thank you for confirming that. This is exactly what I mentioned above that I have noticed in the past days.

I’ll give you an example to illustrate this. If I describe what sour soap (a local fruit) taste like and smells like, would you be able to smell it and taste it? You can certainly try to imagine but the raw rich experience is just not there. Thoughts are approximation, an interpretation of reality but not reality at all. So look what is actually the thought I’m aware/I exist pointing to.

A thought always points at a thought, not something that is acutally there. What is actually there can only be directly experienced through the different DE's. Got it! Thanks :)

You're grappling with a common paradox: recognizing that thoughts are not inherently "true" or reflective of ultimate reality, yet acknowledging their undeniable presence and practical utility in daily life. Thoughts, while useful for communication and practical tasks, can create a layer of abstraction that distances us from the immediacy of our experience. They know nothing whatsoever about reality. This is not about completely abandoning thought but rather about cultivating a discerning mindfulness of its nature and limitations. The key lies in embracing the paradox of thought—accepting its presence and utility while simultaneously recognizing its limitations and potential to create illusions. Thoughts are not to be negated or denied but rather to be seen as empty , impermanent, impersonal mental events that arise and pass away.

Yes exactly, this is exactly what I described above that I noticed happening (a layer of abstraction when I am looking/seeing stuff). I seem to still be falling in this trap but I do find myself noticing (as I described above) more often than before that this is happening, and then getting my attention back to DE. If you have some practical tips on how to deal with this that would be great!

Yes of course, “you” is synonymous with “thoughts”, what else?! All that thought “knows” is based on previous experience, it cannot “know” stuff that hasn’t happen yet (otherwise you are a real fortune teller). Just consider that just as you/self/awareness don't know what you don't know, you also don't know what you do know (until you do - there is no container of thoughts that you can go and choose from, thoughts just appear…).

Yes, just wanted to confirm that I am understanding what you mean. Indeed, thoughts just appear, this is clear.

Also, consider that the world “out there” is a projection over experience. What seems to be “Marina’s world,” the totality of your experience of all that is happening, is a creation of language, and words are the building blocks that create the story about it. The world is built of “apples” and “cups of coffee” :). The world is like a dream, an illusion, a bubble, or a shadow, imposed over DE. The world as perceived by Marina is unique to her – her bubble of reality. Marina’s world is entirely inside her “head”. Take it further and to look AT.. you are only looking at what exists… in your imagination. That is everything seen is an interpretation unique to you. It is seen from a perspective that is shaped by your history (memories) and DNA (sensations/experience).

Yes, I guess you could say that there are as many worlds as points of view.

The notion of I AM/existence is the most fundamental way in which we identify with experience, or perhaps better, identify as experience. It is so fundamental, and so persistent, that it doesn’t need to be connected to or proven by a mind, body or anything else. It is the most subtle level of identification. Even though there is not a tangible sense of a “me”, there is still a tangible sense of an interiority, the subtlest boundary of all, which is experienced and dwelt within, which seems to prove that "I Exist". This apparent interiority is an illusion, however.
Rather than the sense of “me/something” experiencing what is happening, there is simply experience happening. Rather than “I am everything”, it’s just “everything”.

This is indeed where I am stuck as it is probably too subtle for me to notice or recognize… so might be good to focus on this part and seeing how to progress from this point.

But let’s explore this…

So you say there is “something must be there to acknowledge this… some kind of existence”. What is this something? Let’s have a proper LOOK (not in thoughts)! It might seem as though there is a tangible awareness, but please continue to watch when, why and how the sense of “it” arises, in situations, so you become sensitive to what the sense of "it" is like.

It is very hard to describe, it is like a very subtle sensation of knowing or being there, or an intelligence. I can’t really find words that describe it properly.

When the physical sensations start to change, and prior to fully developing the full sense of "it "/”I exist”/”I’m aware” arising, what seems to create and then notice the incipient separation between "it/me" and "not it/not me"? For example, it might feel like:

• a separator that carves out "my" portion of experience
• a distinguisher, differentiator or discriminator that notices and highlights that a bird call or anything else is what it is, and also that it is "not me"
• a filter or screen that selectively sifts through experiences and isolates "me" from "not me"
• a lens that provides a certain perspective
• an innate sort of awareness that naturally or inherently has a “me” sense to it.
When that sense arises, it may seem as though something knows and see the fact that "oh, this is me and mine, and all else is not". What discerns, differentiates, filters or otherwise "processes" experience, by which there is knowing what is me/mine/awareness, and what isn't, and by which that sense of there being an inner, controllable aspect to experience is known? Before you protest that there is no self/me, you're looking for a "what", not a "who" (or a "me”).

I can see that this is thought/content of thought or a belief that has been there for a long time.

Since there are no “things” (perception of DE) it might be tempting to conclude that whatever it is you are looking for (awareness, etc.) must be looking at itself, or similar. So concentrate on that.

It isn’t that I am looking for it, but it is a feeling of looking from that point of view.

That subjective “aware/me” flavour might not last very long, particularly if you try to look too intently - a softer touch of more noticing experience is likely helpful in that regard. Otherwise, it might feel as though it slips through your fingers. So, please take some notes when any of those sorts of "flavours"/sense arise (whether or not a strong sense of "me" accompanies them), and what it seems that creates or notices that flavour. Don't be in a hurry to conclude, be really curious like an explorer. If and when that sense of "knowing" arises, what creates and/or notices/knows it? Notice the felt sense of awareness or separation, without any concepts providing commentary about what you are looking at is or isn’t. It won’t of course be a physical separation, but more of a sense that a portion of experience is enclosed, and able to be labelled as awareness, presence, knowingness, beingness or similar, regardless of whether or not the label “me” is also applied.

I have focused on the DE feeling/touching to experiment with this, (as seeing seems to be very clouded by concept fog). I find it really hard to tell you anything about this, because the moment I try to report back on it thought comes into play and thought says, there was a flavour of awareness in the sensation itself. If I only remain in the direct experience of the sensation, I can’t really say anything about it. It just is what it is.

Keep on asking...Decisively not-finding this "what" will take care of the "me/awareness/something" as well. Please try to make the looking impersonal: instead of "me" looking for anything, allow it to be simply "looking". It might help to silently drop in "simply looking... simply looking..." now and again, to keep it more impersonal. Thus, just allow the looking for what perceives whatever is "not me", perhaps as if whatever it is detects or recognises the "not me-ness" of whatever you are currently separate from.

Ok I can practice with this some more, without trying to make a report or conclusion about it (which is what seems to be messing me up ).

Also, look…what exactly is "awareness"? What does the term mean, or refer to? And having experienced a "me" your whole life: was it because you identified with an aspect of experience, or identified as an aspect of experience? Is/was there a difference between identifying with and identifying as something?

When I say awareness, I refer to a kind of knowing of everything. There is a sense of “here and nowness” or “being”. I probably identified both as and with experience, which is double identifying. I guess I’m having trouble letting go of Identifying with anything, as it feels like I have to cling to something (as was the case my whole life).

Here is an exerp from the Bahiya Sutta for your enjoiment and contemplation: …..

Thank you.


*Example of experience broken down into DE
Sitting during a meditation
Hearing the clock tick = sound (hearing)
Feeling my weight on the chair = sensation (feeling)
Seeing “blackness” when my eyes are closed = light and colour (seeing)

Smelling the incense = smell (smelling)
Thought about my breath = thought (thinking)

[poppyseed]

Hi Marina

Basically what I have noticed is that when I am just looking at things or a scenery (seeing) there is also a visual concept/mental construct of that thing that comes up in my mind (I am very visually driven and I think in images basically) and I catch myself dwelling in a kind of day dream where I see an image in my mind of that particular object or scene, instead of looking at that thing directly. Which is very strange and probably happens a lot without me even noticing.

If you have some practical tips on how to deal with this that would be great!

Well done for noticing!
You can just try to notice more when it happens. Also you can inquire into the nature of mental images…
Here is an exercise:
Close your eyes and imagine holding a watermelon in your hands.
Imagine it so vividly that you can feel its weight, the shape and texture of the skin.
Hold it there, sensing it.
Then open your eyes.
What happened to the melon?
How about the sensation that was so believable?
Was there ever a melon in ‘reality’?
Was there an appearing mental image?
Was the content of the mental image (the melon) ‘real’?
The thoughts and mental images are real only as AE of thoughts and mental images, their appearance cannot be denied. However, their ‘contents’, what they are about (like the watermelon) are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies.
Can you see this?

This is indeed where I am stuck as it is probably too subtle for me to notice or recognize… so might be good to focus on this part and seeing how to progress from this point.

What (not who) is doing this inquiry? What is progressing? What is stuck? It’s not a rhetorical question! Have a proper look. Use it as a koan if you want.
Also while we are here…
If there is an universal knowing that knows everything, has it forgotten? Are you that universal knowing? Where are the memories stored/lost? LOOK! That is the problem with assumptions – sooner or later they crack when you start looking

It is very hard to describe, it is like a very subtle sensation of knowing or being there, or an intelligence. I can’t really find words that describe it properly.

I have focused on the DE feeling/touching to experiment with this, (as seeing seems to be very clouded by concept fog). I find it really hard to tell you anything about this, because the moment I try to report back on it thought comes into play and thought says, there was a flavour of awareness in the sensation itself. If I only remain in the direct experience of the sensation, I can’t really say anything about it. It just is what it is.

What exactly is the sensation of “knowing”? The sensation of “being” is just that – a sensation. What in it shows that it is being? Remove the label/mental image “being” (or knowing for that matter). Stay with just the subtle sensation… Just leave your thoughts in the background, turn the volume down and refer directly to the sensation.
If you had to describe this sensation, how would you describe it? Is it describable? Where in it is the information of “being”? Or being is just a learned subtle description layered over a subtle sensation? What makes this sensation special? Compare it to sensation “your left toe”… How does it differ from it ?

It’s morphing, it’s changing, it’s pulsating, it’s vibrating, but the vibrating is itself a sensation. There is a vibration (still label) in both of them?
Report back on what you found when doing this exercise.

It isn’t that I am looking for it, but it is a feeling of looking from that point of view.

OK… remember the “blackness” exercise? Can you please go back to it and explore again (the post from Oct 22) Please share your new findings
Also, where is this "point of view" located? What is seeing that it is seen from a point of view? Does it leave the point of view to see itself?

When I say awareness, I refer to a kind of knowing of everything. There is a sense of “here and nowness” or “being”. I probably identified both as and with experience, which is double identifying. I guess I’m having trouble letting go of Identifying with anything, as it feels like I have to cling to something (as was the case my whole life).

I can see that this is thought/content of thought or a belief that has been there for a long time.

There is a belief that “I am something”, that is pointing to a need to be something. Even if you replace the personal “I” with impersonal “it” (knowing), there is still something. The self is an identification with thought. There is no one to identify with anything, but just a thought that "claims" that it can do things, know things, see, etc...Then "giving up" all of these, it starts "claiming" to be more subtle things - like "knowing" or "being" itself.
Explore this:
Why do you have the need to be something? You might be thinking: “If I am not awareness and I am not “me” then what am I?”. To explore that “sense” of being/am-ness/presence, it might help if you ask “Am I?” instead of “Who am I?”. Does life happens to a being or as being (verb)? Is that “aliveness” any kind of object or subject? Are you life or there is just life? Is there anything else but what IS (labelled as feeling, seeing, smelling, hearing, tasting and thinking)
That “clinginess” boils down to fear of not existing…so have a honest look.
What will happen if there is no awareness? What will change after that realisation? What are the sensations that appear when I say there is no awareness?

Love
Rali

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

Thanks for your feedback, much appreciated!

Well done for noticing!
You can just try to notice more when it happens. Also you can inquire into the nature of mental images…
Here is an exercise:
Close your eyes and imagine holding a watermelon in your hands.
Imagine it so vividly that you can feel its weight, the shape and texture of the skin.
Hold it there, sensing it.
Then open your eyes.
What happened to the melon?

Nothing, it was never there.

How about the sensation that was so believable?

It was only the content of thought, not an actual sensation.

Was there ever a melon in ‘reality’?

No not in this exercise.

Was there an appearing mental image?

Yes

Was the content of the mental image (the melon) ‘real’?

No, the mental image was real but the content of it was not.

The thoughts and mental images are real only as AE of thoughts and mental images, their appearance cannot be denied. However, their ‘contents’, what they are about (like the watermelon) are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies.
Can you see this?

Yes this is clear.

This is indeed where I am stuck as it is probably too subtle for me to notice or recognize… so might be good to focus on this part and seeing how to progress from this point.

What (not who) is doing this inquiry?
What is progressing? What is stuck? It’s not a rhetorical question! Have a proper look. Use it as a koan if you want.

I don’t know, I cannot find anything that I can point to so there is nothing there really.

Also while we are here…
If there is an universal knowing that knows everything, has it forgotten? Are you that universal knowing? Where are the memories stored/lost? LOOK! That is the problem with assumptions – sooner or later they crack when you start looking

When I say knowing I don’t mean knowing of information, but more like a perceiving or registering. When I say it knows everything, I don’t mean it has unlimited information stored but I mean it registers or perceives(knows) everything that is happening. That universal knowing is all there is, and there is no one separate from it.

What exactly is the sensation of “knowing”? The sensation of “being” is just that – a sensation. What in it shows that it is being? Remove the label/mental image “being” (or knowing for that matter). Stay with just the subtle sensation… Just leave your thoughts in the background, turn the volume down and refer directly to the sensation.
If you had to describe this sensation, how would you describe it? Is it describable? Where in it is the information of “being”? Or being is just a learned subtle description layered over a subtle sensation? What makes this sensation special? Compare it to sensation “your left toe”… How does it differ from it ?

It is not describable, because words can only describe things that are conceptual and this what I am referring to is not something I can point to or describe. I can see thoughts and sensations clearly, but that is not it. It is where I am looking from, not what I am looking at, which is what makes it special I guess. It is not a sensation like the sensation of your toe.

It’s morphing, it’s changing, it’s pulsating, it’s vibrating, but the vibrating is itself a sensation. There is a vibration (still label) in both of them?
Report back on what you found when doing this exercise.

There is no vibration, it is still/unchanging. everything else is changing/vibrating.

OK… remember the “blackness” exercise? Can you please go back to it and explore again (the post from Oct 22) Please share your new findings

I will get back to you on this tomorrow, including the rest of your pointings, if that is ok as I want to take my time and not just fly over every question/suggestion.

*Example of experience broken down into DE
Having a cup of coffee in the morning
Hearing the coffee machine = sound (hearing)
Smelling the coffee as it is brewing = smell (smelling)
Tasting the coffee taste as I take a sip = taste (tasting)
Feeling the warm cup in my hand = sensation (feeling)
Seeing the sun rising = light/shapes and colour (seeing)
Thought about work later = thought (thinking)


Love,

Marina

[poppyseed]

Hi Marina

I will get back to you on this tomorrow, including the rest of your pointings, if that is ok as I want to take my time and not just fly over every question/suggestion.

Sure :)

Just a bit of feedback…
Please don’t answer in bulk. I want an individual answer to each question, which shows me that you actually spent time with each one looking. When you do a summary it becomes a mental exercise where you try to find a connection/a common theme between the answers and where confirmation bias starts to apply. Just in case…Confirmation bias is the tendency of people to favour information that confirms or strengthens their beliefs or values and is difficult to dislodge once affirmed. Confirmation bias is an example of a cognitive bias. So it becomes evidence that supports a belief/teaching. Like this:

It is not describable, because words can only describe things that are conceptual and this what I am referring to is not something I can point to or describe. I can see thoughts and sensations clearly, but that is not it. It is where I am looking from, not what I am looking at, which is what makes it special I guess. It is not a sensation like the sensation of your toe.

When I say knowing I don’t mean knowing of information, but more like a perceiving or registering. When I say it knows everything, I don’t mean it has unlimited information stored but I mean it registers or perceives(knows) everything that is happening. That universal knowing is all there is, and there is no one separate from it.

These are summaries to a long list of questions. I can't resist but not to point to the inconsistencies here:
It's not describable, yet you have no problem calling it “that universal knowing is all there is, and there is no one separate from it.” How is it known that it perceives or registers without thought descriptions…? If everything appears in it does it need to recognise it? Or is it just it? Can’t you see the duality here – there is perceiving and stuff to be perceived? To distinguish/recognise something from the whole is to label it. The definition of recognise is " to dentify (someone or something) from having encountered them before; know again", so how is this not different from lablling. Without labels nothing ever happened, it just is. THIS does not have parts, it doesn’t need to be known, it just IS. You say there is experience (as thoughts and sensations), AND something else that recognises it (remembers them). We’ve been through this before seeing that “perceiving seeing” is just THIS with a label “seeing”, so in DE there is just unnameable/indescribable THIS (pointing DE word with labels of seeing and thinking (labelling/perceiving/describing)). THIS (What IS) is beyond qualities (indescribable) but experienceable. I feel we go in circles… Which brings me back to bulk answering. These questions are each a pointer that you suppose to spend time looking. I’m not assessing your knowledge and “progress” with these questions (which will be just a "non-dual" story), I’m just pointing for you where to look for further clarity. The individual answers can contradict each other, which actually is helpful in breaking a belief.
A perfect example of a summary, just to give you an idea what I don’t want, is below. I know that these are thoughts (they can't be anything else) but I want to know which one comes closest to your description of experience especially because you keep saying : “It is where I am looking from” and "it registers or perceives(knows) everything that is happening". So basically you give me knowledge instead of spending time with them looking how it is in your experience...

When the physical sensations start to change, and prior to fully developing the full sense of "it "/”I exist”/”I’m aware” arising, what seems to create and then notice the incipient separation between "it/me" and "not it/not me"? For example, it might feel like:

• a separator that carves out "my" portion of experience
• a distinguisher, differentiator or discriminator that notices and highlights that a bird call or anything else is what it is, and also that it is "not me"
• a filter or screen that selectively sifts through experiences and isolates "me" from "not me"
• a lens that provides a certain perspective
• an innate sort of awareness that naturally or inherently has a “me” sense to it.
When that sense arises, it may seem as though something knows and see the fact that "oh, this is me and mine, and all else is not". What discerns, differentiates, filters or otherwise "processes" experience, by which there is knowing what is me/mine/awareness, and what isn't, and by which that sense of there being an inner, controllable aspect to experience is known? Before you protest that there is no self/me, you're looking for a "what", not a "who" (or a "me”).

I can see that this is thought/content of thought or a belief that has been there for a long time.

Please proceed looking and replying having this in mind. Looking froward to the rest!
Love
Rali

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

Please don’t answer in bulk. I want an individual answer to each question, which shows me that you actually spent time with each one looking.

OK, got it. Apologies, I was trying to group things so the replies wouldn’t get too lengthy, but indeed better for this purpose.

…..
These are summaries to a long list of questions. I can't resist but not to point to the inconsistencies here:
It's not describable, yet you have no problem calling it “that universal knowing is all there is, and there is no one separate from it.” How is it known that it perceives or registers without thought descriptions…?

 Yes that’s the issue I am running into when trying to describe things to you, thought then steps in and it starts to paint a picture of concepts and logic it has attained. Im not sure how else to explain it than with thought… i know you keep pointing me back to “just look”… which I am able to do… but still I have to also report a sense of awareness, Im sorry I wish I could say it wasn’t there…. But I want to be honest.

If everything appears in it does it need to recognise it?

It is automatically known, it is built in so to say. Not as separate entities.

Or is it just it?

You mean, is it just what it is? Yes

Can’t you see the duality here – there is perceiving and stuff to be perceived?

I might have used some bad wording, but as mentioned before, not experienced as separate things.

To distinguish/recognise something from the whole is to label it.

Yes this is again the issue of having to use language and thought to explain something that isnt a concept.

The definition of recognise is " to dentify (someone or something) from having encountered them before; know again", so how is this not different from lablling.

Yes maybe I should just keep quite actually.

Without labels nothing ever happened, it just is.

But isn’t “it just is” the same as “it exists”? 


THIS does not have parts, it doesn’t need to be known, it just IS.

Yes agreed.

You say there is experience (as thoughts and sensations), AND something else that recognises it (remembers them).

No I said the recognition is built in into the direct experiencing, not something else.

We’ve been through this before seeing that “perceiving seeing” is just THIS with a label “seeing”, so in DE there is just unnameable/indescribable THIS (pointing DE word with labels of seeing and thinking (labelling/perceiving/describing)). THIS (What IS) is beyond qualities (indescribable) but experienceable. I feel we go in circles… Which brings me back to bulk answering. These questions are each a pointer that you suppose to spend time looking. I’m not assessing your knowledge and “progress” with these questions (which will be just a "non-dual" story), I’m just pointing for you where to look for further clarity. The individual answers can contradict each other, which actually is helpful in breaking a belief.

Yes, that is clear now, thanks. Ill answer them all individually.

A perfect example of a summary, just to give you an idea what I don’t want, is below. I know that these are thoughts (they can't be anything else) but I want to know which one comes closest to your description of experience especially because you keep saying : “It is where I am looking from” and "it registers or perceives(knows) everything that is happening". So basically you give me knowledge instead of spending time with them looking how it is in your experience…

Yes, let me answer them all separately now:

When the physical sensations start to change, and prior to fully developing the full sense of "it "/”I exist”/”I’m aware” arising, what seems to create and then notice the incipient separation between "it/me" and "not it/not me"?

There is no separation that I can notice. This quality seems to always be there, as if the light is always on so to say. Again going into thought but not sure how else to explain.

For example, it might feel like:
• a separator that carves out "my" portion of experience

It just feels like existence in general.

• a distinguisher, differentiator or discriminator that notices and highlights that a bird call or anything else is what it is, and also that it is "not me"

any sound is all there is, but with this aware quality (so not a separate entity).

• a filter or screen that selectively sifts through experiences and isolates "me" from "not me"

This happens only when thought comes up.

• a lens that provides a certain perspective

This happens when thought is commenting on sights, for example.

• an innate sort of awareness that naturally or inherently has a “me” sense to it.

It is more like a impersonal quality to DE’s that is not separate from them.

When that sense arises, it may seem as though something knows and see the fact that "oh, this is me and mine, and all else is not". What discerns, differentiates, filters or otherwise "processes" experience, by which there is knowing what is me/mine/awareness, and what isn't, and by which that sense of there being an inner, controllable aspect to experience is known?

There is nothing there. The awareness is not a separate thing. There is just an aware quality to experience, as mentioned before.

Before you protest that there is no self/me, you're looking for a "what", not a "who" (or a "me”).

There is also no what. There is only that which is.

And also the rest from your last reply:

Also, where is this "point of view" located?

It is not located in space or time. It just is.

What is seeing that it is seen from a point of view?

This is probably thought.

Does it leave the point of view to see itself?

It is not a separate entity… more like a quality of the ALL there is

OK… remember the “blackness” exercise? Can you please go back to it and explore again (the post from Oct 22) Please share your new findings

Ok here we go:

Close your eyes.
With eyes closed, you will now experience 'blackness'. There may be other things you can find going on, sure. If you are looking at a bright light, there may be a red glow. There may be sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics.
Just to make things simple, whatever you can see with eyes closed, I'm going to refer to it as 'black' or 'blackness' just for simplicity.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness' as I mentioned?

what is directly experienced is seeing, labelled as “Blackness” - yes confirmed.

2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness’?

No nothing.

3) Can what is seeing/witnessing the blackness be found?

No it can’t be found as an object.

4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me'/Marina, an entity be found that is witnessing the blackness?

No there is no such thing.

Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?

Yes there is only seeing labelled as “Blackness”

What do you find?

I can also experience feeling and hearing etc, but nothing else can be found.

What is there?

There is just that which is.

Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?

No.

Would anything that is suggested as the see-er (awareness, observer, experiencer, witness, ghost in the machine, knower, etc), be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

Yes I totally agree that this is thought. But this is also not what I am referring to when I mention the aware part. It is not that I am pointing to a separate awareness.. But a quality of all there is, as having an aware quality to it, integrated with the whole. Not apart from it.

There is a belief that “I am something”, that is pointing to a need to be something.
Even if you replace the personal “I” with impersonal “it” (knowing), there is still something.

Yes indeed.

The self is an identification with thought.

Yes the separate self is thought, this is clear.

There is no one to identify with anything, but just a thought that "claims" that it can do things, know things, see, etc...Then "giving up" all of these, it starts "claiming" to be more subtle things - like "knowing" or "being" itself.

Yes this seems to be happening.

Explore this:
Why do you have the need to be something?

It is like a habit that is still in place.

You might be thinking: “If I am not awareness and I am not “me” then what am I?”.

No, that’s not the thought that is tricky.. those are clearly recognised as thoughts and old beliefs, but those are not the subtle ones… What keeps me locked in is that I keep thinking things like: when you ask me to look, if there wasn’t awareness, this conversation would not even exist. And it is clearly registered or known somehow. I can’t explain that in any other way than that there has to be an aware quality to the experience. Otherwise it might aswell be two computers talking to eachother. Again, im not saying there is a separate entity called awareness that is registering everything… but that awareness is the fabric of experience (to again quote from thought).

To explore that “sense” of being/am-ness/presence, it might help if you ask “Am I?” instead of “Who am I?”.

Yes, when I ask myself “Am I?” I would say, that the I in that question is not found, but the AM part I keep coming back to. This is not tied to an I but is just there always.

Does life happens to a being or as being (verb)?

Yes it happens AS being!

Is that “aliveness” any kind of object or subject?

It is a quality of the all that is. And all that is is the ultimate subject.

Are you life or there is just life?

There is life/all there is, which has an aware quality to it.

Is there anything else but what IS (labelled as feeling, seeing, smelling, hearing, tasting and thinking)

No, this is very clear.

That “clinginess” boils down to fear of not existing…so have a honest look.

Yes, I mentioned that before indeed, it is probably the fear of non existence.

What will happen if there is no awareness?

Nothing will happen, literally. There will be no experience, no existence.

What will change after that realisation?

Im not sure..

What are the sensations that appear when I say there is no awareness?

Thoughts come up, Confusion.


*Example of experience broken down into DE
Attending a training at work today
Hearing the instructor explain = sound (hearing)
Smelling the coffee I bought on my way there = smell (smelling)
Tasting the coffee taste = taste (tasting)
Feeling the chair I’m sitting on = sensation (feeling)
Seeing the whiteboard markings = light/shapes and colour (seeing)
Thought about what to make for dinner = thought (thinking)

Love,

Marina