Direct experiencing

[poppyseed]

Hi Marina

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

Thank you for obliging me! I can see that it is starting to pay off with all the inconsistencies in your answers :)

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).

Well spotted! Now look closer
What is noticing made of? Awareness? Or thought? What is discerning what is happening? What is doing the inquiry? What is observing the results? What is reporting the answers? What are thoughts talking to? Does it speak English?
Are there many knowing-s (mine, yours, others’), my thoughts and your thoughts? What makes the idea of “two computers talking to each other” less plausible? Is there awareness of thought or just thought? Is there knowing and thought or just how thought is experienced (as knowing things in English, no matter how subtle the knowing, even the word "knowing")

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

This is probably thought.

Stay with this! Be an explorer because it boils down to this… What is seeing that it is seen from a point of view?
Now to the inconsistencies…

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

If it is the “ultimate subject” then there should be a time when there is nothing else but IT, right? Again, have you ever experienced pure knowing of just knowing and nothing else (no sensations whatsoever (like “being alive”), no existence? What is the experience of not existing? Is there such and if there isn’t how is it known then there is? You could say knowing is existence but this makes "existence"/"knowing" into a thing in opposition no thing. That is the problem with concepts. We can argue until we are blue in the face...Like that story of blind men describing an elephant while touching different parts of it. Can you see that all of these are just concepts not worth fighting for because they can't be any further from reality...? You can decribe THIS in so may ways (all inacurate). The interesting part here is the clinginess to reality being in a certain way, because if it's not then ...

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.

If it is a known/experienceable quality – that of “being aware” – then the opposite must also ne known (“not being aware) – yin and yang. That is how concepts/qualities exist. That is what makes them qualities, right? Def: the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; a distinctive attribute or characteristic possessed by someone or something.
When have you experienced “not being aware”, to know that this, right now, is what “being aware” is? How is it known that you have been “unaware”? What makes ‘being aware” different from an abstraction?

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

No, this is very clear.

How is the “knowing” then experienced if this is all there IS (labelled as feeling, seeing, smelling, hearing, tasting and thinking)? If all there is experience, it should be observable (seen, felt, smelled, tasted, and/or heard). Then if it is “built” of any of these things, then it IS these “things”. To claim, that is more than that - a filter, a lens making them into things/knowing them, is what is left – thought. Knowing is AM-ness, THIS is IS-ness, do you see the difference? I am THIS (subjective) vs just THIS. As a consequence, existence is not a prerequisite to have THIS, THIS just IS, beyound existence and non existence.

Let’s address the fears

What will happen if there is no awareness?

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

How is this known exactly, or is it assumed/presumed (aka thought)? Thinking in opposites…

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

Thoughts come up, Confusion.

Exactly!! Thoughts “want” answers, neat understanding of reality - all boxes are checked and it makes sense. Can reality be understood? Ever? Also, what is outside/separate from reality, trying to understand reality?
How is confusion experienced? That sounds more like a title of book than an explanation. What are thoughts about? Also, what makes this confusion yours to resolve?

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

Fear as an emotion (thought + sensation) serves to protect something of changing or of dying. In the light of a personal self, it makes perfect sense. The self needs to be protected from harm and death. So look, if there is no self, what is being protected here? LOOK is this protection needed at all? Or is it just an identification with an emotion - a thought that claims that it feels something?
You can explore fear and other strong emotions (like confusion) in two ways
1. Look for the entity that is fearful/confused. Don't just say "there is no one/no experiencer, just thought". Have a look! Look again and again, until there is certainty beyond any doubt. So in a way hard emotions become an invitation for looking. Is there truly a ‘me’ in any form? If so, how is it known? Is this what experiences? Look for the owner of the feelings and the body.

2. Welcome and allow all the emotions – make them bigger. Let them come and listen to the stories that come from them. This is very simple but extremely effective.
Whenever a strong emotion arrives, try and deconstruct it down to bodily sensations. See that certain sensations tend to be labelled in certain ways, e.g. the thought label “fear” may be habitually applied to a knot-like sensation in the stomach area. “Anxiety” may be the thought label for trembling hands and nausea, etc. This varies for different people, so it helps to be aware of what it is for you. Can you give an example of this for fear?
Divested of the story that is attached to that sensation labelled ‘fear’ (for example), what is the sensation itself? Explore the sensation. Notice it, observe what it does. It’s like the sensation is continually changing / pulsating. It moves around, it becomes more intense, it becomes less intense; always changing its shape. Go deeply into that sensation (i.e. the vibration)
If you had to describe this sensation, how would you describe it? Is it describable?
It’s morphing, it’s changing, it’s vibrating, but the vibrating is itself a sensation.
Is it really fearful? Is the actual sensation itself fearful, or is "fear" added by thought? Is the thought "fear" fearful? Just leave your thoughts in the background, turn the volume down and refer directly to the sensation.
If you don’t think about it, do you know that this sensation is something called ‘fear’? Is there any inherent fear in the sensation itself?
Go to the sensation “at the soles of the feet”. Would you label that sensation ‘fear’? Or is it just a neutral, undefined tingling sensation? Now compare the sensation of the soles of the feet – which is just neutral sensation – and the sensation “in your chest” (labelled ‘fear’)…what is the difference between them? A little bit more intense, but apart from that – any difference?
Once you’re down to the bare sensation – having taken the thought label off it, the story can hardly go unnoticed. A knot in the stomach is a knot in the stomach, and nothing more (even that is a label) – not fear, and not a story about something that brings fear. Fear is not inherently existing, it is just a sticky note (an illusion) over a sensation.
The question is: Can you be in a body where there is fear (confusion, loneliness, etc)? Can you stay just with the sensations, allowing it to be seen that they are ok? Just stay there! "Fear" cannot be resolved (with thinking) it can only be dissolved by seeing that there is no inherent fear but just an "icky" sensation that have had a sticky note applied to it, and futher stories why it is there...
Again, I’m not speaking to knowing/awareness here - it’s just language (an instruction for DE). A "virus" thought that it is labelled "Rali's thought" (even though the "eyes are on you" reading this), bringing "your" thoughts to DE. It is an actionless action, effortless effort :). “Noticing”, “allowing”, “letting” are all words pointing to DE.

It might look like a lot, but basically you are looking from too sides of the belief – the actual inconsistencies In content (thoughts self-organising) and the resistance (confirmation bias to insights) fuelled by "fear". You can answer in parts if you prefer or work with all and then answering. Please let me know
Love
Rali

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

Just to let you know I am working with this. I will reply to you by tonight.

Love,
Marina

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

This took some time.. I have really tried to let go of thought in this. It’s just that it is really hard to say anything about anything then. There is no differentiation.

What is noticing made of? Awareness? Or thought?

I am not sure about this. Thought for sure, but it still feels like there is a quality of awareness in the noticing/knowing.

What is discerning what is happening?

This is thought for sure.

What is doing the inquiry?

Also Thought.

What is observing the results?

It feels like something is witnessing thought coming up with an answer or result. It is being registered somewhere.

What is reporting the answers?

Thought is reporting.

What are thoughts talking to?

To themselves.

Does it speak English?

Thought does speak English.

Are there many knowing-s (mine, yours, others’), my thoughts and your thoughts?

No just the One.

What makes the idea of “two computers talking to each other” less plausible?

Just an assumption - thought again.

Is there awareness of thought or just thought?

I am sensing the answer is there is just thought. But Im not yet confident to say this 100% as it still feels like there needs to be awareness of the thought.

Is there knowing and thought or just how thought is experienced (as knowing things in English, no matter how subtle the knowing, even the word "knowing”)

There is a knowing within thought. The thought is known.

Stay with this! Be an explorer because it boils down to this… What is seeing that it is seen from a point of view?

The experience of this particular life, “Marina’s world” so to say. Is a point of view. If it wasn’t a point of view then all other worlds would be experienced at the same time. This is again derivative logic and thought. But what is seeing this is the seeing itself, which has a quality of awareness to it.

Now to the inconsistencies…

If it is the “ultimate subject” then there should be a time when there is nothing else but IT, right? 

That was my assumption before yes.

Again, have you ever experienced pure knowing of just knowing and nothing else (no sensations whatsoever (like “being alive”), no existence?

Not that I can recall.


What is the experience of not existing?

To quote myself from before, and to use logic again, non existence doesn’t exist so that doesn’t seem possible to me.

Is there such and if there isn’t how is it known then there is? 

You mean how is it known that there isn’t? I guess you could say that it has never been experienced.

You could say knowing is existence but this makes "existence"/"knowing" into a thing in opposition no thing.

No it is not in opposition to anything because it is all there is. It is the whole, there is nothing else you can compare it to. It is not a thing, not an object.

That is the problem with concepts. We can argue until we are blue in the face...Like that story of blind men describing an elephant while touching different parts of it. 

Yes I understand that concepts are thought, but we do need them to communicate, otherwise there would be nothing to say. That might just be the conclusion I will come to in the end… I just want to share with you what’s getting me.


Can you see that all of these are just concepts not worth fighting for because they can't be any further from reality...? 

Yes, concepts are just labels, thoughts, not reality. The only problem is that awareness doesn’t feel like a concept in my experience. It feels like truth, the only thing that I am sure of.

You can decribe THIS in so may ways (all inacurate).

Yes any description is inaccurate because descriptions are conceptual and limiting. And THIS is not.


The interesting part here is the clinginess to reality being in a certain way, because if it's not then ...

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.

If it is a known/experienceable quality – that of “being aware” – then the opposite must also ne known (“not being aware) – yin and yang.

Nothing else is known because THIS aware experience is all there is. There is no such thing as “not being aware”.

That is how concepts/qualities exist. That is what makes them qualities, right? 

Yes If you would assume that there is also something else called not being aware, but this is just a concept indeed.

Def: the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; a distinctive attribute or characteristic possessed by someone or something.
When have you experienced “not being aware”, to know that this, right now, is what “being aware” is?

I have never experienced not being aware.

How is it known that you have been “unaware”?

This is impossible of course.

What makes ‘being aware” different from an abstraction?

An abstraction can be pointed to, can be identified as an object. Being aware cannot.

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

No, this is very clear.

How is the “knowing” then experienced if this is all there IS (labelled as feeling, seeing, smelling, hearing, tasting and thinking)? 

It is experienced as a quality of the DE’s that encompass all there is.

If all there is experience, it should be observable (seen, felt, smelled, tasted, and/or heard).

Experience is observable, due to the awareness quality of DE’s. Otherwise it would not be observable.

Then if it is “built” of any of these things, then it IS these “things”.

Yes agreed.

To claim, that is more than that - a filter, a lens making them into things/knowing them, is what is left – thought.

It is not more, it is just a quality of that which already is. It is not like a separate layer on top.. A small test: While I am looking at the sky, I see light, shape and colour, and even before thought labels it as “Sky” there is awareness of seeing. Only when thought comes it starts labelling it and conceptualising it into Sky or clowdy etc.

Knowing is AM-ness, THIS is IS-ness, do you see the difference? 

Yes I understand the difference. It might be the IS-ness that I am referring to as awareness…

I am THIS (subjective) vs just THIS.

Yes I see, not seen from a point of view.

As a consequence, existence is not a prerequisite to have THIS, THIS just IS, beyound existence and non existence.

Yes.

Let’s address the fears
What will happen if there is no awareness?

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

How is this known exactly, or is it assumed/presumed (aka thought)? Thinking in opposites…

This is thought for sure, concept. As this is something I can’t Directly experience.

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

Thoughts come up, Confusion.

Exactly!! Thoughts “want” answers, neat understanding of reality - all boxes are checked and it makes sense. Can reality be understood? Ever?

No clearly not :) haha

Also, what is outside/separate from reality, trying to understand reality?

Nothing. There is nothing separate from reality.

How is confusion experienced? 

Just a total chaos of thoughts.

That sounds more like a title of book than an explanation.

Haha I could definitely write a book on confusion, I’m an expert…

What are thoughts about?

About nothing really.

Also, what makes this confusion yours to resolve?

I guess I assume that when the confusion is resolved I will be free. I know this is false and just a way of the “false self” that is made of thought trying to keep itself alive. But its already clear it is not real.

Fear as an emotion (thought + sensation) serves to protect something of changing or of dying. In the light of a personal self, it makes perfect sense. The self needs to be protected from harm and death.

 Yes exactly, this is what I just mentioned. This is already seen through, although there seems to be like a habit still going on some kind of momentum. I can see it for what it is and the fear is much less frequent, and when it does happen, it is dispelled quickly due to recognition of that this is just thought. Some beliefs still slip through the cracks it seems since they are subtle.

So look, if there is no self, what is being protected here? 

Thought is trying to protect itself.

LOOK is this protection needed at all?

No, this is clear.

Or is it just an identification with an emotion - a thought that claims that it feels something?

Yes, it’s an impostor! :)

You can explore fear and other strong emotions (like confusion) in two ways

1. Look for the entity that is fearful/confused. Don't just say "there is no one/no experiencer, just thought". Have a look!

When you say “Have a look” do you mean just go to the DE’s?
When the focus goes on DE’s there is no entity found.

Look again and again, until there is certainty beyond any doubt.

This is clear and certain.

So in a way hard emotions become an invitation for looking. Is there truly a ‘me’ in any form?

There is a feeling that was labelled “Me” in the past, but this is seen to be just a sensation and thoughts.

If so, how is it known?

Any “Me” is a label.

Is this what experiences? 

No, there is nothing (not a thing) that experiences. The experiencing is a quality of the whole.

Look for the owner of the feelings and the body.

This is thought (Labels) like mentioned before.

The second part I will get to tomorrow. Thanks for your help in this, much appreciated!

*Example of experience broken down into DE
Going for a walk with the dog
Hearing the wind = sound (hearing)
Smelling the wood burning = smell (smelling)
Feeling the cold on my hands outside = sensation (feeling)
Seeing other people walking = light/shapes and colour (seeing)
Thought about how cold it is already = thought (thinking)

Love,

Marina

[poppyseed]

Hi Marina

Very good!
I will wait for you to finsh so we don't go backwards and forwards...

It feels like something is witnessing thought coming up with an answer or result. It is being registered somewhere.

I just want to share something with you that might bring some clarity on "knowing"
https://psyche.co/ideas/how-feelings-ab ... -our-world

Please read it and let me know what you make of this. Is that what you had in mind? This is why I always say:

"seems like", "feels like" = thought content
These are very subtle but still thoughts - like thoughts judging thoughts. You can call them second thoughts, or even third thoughts - thoughts judging the thoughts judjing the thought, layers of sticky notes :). Nothing in DE is seems like, it's either here or not
But more of this later...

Love
Rali

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

Just to let you know, it's been a crazy day today, some family visiting, so didn't get a chance to sit down for this today. Tomorrow traveling to Belgium so I'm not sure if I'll have time, so if you don't hear from me I'll reply for sure on Sunday!
Thanks for the link by the way :) I'll check it out
I wish you a wonderful weekend!

Love,
Marina

[poppyseed]

Hi Maina
Thank you for letting me know! Enjoy! :)

Love
Rali

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

Hope you've had a good weekend!
Here is the second part:

2. Welcome and allow all the emotions – make them bigger. Let them come and listen to the stories that come from them. This is very simple but extremely effective.

Yes I have made an effort in the last period to really focus on this and whenever emotions occur, to just let them be, investigate them, see if there is anyone there or just the emotions etc.

Whenever a strong emotion arrives, try and deconstruct it down to bodily sensations.

Yes, this is very helpful.


See that certain sensations tend to be labelled in certain ways, e.g. the thought label “fear” may be habitually applied to a knot-like sensation in the stomach area.

Yes, actually what I have found is that when I feel a strong sensation, it is usually always around the throat area, like a suffocating feeling, and I don’t really know what to call it, so Ive stopped trying to label it.

“Anxiety” may be the thought label for trembling hands and nausea, etc.




This varies for different people, so it helps to be aware of what it is for you. Can you give an example of this for fear?

Yes, For me it usually manifests more as a series of thoughts followed by a queasy feeling in the stomach. Also I have experienced a few times my heart beating very hard, hyperventilating etc, which was very scary. But I have tried to just keep calm and see what happens. It passed eventually.

Divested of the story that is attached to that sensation labelled ‘fear’ (for example), what is the sensation itself? 

It is just different sensations usually in combination with thought.

Explore the sensation. Notice it, observe what it does.

Yes, noted.


It’s like the sensation is continually changing / pulsating. It moves around, it becomes more intense, it becomes less intense; always changing its shape.

Indeed it is always changing.


Go deeply into that sensation (i.e. the vibration). If you had to describe this sensation, how would you describe it?

It is changing. That’s all I can really say about it.


Is it describable?

Not really, it just is.

It’s morphing, it’s changing, it’s vibrating, but the vibrating is itself a sensation.

Yes it can be reduced to just “sensation” if you don’t label it further.

Is it really fearful?

That’s just a label and concept I have given to it in the course of my experience. But its just sensation in reality.


Is the actual sensation itself fearful, or is "fear" added by thought?

Yes, it is thought/conditioning.

Is the thought "fear" fearful? 

No it is just a concept.

Just leave your thoughts in the background, turn the volume down and refer directly to the sensation.If you don’t think about it, do you know that this sensation is something called ‘fear’?

No I just know the sensation directly as it is.

Is there any inherent fear in the sensation itself?

No

Go to the sensation “at the soles of the feet”. Would you label that sensation ‘fear’?

No I would label it “soles of my feet” if I really had to label it.

Or is it just a neutral, undefined tingling sensation? 

It is just a sensation, which is also always morphing.


Now compare the sensation of the soles of the feet – which is just neutral sensation – and the sensation “in your chest” (labelled ‘fear’)…what is the difference between them? 

They are the same - just sensation. The difference appears when you start labelling/thought appears.


A little bit more intense, but apart from that – any difference?

No not that I can see directly.

Once you’re down to the bare sensation – having taken the thought label off it, the story can hardly go unnoticed. A knot in the stomach is a knot in the stomach, and nothing more (even that is a label) – not fear, and not a story about something that brings fear. Fear is not inherently existing, it is just a sticky note (an illusion) over a sensation.

Yes, this is clear.

The question is: Can you be in a body where there is fear (confusion, loneliness, etc)?

Yes I have been practicing this/focusing on just observing the fear/sensations.


Can you stay just with the sensations, allowing it to be seen that they are ok? 

Yes this is possible.


Just stay there! "Fear" cannot be resolved (with thinking) it can only be dissolved by seeing that there is no inherent fear but just an "icky" sensation that have had a sticky note applied to it, and futher stories why it is there...
Again, I’m not speaking to knowing/awareness here - it’s just language (an instruction for DE). A "virus" thought that it is labelled "Rali's thought" (even though the "eyes are on you" reading this), bringing "your" thoughts to DE. It is an actionless action, effortless effort :). “Noticing”, “allowing”, “letting” are all words pointing to DE.

And the DEs have no aware quality? I still can’t seem to validate this for some reason.

*Example of experience broken down into DE
Sanding a piece of wood
Hearing the noise of the sander = sound (hearing)
Smelling the sand dust = smell (smelling)
Feeling the vibrations in my hand = sensation (feeling)
Seeing the wood become more smooth = light/shapes and colour (seeing)
Thought about how cold it is = thought (thinking)

Love,
Marina

[poppyseed]

Hi Marina
You are doing great! :)

Experience is observable, due to the awareness quality of DE’s. Otherwise it would not be observable.

What makes experience observable? Is it the concept "experience"? Drop the concept "experience". What is left?

It is not more, it is just a quality of that which already is. It is not like a separate layer on top.. A small test: While I am looking at the sky, I see light, shape and colour, and even before thought labels it as “Sky” there is awareness of seeing. Only when thought comes it starts labelling it and conceptualising it into Sky or clowdy etc.

An abstraction can be pointed to, can be identified as an object. Being aware cannot.

But you see there is no “seeing” either in THIS. It’s a description – a very basic one (a DE label), but still. Light, shape, colour are all attributes further added by thought. Finally “sky” is “creating” a “solid” “thing”. So it just a layer upon layer of sticky notes, starting with something vague and abstract and ending with a “solid” thing, all done by thought. “Experience” is always on, and yet nothing happens in THIS, ever! Without thought – nothing appears or disappears, nothing changes, so no awareness is needed to register it, it just IS. It always IS. Only thought marks the “differences”/”peculiarities”/ the “peaks and the troughs” as something happening, and with it, the awareness of it – “I know that there is this particular seeing happening, which was not happening before”. There is nothing to be experienced or to be noticed without the descriptions. It’s a duality on a very subtle level. That’s how separation starts - knowing and stuff to be known, then more and more “detail” is added, “creating” “things” and the “world”, and the observer/self/SELF/etc . Can you see that? Can you see the emptiness of everything, even the DE labels and knowing? Emptiness does not mean nothingness though. It means that seeming things only exist in a relation to each other, they do not have an inherent existence – they are descriptions, the fingers pointing to the moon (but not the moon).
You say that abstractions can be identified as an object (?). The definition of abstraction is : ”something which exists only as an idea”. There are concepts like “apple” that point to specific seeing, feeling…. There are concepts that do not point to anything particular (anything “solid”) but are useful in conversation – like a “country”. Finally, there are concepts that point to nonexciting stuff like “unicorn”, or “Santa”. So yeah, not all concepts point to existing stuff or could be “identified as objects”.
You cleverly disguise this “thing” as a “quality”. BUT! If it is inseparable from “experience” how do you know that is there – you have to be able to separate/isolate it to know that it is there, even as a quality. Otherwise it is an abstraction, an idea. Any quality is an abstraction because THIS is indescribable. THIS does not have meaning on its own. If it is indescribable, what makes the description of “knowing” correct?

Focus on the quality that “detects” what is happening. Stay with it! What are it’s identifiable characteristics (beyond the thought “this is knowing”), what makes it stand out to a point that you claim (quite boldly) it’s all there is (the chicken or the egg)? If it cannot be isolated/ experienced (pure knowing on its own), how is it known that there is something that is “not-experience” and that is prime (that sounds like a learned stuff)? This is quite a statement, you have to be basing it on something (not teachings hopefully). Again, is there unknown THIS, in order to claim that THIS is known? Who/what says that THIS has to be known and what will happen if it is not known? Is THIS waiting around to be known?
What makes the knowing a “not-experience” – a different quality (especially after seeing that the location, from where everything is seen, is not real)? Most importantly, what seems to create and then notice the incipient separation between what is “experience” and what is “not-experience” (i.e. knowing), or that it is a quality? And it knows that it is described with the concept “knowing” (the state of being aware or informed)? What am I talking to? Does it use thoughts to express itself? Did the knowing thought that it was a self before? Was confused?

Don’t be in a hurry to answer with a prepared answer. Don’t just dismiss it as something you’ve already seen. Have a reasonable amount of doubt that the answer, that you have, might not be correct, so approach it with a “beginner’s mind”. That’s how thoughts get reorganised and old stories dropped, by seeing that no story (no matter how spiritual and amazing) is ever true. I am not trying to replace your belief with another one, I’m just challenging the stubbornness of the existing one ;). The one that claims that it knows how reality is. Can you be in a body where the idea of “knowing” is released? (sensations)

That’s just a label and concept I have given to it in the course of my experience. But its just sensation in reality.


You or thought? And what makes the experience yours? What is experiencing the sensation? What has conditioning?

Holding up to that idea is like an anchor, like something that gives stability and promises that things won’t be that much different after the inquiry (confirmation bias in thought self-organisation). There will be love, existence in some way, etc So in a way I am not a self but I am the knowing of everything. Suffering happens to this knowing which is not personal. However, suffering is there because there is a "centerless center”/"quality" that experieces/knows it. So nothing is changed, and off we go in another loop. You say that you fear non-existence but it should be clear by now that the idea of “no-existence” is just an idea. We imagine what will happen after we die, all these rotting corpses etc – but again all of this is seen through the lenses/story/prime belief of a self – the world and everything that happens in it. So by now it should be clear that nothing we see is the world (reality), but a story, an illusion. Existence becomes irrelevant in this context. The only thing that keeps this fear staying/hooked (even though it’s seen as just a thought with neutral sensations) is because of that center-less center – life happens to … (fill the space with whatever you want to call it). That’s the difference between AM-ness and IS-ness. So let’s look for that “center”/”field of knowing” etc

Just stay there! "Fear" cannot be resolved (with thinking) it can only be dissolved by seeing that there is no inherent fear but just an "icky" sensation that have had a sticky note applied to it, and futher stories why it is there...
Again, I’m not speaking to knowing/awareness here - it’s just language (an instruction for DE). A "virus" thought that it is labelled "Rali's thought" (even though the "eyes are on you" reading this), bringing "your" thoughts to DE. It is an actionless action, effortless effort :). “Noticing”, “allowing”, “letting” are all words pointing to DE.

And the DEs have no aware quality? I still can’t seem to validate this for some reason.

It boils down to description of what is happening. There never was a problem with DE (aka suffering) – it happened the same way it will happen (no time either - before and after), we are just changing perceptions (the story/thoughts about DE/reality) here. And not "we" but thought itself. DE cannot be changed. Can a “quality” notice something and change it? How? Are you that “quality”? Is the quality in charge of thoughts?

LOOK = thought "telling" thoughts to organise around experience instead of around other thoughts, that’s all.

However there is also a habit of experiencing the I as a feeling located somewhere where the body is experienced (which is an objective projection), and I seem to be going back and forth between identifying with the body (especially when the body is limited due to certain circumstances) and the subjective watching without an objective self.

We checked with seeing (the blackness exercise) so let’s check now with the rest of the senses (even though there are no inherent senses, remember). Otherwise, it turns into a philosophical debate.
First stop hearing…
I would like you to sit quietly and close your eyes and just listen to the sounds for a few minutes that can be heard both inside and outside of the room. Really hear them. Tell me ONE sound that you heard when doing this?
Okay, great! Now sit quietly again and listen to the sound for a minute of two and as you listen, I would like for you to answer the following questions by looking at what you direct actual experience is and not with an intellectual answer.
Without thought, how is it known that the sound heard is the ' hum of the dehumidifier' (for example)?
Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it is 'hum of the dehumidifier', or is it thought that suggests it?
What is the actual experience (AE) of hearing ‘birds chirping’? Is it AE of smell, taste, sensation, sound, colour or thought?

Rest for a moment and listen to the sounds around. Whatever it is, let's just refer to it as 'what can be heard'.
1) In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'?
2) Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only 'what can be heard'?
3) An 'I'? a 'body'? a control room? a 'person'? a brain? a pair of ears? Can these be found doing the hearing? Or is there just 'what can be heard'?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT HEARER in any shape or form (or form-less-ness) be found? Would anything that is suggested as the hearer/observer/witness/knowing quality, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought added after the fact even though it presupposes "before" ?
Please don’t answer from previous experience, always have a “beginner’s mind” attitude and a fresh LOOK!
Love
Rali

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

You are doing great! :)

Thanks for the encouragement… It does feel like the doing or trying part is what is keeping this loop going.. maybe its better to just let it go…

What makes experience observable?

I was referring to the direct experiences when I said “Experience”. They have this observable or knowing quality to them.


Is it the concept "experience”?

Yes I guess “Experience” is also an abstraction of THIS which is. When you refer to THIS, would that not be similar to me referring to Knowing/awareness. Both are incorrect because they seem to refer to something that can be referred to but in reality its impossible to say anything about it.


Drop the concept "experience". What is left?

Nothing that you can say anything about.


But you see there is no “seeing” either in THIS. It’s a description – a very basic one (a DE label), but still.

Yes I can see that. It is also a label, just at a more subtle level.


Light, shape, colour are all attributes further added by thought. Finally “sky” is “creating” a “solid” “thing”. So it just a layer upon layer of sticky notes, starting with something vague and abstract and ending with a “solid” thing, all done by thought. “Experience” is always on, and yet nothing happens in THIS, ever!

This is exactly what I was also mentioning before, although I might have referred to it differently.

Without thought – nothing appears or disappears, nothing changes, so no awareness is needed to register it, it just IS. It always IS. Only thought marks the “differences”/”peculiarities”/ the “peaks and the troughs” as something happening, and with it, the awareness of it – “I know that there is this particular seeing happening, which was not happening before”. There is nothing to be experienced or to be noticed without the descriptions. It’s a duality on a very subtle level. That’s how separation starts - knowing and stuff to be known, then more and more “detail” is added, “creating” “things” and the “world”, and the observer/self/SELF/etc . Can you see that? 

Yes this is clear.

Can you see the emptiness of everything, even the DE labels and knowing? 

Yes, its not sticky. It just is, but if there are no thoughts nothing sticks or becomes a “thing”.

Emptiness does not mean nothingness though. It means that seeming things only exist in a relation to each other, they do not have an inherent existence – they are descriptions, the fingers pointing to the moon (but not the moon).

Yes this is clear.

You say that abstractions can be identified as an object (?).

Yes what I mean by object is something that can be described/defined, so it could also be a mental construct, an idea, not necessarily only a thing or object in the “world”.

The definition of abstraction is : ”something which exists only as an idea”. There are concepts like “apple” that point to specific seeing, feeling…. There are concepts that do not point to anything particular (anything “solid”) but are useful in conversation – like a “country”.

Exactly, those are all objects. 


Finally, there are concepts that point to nonexciting stuff like “unicorn”, or “Santa”. So yeah, not all concepts point to existing stuff or could be “identified as objects”.

Yes, also a unicorn I would consider an object because you can describe it, even though it’s not a real thing in the world we perceive, it is real in the sense that we can describe it as an object.

You cleverly disguise this “thing” as a “quality”. BUT! If it is inseparable from “experience” how do you know that is there – you have to be able to separate/isolate it to know that it is there, even as a quality.

Because its nature is awareness or knowing, including knowing itself. It doesn’t need something else to know itself. Yes this is quoted in oder to properly describe, but I can confirm this when someone asks if I am aware, I don’t have to check this anywhere because it is self evident.


Otherwise it is an abstraction, an idea. Any quality is an abstraction because THIS is indescribable. THIS does not have meaning on its own. If it is indescribable, what makes the description of “knowing” correct?

You are using the description “THIS” which I might have also done instead of knowing or awareness. Knowing is of course also not a correct description.

Focus on the quality that “detects” what is happening. Stay with it! What are it’s identifiable characteristics (beyond the thought “this is knowing”), what makes it stand out to a point that you claim (quite boldly) it’s all there is (the chicken or the egg)?

Nothing that I can point to or describe. It doesn’t have characteristics. It just is.

If it cannot be isolated/ experienced (pure knowing on its own), how is it known that there is something that is “not-experience” and that is prime (that sounds like a learned stuff)? 

It is self evident. It cannot be known as an “object”. It is subjective. By subjective I don’t mean there is an “object” there from which it is seen. It is all there is so there cannot be anything that can identify it.



This is quite a statement, you have to be basing it on something (not teachings hopefully).

Well maybe triggered by some teachings, but it is based on me answering the question: are you aware? And This has always been yes, which is based on my direct experience/awareness.

Again, is there unknown THIS, in order to claim that THIS is known?

Im not sure what that means…

Who/what says that THIS has to be known and what will happen if it is not known? 

Then it would not be THIS. It would be non existent.


Is THIS waiting around to be known?

No THIS just is. It can’t not be. There is nothing apart from it so its not waiting for anything, it just is.

What makes the knowing a “not-experience” – a different quality (especially after seeing that the location, from where everything is seen, is not real)? 

Nothing makes it, that is just its nature. Im not sure what you mean exactly..?


Most importantly, what seems to create and then notice the incipient separation between what is “experience” and what is “not-experience” (i.e. knowing), or that it is a quality?

But I have mentioned specifically that there is no separation. It is all one, or as you refer to it: “THIS”


And it knows that it is described with the concept “knowing” (the state of being aware or informed)?

The concept comes from thought of course, because we are trying to describe something that can’t be described to each other. That’s what might be causing the confusion.

What am I talking to?

To nothing (not a thing). Nothing that can be described.

Does it use thoughts to express itself?

No it doesn’t. Thoughts use thoughts to express themselves. THIS doesn’t. it just is.

Did the knowing thought that it was a self before? Was confused?

No these were thoughts that is clear.

Don’t be in a hurry to answer with a prepared answer.

I am answering in the moment as it comes up. Im not sure how else to answer? At some point I have to conceptualise somehow to answer you… I don’t know if this is the issue and maybe I just need to stop thinking about this and just let go of thoughts and just be..

Don’t just dismiss it as something you’ve already seen. Have a reasonable amount of doubt that the answer, that you have, might not be correct, so approach it with a “beginner’s mind”. 

Yes, I am spending a lot of time on some questions, because I keep going back and looking..

That’s how thoughts get reorganised and old stories dropped, by seeing that no story (no matter how spiritual and amazing) is ever true. I am not trying to replace your belief with another one, I’m just challenging the stubbornness of the existing one ;).

Yes I know, I really appreciate your effort. It seems that I keep having the need to “Understand”, because I feel that this will liberate me somehow. Its not necessarily that I am stuck to a specific belief (maybe just the awareness one a bit), but more that I feel like I have to make sense of THIS for some reason, which is impossible, I can see that also, and it is just keeping me in the loop of concepts, ideas and beliefs. How to escape this need to “understand”… it feels like the question arises: what do I do then? There is no one there to do anything, this is also evident. But this is like an old habit still having momentum… I guess it just needs to die out on its own… Any thoughts from you on this?

The one that claims that it knows how reality is. Can you be in a body where the idea of “knowing” is released? (sensations)

Yes, exactly. The one that wants to make sense of it (doesn’t claim that it knows, but it wants to know or thinks it can be known) I am certainly open to it, but I don’t know how as it seems to be something happening automatically.

You or thought?

Yes, its thought!


And what makes the experience yours?

I guess, because its the only experience that is “known”/experienced.

What is experiencing the sensation?

The experience itself.

What has conditioning?

Thoughts have conditioning.

Holding up to that idea is like an anchor, like something that gives stability and promises that things won’t be that much different after the inquiry (confirmation bias in thought self-organisation). There will be love, existence in some way, etc So in a way I am not a self but I am the knowing of everything. Suffering happens to this knowing which is not personal. However, suffering is there because there is a "centerless center”/"quality" that experieces/knows it. So nothing is changed, and off we go in another loop. You say that you fear non-existence but it should be clear by now that the idea of “no-existence” is just an idea.

Yes this is clear, and although the fear comes up still occasionally (habitual residue), the fear is just sensations and it is just experienced and let go, so were good on that.

We imagine what will happen after we die, all these rotting corpses etc – but again all of this is seen through the lenses/story/prime belief of a self – the world and everything that happens in it. So by now it should be clear that nothing we see is the world (reality), but a story, an illusion.

Yes this is clear.

Existence becomes irrelevant in this context. The only thing that keeps this fear staying/hooked (even though it’s seen as just a thought with neutral sensations) is because of that center-less center – life happens to … (fill the space with whatever you want to call it). That’s the difference between AM-ness and IS-ness. So let’s look for that “center”/”field of knowing” etc

OK

It boils down to description of what is happening. There never was a problem with DE (aka suffering) – it happened the same way it will happen (no time either - before and after), we are just changing perceptions (the story/thoughts about DE/reality) here. And not "we" but thought itself. DE cannot be changed. Can a “quality” notice something and change it? How?

No it can’t “do” anything.

Are you that “quality”?

No it is all there is and there is no “Me”.

Is the quality in charge of thoughts?

No thoughts just come and go.

LOOK = thought "telling" thoughts to organise around experience instead of around other thoughts, that’s all.

Ok yes!

We checked with seeing (the blackness exercise) so let’s check now with the rest of the senses (even though there are no inherent senses, remember). Otherwise, it turns into a philosophical debate.

Yes indeed, was just thinking back about that point.

First stop hearing…

Ok… I don’t think that’s possible unless I put something in my ears… but Ill try.

I would like you to sit quietly and close your eyes and just listen to the sounds for a few minutes that can be heard both inside and outside of the room. Really hear them. Tell me ONE sound that you heard when doing this?

I heard many at once (clock ticking, heating pipes cracking, car passing outside) but in general just sounds.

Okay, great! Now sit quietly again and listen to the sound for a minute of two and as you listen, I would like for you to answer the following questions by looking at what you direct actual experience is and not with an intellectual answer.
Without thought, how is it known that the sound heard is the ' hum of the dehumidifier' (for example)?

This is thought/label, this is clear yes, as when the sounds just appear they can’t be pinned down as something. they just appear and change all the time. Only conceptualising makes them into something, an “object”.

Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it is 'hum of the dehumidifier', or is it thought that suggests it?

No this is thought for sure, I can see that clearly.

What is the actual experience (AE) of hearing ‘birds chirping’?

Just a continuously changing sound experience.

Is it AE of smell, taste, sensation, sound, colour or thought?

It is sound.

Rest for a moment and listen to the sounds around. Whatever it is, let's just refer to it as 'what can be heard'.
1) In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard’?

No

2) Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only 'what can be heard’?

Only that which can be heard can be found.

3) An 'I'? a 'body'? a control room? a 'person'? a brain? a pair of ears? Can these be found doing the hearing? Or is there just 'what can be heard’?

There is only that which is heard.

What do you find?

I can find only that which can be heard.

Can an INHERENT HEARER in any shape or form (or form-less-ness) be found?

No it can’t be found because only things that have an objective quality can be found.


Would anything that is suggested as the hearer/observer/witness/knowing quality, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought added after the fact even though it presupposes "before" ?

Anything labeled is a thought construct, so as we refer to this with these concepts, this is indeed all thought. But THIS/knowhing is not before anything, it is all there is.

Please don’t answer from previous experience, always have a “beginner’s mind” attitude and a fresh LOOK!

Yes I have done my best, but its hard to answer without referring back to some concepts etc.

*Example of experience broken down into DE
Taking a bath
Hearing the water run into the tub = sound (hearing)
Smelling the bath salts = smell (smelling)
Feeling the warm water = sensation (feeling)
Seeing the light of the candles flicker = light/shapes and colour (seeing)
Thought about how nice and warm it is = thought (thinking)

Love,
Marina

[poppyseed]

Hi Marina
I love your openness and determination!

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.

Yes, I’ve been there myself. It is a stepping stone, a crutch, which has to be let go of as well eventually. The Buddhists have this saying about the raft that takes you to the other shore, which is left behind once the shore is reached.

Yes this is quoted in order to properly describe, but I can confirm this when someone asks if I am aware, I don’t have to check this anywhere because it is self evident.


Like the self? You can say exactly the same about the self – you can’t show it, if you ask it is it aware it will say yes, you "don’t have to check anywhere to know that is there" – "it is self-evident", no? Also there are no DE “readings/values” for it…It just seems like/feels like it is there. Sounds a bit similar to me :) This is why we have DE as a tool, to sieve all the "seems like" "self-evident" stuff. The only difference is the one is seen/acknoledged as a belief and the other is not.

When you refer to THIS, would that not be similar to me referring to Knowing/awareness. Both are incorrect because they seem to refer to something that can be referred to but in reality its impossible to say anything about it.


Of course! I use THIS! as a pointing word – it just directs attention to what IS without giving it additional meaning or qualities. Like: “LOOK!”. Just don’t forget that the main purpose of thoughts is to give meaning/ refer to DE (or other thoughts), otherwise the exchange of information is impossible. However, the least meaning we put, the closest it gets to DE. Knowing comes loaded with qualities which are assumed (“self-evident”) - recognising, being aware, existance, etc. THIS is just what is happening right here/right now (not in general). It doen't require anything to be known, it just IS. I might as well say "..." (silence)

First stop hearing…

Ok… I don’t think that’s possible unless I put something in my ears… but Ill try.

How did it go? “Let's eat, Grandma" :). The importance of a comma, demonstrating the emptiness of thought. I meant : “First stop, hearing” :)

Yes I have done my best, but its hard to answer without referring back to some concepts etc.

Yes, of course! But every time you use concepts, it reveals something about “Marina”

I can find only that which can be heard.

What is that I that can find stuff – Marina, thought or the knowing? ( Or are they all the same)

No it can’t be found because only things that have an objective quality can be found.


Objective qualities? So is knowing a subjective quality? Where is the subject that experiences "knowing" or "objects"? Is knowing the subject that experiences itself and objects? You say that it cannot be described in terms of DE Hearing can be described in terms of sounds, seeing in terms of colours, tasting in terms of tastes, etc. So if you say "knowing is the hearing" (sound) then what makes it then something more than just an additional conceptual layer over hearing (another layer), a thought about a thought? How is it known/understood that there is knowing if there is only evidence for DE (i.e. hearing)? In my experience, there is only experience (e.g. hearing). Please explain the knowing part to me. Explain it like you will explain it to someone who have never heard of Advaita vedanta.

Anything labeled is a thought construct, so as we refer to this with these concepts, this is indeed all thought. But THIS/knowhing is not before anything, it is all there is.

All that IS here “right now” is the sound/hearing. There is no "THIS/knowing" right now, there is just hearing/sound (thought about DE). Anything else added to that description is unnecessary – thought about thought (not about DE). Do you see that?
Here is the excerpt from the Bahiya sutra to consider again, especially the second part:

"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."

What is the actual experience (AE) of hearing ‘birds chirping’?

Just a continuously changing sound experience.

It’s actually an AE of thought pointing to DE (hearing/sound)

Yes I know, I really appreciate your effort. It seems that I keep having the need to “Understand”, because I feel that this will liberate me somehow. Its not necessarily that I am stuck to a specific belief (maybe just the awareness one a bit), but more that I feel like I have to make sense of THIS for some reason, which is impossible, I can see that also, and it is just keeping me in the loop of concepts, ideas and beliefs. How to escape this need to “understand”… it feels like the question arises: what do I do then? There is no one there to do anything, this is also evident. But this is like an old habit still having momentum… I guess it just needs to die out on its own… Any thoughts from you on this?

Well everything that you know about reality is built on concepts, which meaning is based on conditioning. "The world" as you know it is your "bubble of reality", your dream. Understanding is a story based on concepts (like apples). So it cannot go beyond the concepts and the conditioned meaning behind them – it is empty. Even maths is valid only within the parameters set. If you take two integers and use the standard addition law, then, yes, two plus two equals four. But there are many other things those numbers could stand for and many other addition laws, and depending on your definition, two plus two might be two or one or five or really anything at all. The point is that two plus two is a symbolic representation for the properties of elements of a group. And the result depends on what the 2s refer to and how the mathematical operation “+” is defined. Strictly speaking, without those definitions 2+2 can be pretty much anything :).

Furthermore, even in a conventional language, to believe is to not know something but to pretend that you do. Once this is truly understood, all beliefs are abandoned effortlessly. The alternative to believing is to simply admit to yourself that you don't know. All you have to do is dive into the fact that you don’t know. We live our whole lives quite sure that we do know - and that’s our whole experience (i.e. thinking). What’s the experience of not knowing/understanding? What does it really feel like? What does it really feel like to not know? What sensations are there?

Yes, exactly. The one that wants to make sense of it (doesn’t claim that it knows, but it wants to know or thinks it can be known) I am certainly open to it, but I don’t know how as it seems to be something happening automatically.

Everything is happening automatically :). The fear of uncertainty, the desire to know, and the desire for control over what is happening, are all linked (you can say the same) – even if it is as subtle as identifying with experience (as knowing everything). Wanting to understand, to have control over life is the flip side of lacking control. Wanting is a sign that something is incomplete, or missing. Here is another angle. Wanting anything is just that— wanting/thought.
At the bottom of all wants/aversions are “unpleasant” sensations, sensations that at some point have had an “unpleasant” sticky note attached, on top of which other stories explaining why, etc…What sensations arise when I say: “There is not knowing/awareness”? What sensations arise when I say : “You will never understand reality”? Please describe in full
I would advise spending time with each question at different times so you don't have to maintain consistancy.

Love
Rali

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

I love your openness and determination!
…
Yes, I’ve been there myself. It is a stepping stone, a crutch, which has to be let go of as well eventually. The Buddhists have this saying about the raft that takes you to the other shore, which is left behind once the shore is reached.

This makes sense yes, thank you. I’m ready to let go. I just need to let go of the need to know how to let go.

Yes this is quoted in order to properly describe, but I can confirm this when someone asks if I am aware, I don’t have to check this anywhere because it is self evident.


Like the self? You can say exactly the same about the self – you can’t show it, if you ask it is it aware it will say yes, you "don’t have to check anywhere to know that is there" – "it is self-evident", no? 

Yes I guess it is still identifying something… although not something that can be identified using words or concepts.

Also there are no DE “readings/values” for it…It just seems like/feels like it is there. Sounds a bit similar to me :)

Yes it seems also to be derived.

This is why we have DE as a tool, to sieve all the "seems like" "self-evident" stuff. The only difference is the one is seen/acknoledged as a belief and the other is not.

Yes I can see this.

Of course! I use THIS! as a pointing word – it just directs attention to what IS without giving it additional meaning or qualities. Like: “LOOK!”.

Ok yes, without any thought attached to it.

Just don’t forget that the main purpose of thoughts is to give meaning/ refer to DE (or other thoughts), otherwise the exchange of information is impossible. However, the least meaning we put, the closest it gets to DE. Knowing comes loaded with qualities which are assumed (“self-evident”) - recognising, being aware, existance, etc. THIS is just what is happening right here/right now (not in general). It doen't require anything to be known, it just IS. I might as well say "..." (silence)

Yes understood.

First stop hearing…
Ok… I don’t think that’s possible unless I put something in my ears… but Ill try.

How did it go? “Let's eat, Grandma" :). The importance of a comma, demonstrating the emptiness of thought. I meant : “First stop, hearing” :)

LOL :D that makes much more sense hahaha

Yes, of course! But every time you use concepts, it reveals something about “Marina”
What is that I that can find stuff – Marina, thought or the knowing? ( Or are they all the same)

They are all the same, yes.


No it can’t be found because only things that have an objective quality can be found.

Objective qualities?

Yes, like something you can describe or conceptualise.

So is knowing a subjective quality?

The kind of knowing where there is thought involved is an objective knowing, awareness/knowing without thought is a subjective knowing.

Where is the subject that experiences "knowing" or "objects"?

The knowing/being/awareness is all there is and it is more like a verb than a noun. It is not somewhere, it is all there is.

Is knowing the subject that experiences itself and objects? 

It doesn’t do anything, it just is, knowingly itself. Object are like fluctuations of itself, they don’t have any substance, they are made of thought.

You say that it cannot be described in terms of DE Hearing can be described in terms of sounds, seeing in terms of colours, tasting in terms of tastes, etc. So if you say "knowing is the hearing" (sound) then what makes it then something more than just an additional conceptual layer over hearing (another layer), a thought about a thought?

Its more the thing that all the DE’s have in common. Not a layer on top, but the substance of them, when you basically peal away all the layers. DE without any label just being.

How is it known/understood that there is knowing if there is only evidence for DE (i.e. hearing)? 

There must be something(that is not a thing) there to acknowledge the evidence of the DE. DE doesn’t seem to appear in an unknowing void, it appears in the light of awareness/knowing.

In my experience, there is only experience (e.g. hearing).

How would you be able to confirm this if there wasn’t any awareness/knowing there?

Please explain the knowing part to me. Explain it like you will explain it to someone who have never heard of Advaita vedanta.

Anything I have tried to write here is not what it is, it cannot be described with words, but I guess its the perception before any thought/recognition/conceptualisation.

All that IS here “right now” is the sound/hearing. There is no "THIS/knowing" right now, there is just hearing/sound (thought about DE). Anything else added to that description is unnecessary – thought about thought (not about DE). Do you see that?

I see that the only thing that can be pointed to is the sound/hearing. But there is always also the knowing of it.

Here is the excerpt from the Bahiya sutra to consider again, especially the second part:

"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.”

I have reread this many times. I understand it intellectually, but… there is still a sense of a knowing there…

What is the actual experience (AE) of hearing ‘birds chirping’?

Just a continuously changing sound experience.

It’s actually an AE of thought pointing to DE (hearing/sound)

Yes, I realised that changing sound is also a construct of thought. There is just sound(hearing).

Well everything that you know about reality is built on concepts, which meaning is based on conditioning. "The world" as you know it is your "bubble of reality", your dream. Understanding is a story based on concepts (like apples). So it cannot go beyond the concepts and the conditioned meaning behind them – it is empty. Even maths is valid only within the parameters set. If you take two integers and use the standard addition law, then, yes, two plus two equals four. But there are many other things those numbers could stand for and many other addition laws, and depending on your definition, two plus two might be two or one or five or really anything at all. The point is that two plus two is a symbolic representation for the properties of elements of a group. And the result depends on what the 2s refer to and how the mathematical operation “+” is defined. Strictly speaking, without those definitions 2+2 can be pretty much anything :).

Yes I understand. The other day I watched a podcast someone did where they interviewed the smartest man alive (IQ of 200 +) and I thought it was fascinating that even though this man was very smart, his beliefs kept him confined within a certain boundary of thought and the way he lived his life. Understanding and beliefs are always boundaries, while THIS has no rules/boundaries. I can see that.

Furthermore, even in a conventional language, to believe is to not know something but to pretend that you do. Once this is truly understood, all beliefs are abandoned effortlessly.

Yes, I see this. I always thought that it was funny when people asked: do you believe in God? Or when they say: I believe in God. That to me was clearly a sign that they do not understand the concept of God. To believe in something indeed means that you don’t really understand it. Some beliefs are clear and can be untangled. But some are hidden or subtle and need more attention.

The alternative to believing is to simply admit to yourself that you don't know.

Yes, I definitely know how to do that.

All you have to do is dive into the fact that you don’t know.

I can be ok with not knowing.

We live our whole lives quite sure that we do know - and that’s our whole experience (i.e. thinking). What’s the experience of not knowing/understanding?

It is just letting go of the need to know, or any thoughts/beliefs acquired before.

What does it really feel like? What does it really feel like to not know?

It feels open and empty.

What sensations are there?

None in particular.

Everything is happening automatically :). The fear of uncertainty, the desire to know, and the desire for control over what is happening, are all linked (you can say the same) – even if it is as subtle as identifying with experience (as knowing everything). Wanting to understand, to have control over life is the flip side of lacking control. Wanting is a sign that something is incomplete, or missing. Here is another angle. Wanting anything is just that— wanting/thought.

Yes, I can let go of wanting.

At the bottom of all wants/aversions are “unpleasant” sensations, sensations that at some point have had an “unpleasant” sticky note attached, on top of which other stories explaining why, etc…What sensations arise when I say: “There is not knowing/awareness”?

Nothing arises at the moment.

What sensations arise when I say : “You will never understand reality”? Please describe in full

I can actually feel a kind of relief now. Like a weight has been lifted.

I would advise spending time with each question at different times so you don't have to maintain consistancy.

Thanks, I am taking a bit more time as you might have noticed. I first read your reply in full the moment I see its posted. Then I reflect on it for a bit. Then I go back to every question and really try to sit with it and LOOK/feel what is coming up.
Then during the day I try to remember some questions and revisit them. Then I do it all over again when I write down the replies..

*Example of experience broken down into DE
Walking outside in the rain
Hearing the raindrops on my jacket = sound (hearing)
Smelling the wet earth = smell (smelling)
Feeling the cold water in my hand = sensation (feeling)
Seeing the grass becoming wet = light/shapes and colour (seeing)
Thought about watching out for cars = thought (thinking)

Love,
Marina

[poppyseed]

Hi Marina

The knowing/being/awareness is all there is and it is more like a verb than a noun. It is not somewhere, it is all there is.

But you see this is something added by thought post factum. This is a generalisation. Right now, there is hearing, or/and seeing, and/or tasting, and/or feeling, and/or smelling. To say that the knowing is the base of all is deducted (because there can’t be hearing without knowing of it, according to thought). There "must" be knowing if there is experience, right?! You can’t even for a second imagine any happening without the knowing of it, and that is the belief – there must be a knowing (as you can't see it). They (experience and the knowing) are more like the sides of the coin. But that is only in thought, because in DE the coin always lands on the experience side (there is never only knowing without experience - that is assumed). However, the wall that you might be staring at right now, does not need an "I" or "knowing" to be experienced, it just IS there.

Its more the thing that all the DE’s have in common. Not a layer on top, but the substance of them, when you basically peal away all the layers. DE without any label just being.

That’s the generalisation, that I was talking about, and it can come only as a thought. Pealing all the layers is artificially done by thought/conceptualisation. You can’t actually peal the layers. To say that hearing is made of knowing is a conclusion. All that there is right now (“birds chirping”) is hearing/sound. To say that there is hearing is a thought, to say that there is knowing is a thought, to say that hearing is made of knowing is a thought. To say that hearing has something in common with seeing and that is knowing is a thought, especially when we cannot distinguish where the seeing ends and hearing starts (you are comparing memories/thoughts) – these are all concepts, a “view” on reality. There is no problem with concepts if they are seen as empty. The problem comes only when we identify with concepts. Bypassing is a serious consequence of that. THIS is indescribable. When you attach a thought to it you make a something out of nothing (with qualities and characteristics).
Furthermore, being/presence/aliveness/existence is actually a label for subtle sensations/feeling. It’s a not a thing/doing. Only thought can generalise descriptions and make them into a “thing”. When you peal all the sticky notes there is just THIS - whatever is happening right NOW, experientially. “Being” is just another label. “Knowing” is another label.

Yes, I can let go of wanting.

How can you do that? You are not in charge of thinking or of experience in general. You can’t solve wanting, it can only be dissolved by staying with the icky sensations that have been avoided with the wanting as a distraction. The minute you start thinking about what you want, you are “transported” somewhere else away from the uncomfortable sensations. Wanting goes hand in hand with fear, anger, shame and guilt. They are the opposite sides of the same coin. The last come in all shapes and sizes so they have to be dealt with as they arise, not in general (otherwise it is bypassing)

Anything I have tried to write here is not what it is, it cannot be described with words, but I guess its the perception before any thought/recognition/conceptualisation.

Then how do you know it is "knowing"? To call it "knowing" that it must show in a way that "knows". Perception is still a thought and that is the only thing we can change here :). Definition: the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.The descriptions are not what we see, it is what we think we see. The descriptions can involve not only words and concepts, but also mental images. Perception is the delusion of seeing of what we are actually seeing. So if it's not the perception what is there to be known by that knowing?

It doesn’t do anything, it just is, knowingly itself. Object are like fluctuations of itself, they don’t have any substance, they are made of thought.

It makes a lot of sense what you are saying, right? Logical conclusion…? All that is here are the fluctuations. That is what DE is – the sensory input of all the senses. If it is not of the senses, then it exists as a thought. There is nothing else that is describable in any way. So if it's not describable (pointing to existing stuff) it's imaginary (mental images, thoughts, memories)?

Yes, I see this. I always thought that it was funny when people asked: do you believe in God? Or when they say: I believe in God. That to me was clearly a sign that they do not understand the concept of God. To believe in something indeed means that you don’t really understand it.

Do you need to understand the concept of being in order to be? To understand is another belief :)

Yes I guess it is still identifying something… although not something that can be identified using words or concepts.

OK, fair enough. Let’s look at that. Let’s look at that subtle images that are happening all the time.
If I say “elephant”, did you see what happened? You read the word and in a flash you saw an elephant. Did you see how quickly it happened? There is an identification in that image because it looked in a particular way. If I say something more abstract like “childhood”, did you notice the imagery that flashed? Would it be the same mental imagery that I had with the word? Can you describe it in detail or it was very vague, more like emotions? Do you see the identification with that image?
So let’s explore the mental imagery as I suspect this is what the belief of “knowing” is found in. We’ve explored the watermelon so let’s try something else (please bear with me)
Close your eyes and imagine a glass of cool fresh water in your hands.
Feel the weight of the glass, its texture, the temperature. Does the water sparkle? Have a sip. Feel the coolness in the mouth running down to the stomach, the refreshing feeling.
Now open your eyes.
Now go to the kitchen and pour yourself a glass of water. Drink the water you just imagined. What is the difference between thought content (the mental images and mental sensations) and the content of direct experience in the world of the 5 senses and what do they have in common?
…
Remember the glass you imagined. Was it a glass that you have never seen before or was it a familiar glass? Do you see the identification with that "glass"/thought? Obviously, there is no actual seeing. That is thinking. When you close your eyes and you see images ( so not necessarily words or concepts) that is not part of your direct experience, that is thinking. So now you get what thinking is and what seeing is.

Ok so this is quite straightforward, I hope you would agree. Let’s try the same exercise with something more abstract. Watch the imagery with the words “I am” There is/are a subtle image/s. Hold on to that image/s. What is that? I'm not talking about before the inquiry what you used to consider the self to be. Right now with all the understanding. It could be a like a little kernell or like spaciousness, or anything else vague. I hope you will agree that again this is still thought. That is a very, very subtle identification on a very deep level that you are not even aware of. A very subtle thought. Now think of “knowing”. Pay attention to the mental images that flashed. Compare them with the descriptions you have provided so far. You say it is indescribable but you have no problem describing it as “knowing” so what were the images that flashed?
Whatever you look at is not what you think it is. Whatever, you think it is, is not what it actually is. And it will never be – you simply cannot know or describe what it is. It is unknowable. So, whatever you describe it with is a form of identification. There are no absolutes - objective experience – the same way there is no subjective experience. The subjective part is your conditioned way of delusioned “seeing” (aka describing or understanding) the world/reality. Do you see that?

Love
Rali

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

The knowing/being/awareness is all there is and it is more like a verb than a noun. It is not somewhere, it is all there is.

But you see this is something added by thought post factum.

Yes I agree the description of it is added afterwards with thought, but I am referring to something that is experienced as the origin of the experience, before thought etc.

This is a generalisation. Right now, there is hearing, or/and seeing, and/or tasting, and/or feeling, and/or smelling. To say that the knowing is the base of all is deducted (because there can’t be hearing without knowing of it, according to thought). There "must" be knowing if there is experience, right?!

Yes

You can’t even for a second imagine any happening without the knowing of it, and that is the belief – there must be a knowing (as you can't see it).

Yes

They (experience and the knowing) are more like the sides of the coin. But that is only in thought, because in DE the coin always lands on the experience side (there is never only knowing without experience - that is assumed). However, the wall that you might be staring at right now, does not need an "I" or "knowing" to be experienced, it just IS there.

Yes

Its more the thing that all the DE’s have in common. Not a layer on top, but the substance of them, when you basically peal away all the layers. DE without any label just being.

That’s the generalisation, that I was talking about, and it can come only as a thought. Pealing all the layers is artificially done by thought/conceptualisation. You can’t actually peal the layers. To say that hearing is made of knowing is a conclusion. All that there is right now (“birds chirping”) is hearing/sound. To say that there is hearing is a thought, to say that there is knowing is a thought, to say that hearing is made of knowing is a thought. To say that hearing has something in common with seeing and that is knowing is a thought, especially when we cannot distinguish where the seeing ends and hearing starts (you are comparing memories/thoughts) – these are all concepts, a “view” on reality. There is no problem with concepts if they are seen as empty. The problem comes only when we identify with concepts.

Yes I understand.

Bypassing is a serious consequence of that. THIS is indescribable. When you attach a thought to it you make a something out of nothing (with qualities and characteristics).
Furthermore, being/presence/aliveness/existence is actually a label for subtle sensations/feeling. It’s a not a thing/doing. Only thought can generalise descriptions and make them into a “thing”. When you peal all the sticky notes there is just THIS - whatever is happening right NOW, experientially. “Being” is just another label. “Knowing” is another label.

Yes agreed.

Yes, I can let go of wanting.

How can you do that? 

I guess I can’t really, I can let go of the idea of “Me”.

You are not in charge of thinking or of experience in general. You can’t solve wanting, it can only be dissolved by staying with the icky sensations that have been avoided with the wanting as a distraction. The minute you start thinking about what you want, you are “transported” somewhere else away from the uncomfortable sensations. Wanting goes hand in hand with fear, anger, shame and guilt. They are the opposite sides of the same coin. The last come in all shapes and sizes so they have to be dealt with as they arise, not in general (otherwise it is bypassing)

Clear yes.

Anything I have tried to write here is not what it is, it cannot be described with words, but I guess its the perception before any thought/recognition/conceptualisation.

Then how do you know it is "knowing"?

It is self evident, it doesn’t require any step to be known as it is self known.

To call it "knowing" that it must show in a way that "knows". Perception is still a thought and that is the only thing we can change here :). Definition: the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.The descriptions are not what we see, it is what we think we see. The descriptions can involve not only words and concepts, but also mental images. Perception is the delusion of seeing of what we are actually seeing. So if it's not the perception what is there to be known by that knowing?

I am struggling to understand what you are asking exactly.. If I may explain what I have understood: You are saying that I am making an error in believing that there are two layers of “perception”, the perception/knowing and what is perceived, when there is only that which is perceived, without a source of perception/knowing. While I understand this intellectually, I can’t yet say that this is my experience. I don’t know how to get past this, as it still seems as though there is an awareness in that which is seen. I know we keep circling back to this over and over… its a bit frustrating, Im sorry.

It doesn’t do anything, it just is, knowingly itself. Object are like fluctuations of itself, they don’t have any substance, they are made of thought.

It makes a lot of sense what you are saying, right? Logical conclusion…?

Haha yes.

All that is here are the fluctuations. That is what DE is – the sensory input of all the senses. If it is not of the senses, then it exists as a thought. There is nothing else that is describable in any way. So if it's not describable (pointing to existing stuff) it's imaginary (mental images, thoughts, memories)?

You say DE’s are input… does that not already imply that the input is registered somewhere. Otherwise it would not be input, it would not exist. Yes anything that can be pointed to which is not DE is imaginary. But this is not something that can be pointed to.

Yes, I see this. I always thought that it was funny when people asked: do you believe in God? Or when they say: I believe in God. That to me was clearly a sign that they do not understand the concept of God. To believe in something indeed means that you don’t really understand it.

Do you need to understand the concept of being in order to be? To understand is another belief :)

Yes I see this, this is just my subtle layer of belief that needs to be peeled away.

Yes I guess it is still identifying something… although not something that can be identified using words or concepts.

OK, fair enough. Let’s look at that. Let’s look at that subtle images that are happening all the time.

Ok

If I say “elephant”, did you see what happened? 

Yes, I saw an elephant in my mind and the word elephant.

You read the word and in a flash you saw an elephant. Did you see how quickly it happened? 

Yes instantly.

There is an identification in that image because it looked in a particular way. If I say something more abstract like “childhood”, did you notice the imagery that flashed?

Yes, I saw myself as a child.

Would it be the same mental imagery that I had with the word?

No not at all.

Can you describe it in detail or it was very vague, more like emotions?

It was pretty vague, not really emotions, just some images of me as a kid.

Do you see the identification with that image?

Yes Definitely.

So let’s explore the mental imagery as I suspect this is what the belief of “knowing” is found in. We’ve explored the watermelon so let’s try something else (please bear with me)
Close your eyes and imagine a glass of cool fresh water in your hands.

Ok Done.

Feel the weight of the glass, its texture, the temperature. Does the water sparkle?

No its flat.

Have a sip. Feel the coolness in the mouth running down to the stomach, the refreshing feeling.
Now open your eyes.
Now go to the kitchen and pour yourself a glass of water. Drink the water you just imagined. What is the difference between thought content (the mental images and mental sensations) and the content of direct experience in the world of the 5 senses and what do they have in common?

The difference is that one is imagined, drawn from memory, a mental construct of the experience and the other is the actual experience, sensation etc.
…

Remember the glass you imagined. Was it a glass that you have never seen before or was it a familiar glass?

Yes it was a glass that I used before, drawn from memory.

Do you see the identification with that "glass"/thought?

 Yes I do.

Obviously, there is no actual seeing. That is thinking. When you close your eyes and you see images ( so not necessarily words or concepts) that is not part of your direct experience, that is thinking. So now you get what thinking is and what seeing is.

Yes

Ok so this is quite straightforward, I hope you would agree.

Yes

Let’s try the same exercise with something more abstract. Watch the imagery with the words “I am” There is/are a subtle image/s. Hold on to that image/s. What is that? 

Something vague but yes some subtle image.


I'm not talking about before the inquiry what you used to consider the self to be. Right now with all the understanding. It could be a like a little kernell or like spaciousness, or anything else vague. I hope you will agree that again this is still thought.

Yes agreed.

That is a very, very subtle identification on a very deep level that you are not even aware of. A very subtle thought.

Well the “I AM” thought is definitely a thought, and not very subtle, so this is seen as thought for sure.


Now think of “knowing”.

I cannot think of knowing/awareness. its impossible. It is already there before thought. Thought appears in it/as it.

Pay attention to the mental images that flashed.

Like I said, this is not possible. You keep asking me to point to it but that is not possible.


Compare them with the descriptions you have provided so far. You say it is indescribable but you have no problem describing it as “knowing” so what were the images that flashed?

That’s because I have to use some word in order to have a conversation… might be better just to not talk about it.

Whatever you look at is not what you think it is. Whatever, you think it is, is not what it actually is. And it will never be – you simply cannot know or describe what it is. It is unknowable.

Yes exactly!

So, whatever you describe it with is a form of identification. There are no absolutes - objective experience – the same way there is no subjective experience.

There is no subject. But there is experience, and this experience is known… in my experience at least.


The subjective part is your conditioned way of delusioned “seeing” (aka describing or understanding) the world/reality. Do you see that?

I understand it… but I cannot confirm it at this point. The awareness still feels like it is primary and obvious, even with all this that we discussed in mind and making sense. Im sorry I feel like im wasting your time. Maybe I should just take a break or something… maybe this format of guidance is also not the best for me, im not sure if an in person guidance would be better, or video...

*Example of experience broken down into DE
Working in the garden
Hearing the wind through the trees = sound (hearing)
Smelling the wood burning (at the neighbours house) = smell (smelling)
Feeling the cold wind on my face = sensation (feeling)
Seeing the fallen leaves = light/shapes and colour (seeing)
Thought about how cold it is getting = thought (thinking)

Love,
Marina

[poppyseed]

Hi Marina

I understand it… but I cannot confirm it at this point. The awareness still feels like it is primary and obvious, even with all this that we discussed in mind and making sense. Im sorry I feel like im wasting your time. Maybe I should just take a break or something… maybe this format of guidance is also not the best for me, im not sure if an in person guidance would be better, or video...

Oh, dear Marina, thank you for being so honest with your feelings. It takes courage to share what’s in your heart, especially when you feel unsure or even overwhelmed. Let me first assure you: you're not wasting my time. Your process, however it unfolds, is deeply valuable, and there's no rush to arrive anywhere. There are no medals at the end, no finishing line either. Sometimes just sitting with these questions, even without clear answers, can plant seeds that grow in unexpected ways. 🌱
When you say that awareness still feels primary and obvious, let's honor that experience. It’s okay if clarity hasn’t yet fully landed. Often, the mind resists because it's stepping into something unfamiliar, even if that unfamiliar thing offers peace. That going in circles is what thought does, trying to make sense of it all, eventually “giving up” to find the answers. Also it is part of the mourning over the self (in whatever form) – denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance - thus, completely normal.
Taking a break can be helpful, if that feels right. Rest and stillness often bring clarity when we least expect it. And if another format of guidance might serve you better, that is fine too. You can always return to this inquiry, or adapt it in a way that suits you better. Confusion cannot be solved (through thinking) it can only be dissolved by looking what is here now

Is there an entity that get frustrated or give up? There is only resistance. Is that resistance yours to solve?
If you are willing to continue looking with me, I’m here. If you prefer another guide, it is also fine. Please let me know.

Now back to the inquiry (provided you want to continue)…

How can you do that?

I guess I can’t really, I can let go of the idea of “Me”.

Can you? In what capacity? What is that entity that can let go of anything, including itself?

I am struggling to understand what you are asking exactly.. If I may explain what I have understood: You are saying that I am making an error in believing that there are two layers of “perception”, the perception/knowing and what is perceived, when there is only that which is perceived, without a source of perception/knowing. While I understand this intellectually, I can’t yet say that this is my experience. I don’t know how to get past this, as it still seems as though there is an awareness in that which is seen. I know we keep circling back to this over and over… its a bit frustrating, Im sorry.

Yes!!!What says that awareness is needed for there to be “something”? Thought/logic? Since when do we trust thought to have the answers? Is it the word perception? Is there perception/perceived at all? Or just what IS? Where does the perceived ends and the perceiving of it starts? LOOK! Don’t just say the one contain the other. How is that in reality, how exactly is it observed that it is like that – are there little molecules of awareness going through the experience? Is experience built of awareness molecules? How is it KNOWN that what appears right now is awareness dressed as experience? Convince me! You got convinced... To say it is self-evident is a way of saying you have no evidence but you just believe that. If it’s something that is self-evident (obvious), I should be able to see it in all its glory. Where should I look for it? Pretend you are my guide and point to me.
Usually, the evidence is it acts like a duck, it quacks like a duck, etc. You should be able to describe why you actually chose that particular word (knowing) besides what you’ve been taught. You can’t just say it just knows everything. You should be able to see how it knows, how it registers – the whole mechanism. Furthermore, is there time where it is seen that IT could be this or that besides the memories/thoughts – no before, or after? Is there linear time? The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time, or an event that is moving forward on a linear line, coming from the past and advancing to the future. Is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time? Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?
How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?
Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?
How long does the ‘now’ last?
Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?
When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'? At what point does it become the future?
What is the ‘past’ in actual experience? What is the “future” in DE? Do the words ”before” or “after” point to anything existing?
So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?
So if there is no actual time where all can unroll, how is it known that awareness can be seeing, or hearing or just itself – different things? That can only come from thought, right? Is what thought saying about ANYTHING true? Any of it? Is there a direct correspondence/link between thought and experience? Do you see how the thought “There is knowing that is the base of everything” is layered on top of what IS? What makes it true? You are saying that THIS is indescribable , but you describe it in a certain way and then you believe it – this is an identification with thought. Exactly the same as the self – identification with thought. No thought is true about anything – it is just a conditioned way of linking words in a sentence, much like ChatGPT. Does AI know anything about experience?
There is a belief that labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’. But there isn’t. Just like it is a generally accepted belief that labels like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ (or any other quality) are inherent characteristics of ‘things’. But actually, they are not.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN' , what is the actual experience?
Is the colour red ‘experienced’, or is the colour green ‘experienced’ as the label suggests?
Does the label ‘GREEN’ have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’? Or does the label suggest something else other than what is here now (red colour)?
Is 'green' associated in any way with the experience of the colour red; or is green just a label that overlays the actual experience of red?
If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’ , is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?
Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

Let me know what is SEEN.

Now think of “knowing”.

I cannot think of knowing/awareness. its impossible. It is already there before thought. Thought appears in it/as it.

There is the resistance I was talking about. There are mental images with any word (including knowing), no matter the word – SELF, God, Emptiness, knowing, awareness, pink elephant, table. That is how thought is. You just don’t want to look and you are diverting with a quote.

Love
Rali

[Marly6]

Hello Rali,

Thank you so much for your support... Yes I would love to continue this with you.
There was just this cloud of frustration and feeling like I will never "get" this, whatever that even means.
It was more a fear that I am wasting your time and don't want to keep going in this loop forever.
I will answer your questions later tonight, but just wanted to let you know that Im still here and not giving up :)

Thanks for your patience
Love
Marina