Awake Awareness Knows Itself

[poppyseed]

Hi Drew

Hahaha, I understand what you mean about "third parties." The reason I did not ask for clarification is that we only correspond once per day, and that would have been a day corresponding to clear up what you meant. Through using chatGPT I was able to understand what you meant by DE/AE, but won't use it if that's what you prefer.

I do check the threads regularly, so if I see that you have responded, I answer immediately or ASAP (provided I have the time). Anyway, in general, the idea is to see what is true in your experience, not to understand how things are. Understanding is the domain of thoughts :)

Lighting incense, simply = sensation (touch)
Burning incense, simply = sensation (smell)
Pouring hot water, simply = sound (hearing)
Cold hands on warm bowl of tea, simply = sensation (feeling)
Looking out the window, simply = light (seeing)
Breathing, simply = sensation (feeling)

Thank you for doing such wonderful looking! :) It is now to incorporate that looking into your everyday….make it a habit. Please give me one example of a daily activity broken down like that with each reply

How does it feel to see what actually is?

I asked ChatGPT: "When I look at the apple photo I see the colors and a taste of the apple arises in my imagination. Is the imagined taste a DE of the apple because it is within my field of perception?"

You can try this… (And this is why I said I can give you pointing to see further not just understand)
I hope you like chocolate…
1. For the first couple of minutes imagine you are eating a piece chocolate…feel the sensations of it melting into your mouth, the taste, the texture, the aroma. Really enjoy the imaginary piece of chocolate as much as you can.
2. Then for the next couple of minutes actually have a piece of chocolate and see the difference. Experience the chocolate with curiosity and observe the sensations. Really enjoy it.
3. Then for another minute or so describe the experience in as much detail as possible.
Write the description here. What was the experience like?

After you have done this, tell me what you noticed when you compared these three experiences:
1. Imaginary piece of chocolate
2. Real piece of chocolate
3. Description of eating the real piece of chocolate

With that sorted (aka seen) let’s move to thoughts…

For the next exercise I want you to sit somewhere quiet and observe thoughts.
A thought appears.
In that moment is there anyone or anything which recognises the thought or is being aware of it?
Can you see anything that is separate from the thought and does the thinking?
Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear? Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead? Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?
Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?
Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

Is there anything that is responsible for the thoughts like a traffic cop saying which one to go and which one to stay? Can the flow of thoughts be changed?
Where do thoughts appear from? Where are they coming from and going to? Do they appear randomly or in a structured way? Watch like a hawk.

Write down a sequence of 5 thoughts in the order that they appear. Now check:
Could you predict the order of their appearance?
Did you know which will be the second or the fourth?
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle? How long does that last? Test it for the fun of exploration.
It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence. Or is it just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that "one thought follows another thought"?

Are thoughts 100% true?
What are you, when you don't think about what you are?
Love
Rali

[mirrormoon]

Heya Rali,

I hope you're enjoying this exchange as much as I am! This last day was a ton of reflection and inquiry. Fun stuff. I wasn't able to eat any chocolate today, maybe another day I can try that one out.
Okay, on to the the actual Q&A!

Thank you for doing such wonderful looking! :) It is now to incorporate that looking into your everyday….make it a habit. Please give me one example of a daily activity broken down like that with each reply

Holding a pickled vegetable, simply = sensation (touch)

How does it feel to see what actually is?

The sensations are acute and there’s something about DE I can’t quite describe. There is an aliveness to things and a ‘in tune’ feeling about it. But these are just words and it can’t be explained right now.

For the next exercise I want you to sit somewhere quiet and observe thoughts.
A thought appears.
In that moment is there anyone or anything which recognises the thought or is being aware of it?

I don’t know. I’m not sure if I can sense anything that is separate from the thoughts, observing them. Although there is a knowing that becomes the thought... maybe?

Can you see anything that is separate from the thought and does the thinking?

I am not able to observe a ‘thinker.’

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?

Thoughts come and go of their own ‘power’ or ‘will’

Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?

No. It doesn’t seem like it. I’ve also been trained not to be forceful with thoughts; just let them come and go on their way.

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?

No, thoughts come and go.

Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?

Haha, I sure can. But I'm not sure if that's me controlling thoughts or if it is a response to reading your prompt...

Can you pick and choose any kind of from thought?

It doesn't appear to be so. Thoughts seem to come into my field of perception depending upon the immediate content of my DE. As though the thoughts are riffing off DE.

Is there anything that is responsible for the thoughts like a traffic cop saying which one to go and which one to stay?

No. Thoughts seem to come and go almost as if conducted by an unseen force. It's as though I'm standing at the end of a pipe and the thoughts are appearing one at a time, going through my perception and vanishing.

Can the flow of thoughts be changed?

They seem to appear of their own volition and can be forcefully stopped by different practices. But they're not really stopped, per say. It's more like transmutation.

Where do thoughts appear from?

They emerge from somewhere that seems beyond my understanding. Maybe they are all threads from memory recall, ‘past experiences.’ Some are fresh, some old.

Where are they coming from and going to?

I cannot locate origin or destination.

Do they appear randomly or in a structured way?

I'm not sure. All I see is them arising and fading away.

Write down a sequence of 5 thoughts in the order that they appear.

Now check:
Could you predict the order of their appearance?

Nope!

Did you know which will be the second or the fourth?

Nope!

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?

Yes, I can prevent thoughts from occurring. By entering into a DE practice, thoughts cease.

Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

Nope! There’s just a noticing that another thought arose. Ah yes, there's another!

It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence. Or is it just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that "one thought follows another thought"?

Not sure.
I’ve fallen out of the pattern of trying to control anything or believing my thoughts are mine to own, because there's no one who's actually in control and never was. Even this thought itself is not owned. Although all this could be a belief, and therefore, just another thought.

Are thoughts 100% true?

Nope! Although, what IS true?

What are you, when you don't think about what you are?

WIthout thought, I am the knowing that knows through not knowing.

Love,
Drewbert

[poppyseed]

Hi Drew

Holding a pickled vegetable, simply = sensation (touch)

How is touch different from feeling? Touch involves “fingers”. Are fingers necessary for feeling to occur? We’ll look at body later in more detail…

No. It doesn’t seem like it. I’ve also been trained not to be forceful with thoughts; just let them come and go on their way.

How exactly are you doing this? What is this “I” that does that? Do you see an entity that “lets thought come and go”? Do you use some kind of muscles? Please describe the mechanics of holding or letting go of thoughts. OR this is just another thought about thoughts?
Please no “seems like” and “feels like” answers.
“Seems like”, “feels like” = thought content
Nothing in DE is seems like , it’s either here or not. Remember all you have is seeing, feeling, tasting, smelling, hearing and thinking. If it’s not in the first 5 then it is thinking.

It doesn't appear to be so. Thoughts seem to come into my field of perception depending upon the immediate content of my DE. As though the thoughts are riffing off DE.

What exactly is “your filed of perception”? What is it made of? Are there “solid” thoughts with visual outlines (without the content, what thoughts are about) appearing and disappearing into a container?

I don’t know. I’m not sure if I can sense anything that is separate from the thoughts, observing them. Although there is a knowing that becomes the thought... maybe?

How is the knowing of thoughts different from thinking? Is there thinking first and then knowing what is thought, or is there just thinking?

Without thought, I am the knowing that knows through not knowing.

That sounds like a riddle (i.e. teaching) and not a DE observation. Please describe what is seen

Yes, I can prevent thoughts from occurring. By entering into a DE practice, thoughts cease.

Is DE a special mode of seeing, OR is it where it is seen what is not thought (what is real)?
Love
Rali

[mirrormoon]

Holding a pickled vegetable, simply = sensation (touch)

How is touch different from feeling?

Touch involves “fingers”. Are fingers necessary for feeling to occur? We’ll look at body later in more detail…

When I referred to touch, I meant physical sensation. Not fingers touching. Although touch does imply a body interacting with the world. So the feeling would be more direct. I see where you’re going with this.

No. It doesn’t seem like it. I’ve also been trained not to be forceful with thoughts; just let them come and go on their way.

How exactly are you doing this? What is this “I” that does that?

There’s no ‘I’ that does it anymore, it occurs on it’s own as a pattern of behavior.
The ‘I’ is a linguistic ‘I.’ I am a set of patterns and behaviors, simply = sensation (thought). Although the ‘I’ that I am not lives as thoughts.

‘I’ don’t actually exist and ‘I’ know this to be true

Do you see an entity that “lets thought come and go”?

No.

Do you use some kind of muscles?

No muscles

Please describe the mechanics of holding or letting go of thoughts. OR this is just another thought about thoughts?

For clarification, thoughts cannot be sustained/kept, but they can be ‘seen’.

There’s a series of practices. Some of them have been dropped and can be returned to:
“Turning away and touching are both wrong”
-Precious Jewel Mirror Samadhi
The letting go of thoughts is a simple practice; a thought comes, is seen and it goes.
There is no turning away or rejecting ‘bad’ thoughts, no touching or holding on to ‘good ones.’
Feel good thoughts and bad feeling thoughts are the same in quality.
Having preference over thoughts, liking and disliking, keeps them perpetuating.
So the practice is to be with thoughts, like a mother caring for her baby. The baby cries and the mother is there; the baby is happy and the mother is there.
No discriminating mind meets the thoughts, and so they come and go.

The practice of Direct seeing:

Relaxing into being with all within direct experience. All 5 senses are activated, as fully as possible.

As a result, all thoughts and thinking vanishes. Though it returns after the practice is dropped.

Please no “seems like” and “feels like” answers.
“Seems like”, “feels like” = thought content
Nothing in DE is seems like, it’s either here or not. Remember all you have is seeing, feeling, tasting, smelling, hearing and thinking. If it’s not in the first 5 then it is thinking.Please describe the mechanics of holding or letting go of thoughts. OR this is just another thought about thoughts?

It doesn't appear to be so. Thoughts seem to come into my field of perception depending upon the immediate content of my DE. As though the thoughts are riffing off DE.

Thank you for pointing this out : )
I will do my best!

What exactly is “your field of perception”? What is it made of? Are there “solid” thoughts with visual outlines (without the content, what thoughts are about) appearing and disappearing into a container?

I don’t know exactly what it is, if i’m being honest, but I’ll do my best to explain.

My field of perception is everything that arises and ceases. Thoughts come like waves, coming and vanishing. Sensations come like waves, coming and vanishing.

I don’t know. I’m not sure if I can sense anything that is separate from the thoughts, observing them. Although there is a knowing that becomes the thought... maybe?

How is the knowing of thoughts different from thinking? Is there thinking first and then knowing what is thought, or is there just thinking?

I don’t know…
Thinking is thoughts. There is not a thinking that is not a thought.
If the knowing of thoughts is a thought itself, what is the door out of the loop besides DE?

Without thought, I am the knowing that knows through not knowing.

That sounds like a riddle (i.e. teaching) and not a DE observation. Please describe what is seen

You're right, it does sound like a riddle. Let me say it another way. Without thought to identify with, I am a knowing that knows without using knowledge to know. I am receiving/being without being a thing. It is from that place that I am not something, not everything, just not knowing.

Yes, I can prevent thoughts from occurring. By entering into a DE practice, thoughts cease.

Is DE a special mode of seeing, OR is it where it is seen what is not thought (what is real)?

DE is not a special mode of seeing or a state. It is seeing what is real. It is the seeing of what is not thought. It is seeing without labeling or intellectual knowledge.


Love
Drewby Drewbers

[poppyseed]

Hi Drew :)

There’s a series of practices. Some of them have been dropped and can be returned to:
“Turning away and touching are both wrong”
-Precious Jewel Mirror Samadhi
The letting go of thoughts is a simple practice; a thought comes, is seen and it goes.
There is no turning away or rejecting ‘bad’ thoughts, no touching or holding on to ‘good ones.’
Feel good thoughts and bad feeling thoughts are the same in quality.
Having preference over thoughts, liking and disliking, keeps them perpetuating.
So the practice is to be with thoughts, like a mother caring for her baby. The baby cries and the mother is there; the baby is happy and the mother is there.
No discriminating mind meets the thoughts, and so they come and go.

The practice of Direct seeing:

Relaxing into being with all within direct experience. All 5 senses are activated, as fully as possible.

As a result, all thoughts and thinking vanishes. Though it returns after the practice is dropped.

I’m familiar with these practices as an ex-seeker. However, the problem with practices is there is a practitioner… which needs to be seen. Something looks like something else and it’s taken for truth. Here we are interested only in what can be observed through the senses (as the senses). That is why I asked to leave all teachings (practices) and science behind with the exception of simple (objectless) meditation, which is basically looking. There are a lot of blind corners here which we will see little by little.
When you say “preferences” : “Having preference over thoughts, liking and disliking, keeps them perpetuating”, whose preferences are these? What was choosing (before or now) what to like and what not to like? You said you didn’t see a traffic cop directing where the liked and the not liked one go. So how does this work then? Can an illusion have preferences?
Language creates objects and subjects out of thin air. It creates a doer, someone who does the action; the mover of something just by the structure of a sentence. Ideas are not objects or subjects themselves as we saw with the apple exercise. So LOOK! How does it work?

I don’t know…
Thinking is thoughts. There is not a thinking that is not a thought.
If the knowing of thoughts is a thought itself, what is the door out of the loop besides DE?

You have to see this for yourself. We are not in the business of providing answers – replacing one set of beliefs with another…
Calling yourself Awareness (that knows itself), not I, SELF, knowing, I AM, or Drew....changes nothing. There is still a someone/something that is seeking and that life (the senses and thought) is happening to. These BIG ungraspable things are still labels. There are used as a stepping stone in teachings, but eventually have to be checked…
Is knowing/awareness a container for experiences? Some kind of lone witness?
You are saying there is no entity but there is knowing (being aware).

How is knowing/witnessing/awaring (being aware of colours, sounds, smells, tastes and/or sensations) different from seeing (colours), hearing (sounds), smelling (smells), tasting (tastes), and/or feeling (sensations)? How is thinking different from being aware of thoughts? Go to the experience of thinking and go to the experience of knowing about thinking. Are they two different experiences or is it the same experience? Even if you say "I am aware of no thoughts" - you define something (other experience) as the lack of thoughts which is still labelling of experience, aka thinking about not thinking :)

I want you to look very carefully at the following pointer...

Where does a thought end, and the knowing of it begin? Is there a visible border/a distance between a thought and the knowing of it? OR is that just an imaginary distance?
Are there ”solid”/separate thoughts floating around in “knowing”- “arising, appearing and disappearing”? Without the thought content (ignoring that), are there separate thoughts with visual outlines? OR just thinking (a constant flux with peaks and troughs)?
Are the thinker/awareness/knowing, thought, and thinking separate? Can there be knowing without objects (nothing else there – no thoughts, sensations, etc.)? Even in the most amazing meditation where there is silence, spaciousness and nothingness, there are still subtle sensations – “aliveness”, “heartbeat”, “breathing”. Even the experience of empty space (silence, spaciousness and nothingness) is still an experience (e.g. sensations) – a subtle experience nonetheless but still experienceable. Can there be objects (e.g. thoughts) without knowing? Is knowing prior to, or is it arising together with, the objects that it is being aware of? Can it be separated?
In experience now, listen to sound; is there anything there besides what is heard? Is awareness/being aware/knowing ever actually experienced or is it just an idea, an abstraction? Is there independently/inherently existing awareness/aware-ing/knowing?

Please LOOK, don’t intellectualise, imagine or remember from your previous experience/teachings!
This video might be helpful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lm3G0_ ... ex=17&t=8s

Love
Rali

[mirrormoon]

Hi Rali, :-)

There’s a series of practices. Some of them have been dropped and can be returned to:
“Turning away and touching are both wrong”
-Precious Jewel Mirror Samadhi
The letting go of thoughts is a simple practice; a thought comes, is seen and it goes.
There is no turning away or rejecting ‘bad’ thoughts, no touching or holding on to ‘good ones.’
Feel good thoughts and bad feeling thoughts are the same in quality.
Having preference over thoughts, liking and disliking, keeps them perpetuating.
So the practice is to be with thoughts, like a mother caring for her baby. The baby cries and the mother is there; the baby is happy and the mother is there.
No discriminating mind meets the thoughts, and so they come and go.

The practice of Direct seeing:

Relaxing into being with all within direct experience. All 5 senses are activated, as fully as possible.

As a result, all thoughts and thinking vanishes. Though it returns after the practice is dropped.

I’m familiar with these practices as an ex-seeker. However, the problem with practices is there is a practitioner… which needs to be seen. Something looks like something else and it’s taken for truth. Here we are interested only in what can be observed through the senses (as the senses). That is why I asked to leave all teachings (practices) and science behind with the exception of simple (objectless) meditation, which is basically looking. There are a lot of blind corners here which we will see little by little.

It is true that originally in these practices there was a practitioner who had to be seen. But these practices are no longer practices, they are very integrated.

For example: Last night I woke up to use the bathroom and as I was coming back some thoughts started up and a practice started automatically. The thoughts were breathed into a void from which they did not return. Intellectually I know that if a thought starts, I won’t be able to fall asleep. But there was not thought of this, it was all automated. No one was doing it.

I noticed the process only after it had occurred.

When you say “preferences” : “Having preference over thoughts, liking and disliking, keeps them perpetuating", whose preferences are these?

They are no one’s preference. They are patterns of thinking.

What was choosing (before or now) what to like and what not to like?

There wasn’t a thing or person who was choosing. The person that thought he was choosing wasn’t making a choice. It was a pattern of thinking. It is the same now; oftentimes there is someone who thinks he is thinking and doing things.

You said you didn’t see a traffic cop directing where the liked and the not liked one go. So how does this work then? Can an illusion have preferences?

Yes, an illusion can have illusory preferences. (hmmm... on second thought... I don't know)

Language creates objects and subjects out of thin air. It creates a doer, someone who does the action; the mover of something just by the structure of a sentence. Ideas are not objects or subjects themselves as we saw with the apple exercise. So LOOK! How does it work?

I don’t understand… Can you please be more direct with your question?

I don’t know…
Thinking is thoughts. There is not a thinking that is not a thought.
If the knowing of thoughts is a thought itself, what is the door out of the loop besides DE?

You have to see this for yourself. We are not in the business of providing answers – replacing one set of beliefs with another…
Calling yourself Awareness (that knows itself), not I, SELF, knowing, I AM, or Drew....changes nothing. There is still a someone/something that is seeking and that life (the senses and thought) is happening to. These BIG ungraspable things are still labels. They are used as a stepping stone in teachings, but eventually have to be checked…
Is knowing/awareness a container for experiences? Some kind of lone witness?

I do not wish to identify with anything. I do not wish to call myself awareness, nor anything else.

In my experience, not knowing is the most pure way to be. Color, feeling, sight, taste, sound, thought, whatever arises.

You are saying there is no entity but there is knowing (being aware).

How is knowing/witnessing/awaring (being aware of colours, sounds, smells, tastes and/or sensations) different from seeing (colours), hearing (sounds), smelling (smells), tasting (tastes), and/or feeling (sensations)?

How is being aware of colors different from seeing colors? (ohhh, I get what you mean now...)
I see quite clearly that I am not able to just be with DE at all times. There are thoughts that continually come unannounced and take the spotlight.

How is thinking different from being aware of thoughts?

Okay, I see.

In my experience, being aware of thoughts is the thinking itself. I cannot disconnect the two. There is only knowing that a thought just happened. So my identity is grounded in thoughts.

I was standing in the shower and I saw that there was thinking simultaneously with seeing. I was trying my best to be completely within DE.

Being aware of thoughts is a practice, but on a scale of 1-10 of being willing to challenge my beliefs and patterns I’m an 11... I can drop the practice.

Go to the experience of thinking and go to the experience of knowing about thinking. Are they two different experiences or is it the same experience? Even if you say "I am aware of no thoughts" - you define something (other experience) as the lack of thoughts which is still labelling of experience, aka thinking about not thinking :)

Okay… soooo… There is only thinking. The awareness of thinking is illusory and not separate.
There is not an observer.

Standing in the shower, simply = sensation (feeling)
Staring at plants outside, simply = color (seeing)

I want you to look very carefully at the following pointer...

Where does a thought end, and the knowing of it begin? Is there a visible border/a distance between a thought and the knowing of it? OR is that just an imaginary distance?

There is no distance. I’m going to look again….
…
The knowing of the thought is right on top of it/ is the thought itself. Its kinda layered in there like a sandwich. Except the layers are merged.
...
...
...
Although, often there is not a knowing or acknowledgement that I am thinking a thought. I am the thought and there is no acknowledgement, “this is a thought” as a thought.

Are there ”solid”/separate thoughts floating around in “knowing”- “arising, appearing and disappearing”? Without the thought content (ignoring that), are there separate thoughts with visual outlines? OR just thinking (a constant flux with peaks and troughs)?

I’m pretty sure at this point there is just thinking and thoughts about thinking.
I ran short on time today, this is what I have to show for practice! Thank you Rali.


Love,
Drew

[poppyseed]

Hi Drew
Awesome looking!! :)

Language creates objects and subjects out of thin air. It creates a doer, someone who does the action; the mover of something just by the structure of a sentence. Ideas are not objects or subjects themselves as we saw with the apple exercise. So LOOK! How does it work?

I don’t understand… Can you please be more direct with your question?

You have more or less answered this already. Yes, these “likes” and “dislikes” are thought patterns. “Practice” is another thought pattern :). We’ll look at choice, control, and decision making later…

Thinking is very much self-organised. Groups of concepts “taken” for truth of how things are become beliefs upon which new ideas land and stick like puzzle pieces, creating an even bigger, more magnificent castle of concepts. What seems to be “your world,” the totality of your experience of all that is happening, is a creation of language, and words are the building blocks that create the story about it.

Last night I woke up to use the bathroom and as I was coming back some thoughts started up and a practice started automatically. The thoughts were breathed into a void from which they did not return.

In my experience, not knowing is the most pure way to be. Color, feeling, sight, taste, sound, thought, whatever arises.

Yes, an illusion can have illusory preferences. (hmmm... on second thought... I don't know)

Is there anything wrong with thoughts in general? Are they the villain?
“Things” are happening and thought flies with that giving meaning. I suppose the analogy with the icons on your computer desktop comes handy. They are used as a visual representation of what is actually a binary code – zeros and ones - so you can make use of them. But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it?
Of course, an analogy can go only to a point (before it turns into a belief). There is no one to make sense of reality, no one outside of life trying to understand it and fix it (e.g. make it "the most pure"). There is just THIS. Thought is self-organised around the experience but at some point becomes organised around itself. Language is basically the relationship between concepts – how they are organised. That carries meaning on top of the meaning of the actual concepts. That is why different concepts mean different things to different people and in different situations. One very good example of how words and language are just pointers to but not the actual DE, and how meaning is formed, is AI. GPT (Generative pre-trained transformers) are large language models that are based on the semantic relationships between words in sentences (natural language processing). GPT models are trained on a large amount of text. The training consists in predicting the next token (a token being usually a word, sub-word, or punctuation). Throughout this training, GPT models accumulate knowledge about the world, and can then generate “human-like” text by repeatedly predicting the next token. But does AI have any direct experience of what it’s talking about? Or for that matter have “illusionary preferences” of experience?

Okay… soooo… There is only thinking. The awareness of thinking is illusory and not separate.
There is not an observer.

In my experience, being aware of thoughts is the thinking itself. I cannot disconnect the two. There is only knowing that a thought just happened. So my identity is grounded in thoughts.

Very good!

Last night I woke up to use the bathroom and as I was coming back some thoughts started up and a practice started automatically. The thoughts were breathed into a void from which they did not return.

I have come back to this for another reason…
What is the “void”? Is it a container for experience or is it assumed? Is there anything else but the experiencing?

As you have observed, the knowing that “objects ,e.g. thoughts, are absent” is a label for experience, aka thought. But I have to ask, when you say “void”, is there even no aliveness, no heartbeat and breathing?
Experiencing happens through the senses + thought. If there is experience, one or more of those are present. If I close my eyes and feel expansive and like there's nothing, that happens through sensations. Emptiness in the Buddhist sense simply means that things are empty of self-nature. And no-thingness means that things are dependent. Just like an apple is a thing that doesn't exist. It is empty of apple-essence.

Here is a short video, explaining this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYqaWmc ... 4&index=41
If there nothingness/emptiness/void, that is often a subtle mental image of "nothing" with very subtle sensations. True nothingness means absolutely nothing. So if there are "no sensations and there is nothingness", that's often a subtle thought that is trying to create something (e.g. void). But even “void” is a label, is it not? Is there anything here that is not the senses? Those would be not just physical, but there are also sensations when you close your eyes that don't have a location (unless they are mapped onto an image of the body). The way I look at sensations is that they include anything that is sensed, such as touching a cup or a feeling of expansiveness/void. The feeling of expansiveness is a plethora of sensations happening in quick succession, making it seem and feel expansive.

It's good to remember that we can only experience see, hear, feel, taste, smell and thought. Anything not in the first five is thought. So when you say “void”, I want to question it, because you may be reifying something that isn't there. Without the label “void", do you notice that there are sensations there?
Love
Rali

[mirrormoon]

Hi Rali

I don’t understand… Can you please be more direct with your question?

You have more or less answered this already. Yes, these “likes” and “dislikes” are thought patterns. “Practice” is another thought pattern :). We’ll look at choice, control, and decision making later…

Last night I woke up to use the bathroom and as I was coming back some thoughts started up and a practice started automatically. The thoughts were breathed into a void from which they did not return.
In my experience, not knowing is the most pure way to be. Color, feeling, sight, taste, sound, thought, whatever arises.
Yes, an illusion can have illusory preferences. (hmmm... on second thought... I don't know)

Is there anything wrong with thoughts in general? Are they the villain?

Well, thoughts have a practicality about them. It’s the way I survived my childhood and beyond. Creating complex defensive psychology(patterns and conditioning) in order to stay alive. But as for whether they are the villain… No they are not the villain. Being them in that way, only creates waves.

I am my thoughts. There is no observer of thoughts. In being thoughts, if there is the thought that ‘I shouldn’t be having this thought,’ in general then it creates more confusion. More waves.

“Things” are happening and thought flies with that, giving meaning. I suppose the analogy with the icons on your computer desktop comes handy. They are used as a visual representation of what is actually a binary code – zeros and ones - so you can make use of them. But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it?

No mail. Only an icon

Of course, an analogy can go only to a point (before it turns into a belief). There is no one to make sense of reality, no one outside of life trying to understand it and fix it (e.g. make it "the most pure"). There is just THIS. Thought is self-organised around the experience but at some point becomes organised around itself. Language is basically the relationship between concepts – how they are organised. That carries meaning on top of the meaning of the actual concepts. That is why different concepts mean different things to different people and in different situations. One very good example of how words and language are just pointers to but not the actual DE, and how meaning is formed, is AI. GPT (Generative pre-trained transformers) are large language models that are based on the semantic relationships between words in sentences (natural language processing). GPT models are trained on a large amount of text. The training consists in predicting the next token (a token being usually a word, sub-word, or punctuation). Throughout this training, GPT models accumulate knowledge about the world, and can then generate “human-like” text by repeatedly predicting the next token. But does AI have any direct experience of what it’s talking about? Or for that matter have “illusionary preferences” of experience?

AI does not have direct experience of what its talking about. AI does not have preferences.

Last night I woke up to use the bathroom and as I was coming back some thoughts started up and a practice started automatically. The thoughts were breathed into a void from which they did not return.

I have come back to this for another reason…

What is the “void”? Is it a container for experience or is it assumed? Is there anything else but the experiencing?

Lol, the void doesn’t exist. :-) I used the word because it sounded nice in that sentence, it has no independent existence. There is just the experience. haha

As you have observed, the knowing that “objects ,e.g. thoughts, are absent” is a label for experience, aka thought. But I have to ask, when you say “void”, is there even no aliveness, no heartbeat and breathing?

Oh, there is all of this of course. The thought simply stops and there is silence. Silence for the sake of good sleep. :)

It's good to remember that we can only experience see, hear, feel, taste, smell and thought. Anything not in the first five is thought. So when you say “void”, I want to question it, because you may be reifying something that isn't there. Without the label “void", do you notice that there are sensations there?

Even with the label, “void” there are sensations there.

With love
Drewbert

[poppyseed]

Hi Drew

Good!!
By the way you don’t have to quote the whole paragraph but just the question you are answering :)
Moving on…

I am not located in my body. When I look in the mirror I simply see. Although while the seeing occurs there is still the knowing need to keep up to date my body, of course(cleanliness, style, odor, etc.) Maybe there is identity that I need to uphold for functional purposes, but I'm past the honeymoon phase of that recognition and now there's a settled way of being.

Let’s explore “body”:

1. Take something cold from the fridge – like a can of cooldrink. When you touch the can, what does more accurately describe your experience:
a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”? With eyes closed, where does the cold appear? Observe the order in which the details appear
2. Sit comfortably on a chair. Close your eyes and relax. Pay attention only to the feeling of your body. Just notice the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images. Keep your eyes closed and look:
Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair? At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation?
Is it "my" body, or is it just a body?
Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?
What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
Can the 'body' do things?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, walking, lying down, etc) before replying.

Love
Rali

[mirrormoon]

Heya Rali,

Let’s explore “body”:

1. Take something cold from the fridge – like a can of cooldrink. When you touch the can, what does more accurately describe your experience:
a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”? With eyes closed, where does the cold appear? Observe the order in which the details appear

There is coldness, but it is not labeled as ‘cold.’ The coldness doesn’t really appear in ‘my hand’ it appears as experience of itself.

2. Sit comfortably on a chair. Close your eyes and relax. Pay attention only to the feeling of your body. Just notice the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images. Keep your eyes closed and look:
Can it be known how tall the body is?

Without using mental images, no.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

The body has a weight to it

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

The body does not have a shape or form

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

There is no boundary there

At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation?

There is only sensation, not two

Is it "my" body, or is it just a body?

It is just a body

Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?

There is no ‘inside’ and there is no ‘outside’

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?

Body refers to sensation

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Sitting with eyes closed, simply = sensation (feeling)

Can the 'body' do things?

I don’t know if the body can do things. All I know is the sensation of body.

Thanks for the 2nd reply, Rali :)

Love,
Drewpy Drewbers

[poppyseed]

Hi Drew

The body has a weight to it

Body refers to sensation

Can a sensation have a weight? How is feeling measured? Or "weight" is a label for another sensation?

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Sitting with eyes closed, simply = sensation (feeling)

The actual experience of the body is thought. Thought points to sensation, colours (with eyes open), smells, tastes (when licking :) ), and labels it a ‘body’, but an actual body cannot be found as DE.

I don’t know if the body can do things. All I know is the sensation of body.

Can sensations do things (e.g. hear, see, feel, taste, smell, or think)? Can a thought do things (e.g. hear, see, feel, taste, smell, or think)? Or they simply ARE?

What is hand or head in DE? Does it have a location (e.g. left, right, up, down)? Or the location is a label?

Here is an even deeper investigation of the body. Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen. Repeat the exercise several times.

Stand in front of a bigger mirror.
1. First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.

2. Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations. Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror? Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

3. While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

4. Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or only thoughts suggest it?

5. Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror. Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’? Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all? Or are there only colours and shapes?

6. Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen. Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

7. Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts). Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

8. Start to walk slowly.
Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

9. Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?
Love
Rali

[mirrormoon]

Hi Rali,
This is what I have this morning. It's almost 9am atm.
I'll respond more later ttyl!
:D

The body has a weight to it

Body refers to sensation

Can a sensation have a weight? How is feeling measured? Or "weight" is a label for another sensation?

Oh... Okay. I see. Weight is another label for sensation.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

In the AE of the body, there is an ocean of sensation. Smell, taste, touch, sight, thought, simply = Sensation

Sitting with eyes closed, simply = sensation (feeling)

The actual experience of the body is thought. Thought points to sensation, colours (with eyes open), smells, tastes (when licking :) ), and labels it a ‘body’, but an actual body cannot be found as DE.

I don’t know if the body can do things. All I know is the sensation of body.

Can sensations do things (e.g. hear, see, feel, taste, smell, or think)? Can a thought do things (e.g. hear, see, feel, taste, smell, or think)? Or they simply ARE?

Lol, when licking :). Ahhhh Sensations don't do things. A thought cannot do things either. For either a thought or sensation to do things, there would need to be someone doing the things, but there's not. There's sensation sensationing and thought thoughting. Although both of these are summed up as sensation. Zzinggg!!!

What is hand or head in DE? Does it have a location (e.g. left, right, up, down)? Or the location is a label?

There isn't a 'hand' there, nor is there a 'head' there. Just sensation that thought labels, 'head' and 'hand,' likewise with 'foot,' 'leg,' etc.

<3,
Drew

[mirrormoon]

Post from earlier today continued...

Stand in front of a bigger mirror.
1. First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labeled ‘body’.

Yahoo!

2. Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations. Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror? Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

The image in the mirror is included within the felt sensations. Looking into the mirror, simply = sight (seeing)

3. While still paying attention to the sensations, move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labeled ‘hand’) and the image of movement in the mirror?

Yep!

4. Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labeled, ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or only thoughts suggest it?

There's just the sensation of it all.

5. Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror. Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’? Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all? Or are there only colours and shapes?

There's no 'me,' no 'my body,' there's not even shapes! Just an ocean of sensation.

6. Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen. Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

Only the sensation of ‘legs’ is there. There are thoughts thinking there's legs

7. Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts). Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

Just Sensation Station, baby!

8. Start to walk slowly.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

I’m amidst sensation of what thoughts are labeling, ‘walking’

9. Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labeled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

Did you mean to say, “OR is there only an image that is labeled ‘room’ where sensations appear without any location?”
Because if it is, this is my experience precisely.

Love,
The sneaky snail that eats your garden at night

[poppyseed]

Hi Drew
Very good!

In the AE of the body, there is an ocean of sensation. Smell, taste, touch, sight, thought, simply = Sensation

There's sensation sensationing and thought thoughting. Although both of these are summed up as sensation. Zzinggg!!!

I get what you are saying here, but I want to make clear that the label “sensation” on this forum is used as in just feeling, not as the product of the senses. For the rest we have colour (seeing), taste (tasting), smell (smelling), sound (hearing) and thought (thinking), which form together with sensation (feeling) direct experience (DE). Language (concepts) is agreed upon meaning that we assign to experience, so it’s important to agree upon the meaning of the labels that we are using here (the DE labels). Thus sensations are just the experience of feeling and thought is the experience of thinking. This separation is artificial as you have already seen, but the differentiation is needed for the sake of clarity in communication and for those that are reading the threads on the forum.

You can call it experiencing :). “Experience” is still a loaded word as it presupposes an experiencer. In Buddhism the term “suchness” or “thusness” (whatever is happening) is used, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction. I like the word “THIS” as it is more like a pointing word – pointing to whatever is directly experienced – rather than labelling the experience.

Well what defines what a sense is – just because we have a sense organ, which we’ve seen is only a story in DE. It is just one inseparable experience - just seeing_hearing_smelling_tasting_feeling_thinking. They are all “variations”/labels of experience. Mind tells us that our senses are separate streams of information. We see with our eyes, hear with our ears, feel with our skin, smell with our nose, taste with our tongue. In DE, though, it is seen as a one experience.
Here is another exercise to see this properly:
With your eyes closed, listen to whatever sound is present for several moments. Go back and forth between thoughts and the sound.

Does the sound appear in a different “place” to thoughts?
Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides the thoughts and the sound? Or is the line a mental construct?
Do you have to overcome any obstruction in order for sound to appear in exactly the same “place” that the thoughts appear in?

Now open your eyes and notice colours.

Do the colours appear in a different “place” to thoughts and sounds?
Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides thoughts, sounds and colours, or is that division a mental construct?

You can also do the above experiment with sensation and sound instead of thought and sound and see what you find. And taste and sound, smell and sound, thought and colour. There is a variety ways of doing this exercise to see whether or not there is an internal and external divide.

The sneaky snail that eats your garden at night

That sneaky little bugger! :))
Love
Rali

[mirrormoon]

Hi Rali,

Wow. Thank you for that clarification. I took some notes and I'll try my best to use that language going forward, especially for ease of reading and trying to understanding what's happening here. <3

Here is another exercise to see this properly:
With your eyes closed, listen to whatever sound is present for several moments. Go back and forth between thoughts and the sound.

Does the sound appear in a different “place” to thoughts?

'The sound of the birds outside my window' is appearing in the same "place" as thoughts.

Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides the thoughts and the sound? Or is the line a mental construct?

Maybe there's a faint difference there. It is a mental obstruction.

Do you have to overcome any obstruction in order for sound to appear in exactly the same “place” that the thoughts appear in?

Oop, there may have been a little movement there. Now it's definitely happening in the same "place"

Now open your eyes and notice colours.

Do the colours appear in a different “place” to thoughts and sounds?

Nope. Its the same as with the sound exercise.

When I say, Listening to the birds, simply = sound (hearing), I'm now doing some mental gymnastics. Because there is no subject listening to the sound.
There is only Sound (hearing). So 'Listening to the birds' isn't actually true in the sense that there is someone listening.

Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides thoughts, sounds and colours, or is that division a mental construct?

Nope!

You can also do the above experiment with sensation.

So lets step back to sensation because I'm sitting here next my lovely electric tea kettle and when there is thought, I touch the side of the kettle for a moment with my hand. The result is sensation appearing in a place different from thought. It appears in the conceptual hand. Then, when investigating, there is a thought, a driving force wanting to lie just to progress. So lets slow it down here and investigate this further.
...
wow, yeah. There is a part of me that's resisting this, "lets step back." It's a form of thinking that wants steady progress or maybe doesn't want to be seen. Onward!!!

There is a variety ways of doing this exercise to see whether or not there is an internal and external divide.

I did a variety of practices while making matcha just now. Smell, touch, taste, all of them happening in the same place as thought.

Love,
The sneaky snail that eats your garden at night

That sneaky little bugger! :))

I was going to say slug, but I don't know if you have slugs over there. :)

Slugs keep eating my squash seed sprouts. One day I'll catch "that sneaky little bugger" in the act. Muahahaha...

Love,
Drew