Jens freedom

Welcome to the main forum. When you are ready to start a conversation, register and once your application is processed a guide will come to talk to you.
This is one-on-one style forum, one thread per green member.
User avatar
Jenisfree
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2019 2:05 pm

Re: Jens freedom

Postby Jenisfree » Tue May 14, 2019 10:45 am

Dear Vivien,
This is what has been found over the last couple of days:
Does this belief has come up for you “I = awareness”?
Yes, it does. Well, it has been, until your questions.
I don’t know if you have this assumption that “ I = awareness”, but nevertheless, let’s investigate this.

In English, awareness is a noun, not a verb. Nouns imply agencies, or entities.
But can such thing be found as an independently existing awareness?
No, it is just like the self which cannot be found.
Stop for a moment now and take a thought. Be aware of the presence of the thought.
Can a thought be separated from the knowing or awareness of it?
No.
Try your best to separate the two from each other. What happens?
A thought can be “forgotten” but it’s not possible to see one outside of awareness.
Is there a dividing line between the thought and the knowing or awareness of it?
No
Can you find the line where the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?
No
Can you find a thought without the knowing of it?
No,
Can you find knower or awareness without any object (like thought, sensation, sight, sound, taste, smell)?
No. Awareness is right here.
Repeat this exercise many times during the day. Experiment not just only with thoughts, but also with mental images, sounds, taste, etc. Let me know how it went.
What I see is that Awareness Is. But IT is not a “me” or “self” or any one “thing”. It is everything all inclusive. It’s what IS now. It’s hard to know how to say this without the use of words that imply a separate me, but I can see that the “me” or “I” is just part of the greater whole. It’s all unfolding and there is nothing to control. I do still get caught up in the “story”, but easily recognize this.
I feel this massive opening in my heart of gratitude for how you are helping me. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Love,
Jen

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 1633
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am

Re: Jens freedom

Postby Vivien » Wed May 15, 2019 2:37 am

Hi Jen,
I feel this massive opening in my heart of gratitude for how you are helping me. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
You are very welcome :)
V: But can such thing be found as an independently existing awareness?
J: No, it is just like the self which cannot be found.
J: A thought can be “forgotten” but it’s not possible to see one outside of awareness.
“A thought can be “forgotten” but it’s not possible to see one outside of awareness.” – and when the thought is present, is it INSIDE OF AWARENESS? Inside of what?

If awareness cannot be found, then how could be anything inside or outside of awareness?
No. Awareness is right here.
You wrote above that awareness cannot be found. So if it cannot be found, then how can awareness be right here?
What I see is that Awareness Is. But IT is not a “me” or “self” or any one “thing”. It is everything all inclusive. It’s what IS now. It’s hard to know how to say this without the use of words that imply a separate me, but I can see that the “me” or “I” is just part of the greater whole. It’s all unfolding and there is nothing to control.
It's not enough to see that “ I = awareness” is just a belief, but awareness itself is also just an illusion!

Saying that awareness is, is still a subtle form of identification (even if it’s seen that awareness is not the self). The illusion of an independent stand-alone awareness is one of basis of the illusion of the self.

“Awareness Is” – how is it known that awareness is if awareness cannot be found or experienced?
If it cannot be found at all, how do you know that a standalone, independent awareness really exists?


Saying that it can be known by “awareness is aware of being aware” is not a proof, since this is just a THOUGHT. This is the actual experience (AE) of a thought, not the AE of an independently existent awareness.

And yes this thought is ‘known’, but the knowing of this thought and the seeming knower cannot be separated, just as you discovered.

So if they cannot be separated at all, then how is it known that there is a standalone, independently existent awareness?


Yes, aware-ing is going on. But there is nothing separate from the ‘aware-d’ object… The object and the aware-ing of it cannot be separated.

There are no two things there. There is no thought + awareness, somehow glued together.
There is just thoughtknowing. As a one unit. None of them exist without the other.
Actually, there is not even such thing as a thought.
There is only thoughtknowing. Without the knowing of it there is no thought. There isn’t a standalone thought.

Just as there isn’t a stand-alone awareness. Without the thought (or any objects), there isn’t an aware-ing either.


So the knowing of a thought, which is a one unit, thoughtknowing, or thoughtawareing, creates the illusion of a stand-alone, independently existent awareness. Can you see this?


Vivien

User avatar
Jenisfree
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2019 2:05 pm

Re: Jens freedom

Postby Jenisfree » Thu May 16, 2019 11:11 am

Hello Vivien!

“A thought can be “forgotten” but it’s not possible to see one outside of awareness.” ( my answer from my previous post)–
and when the thought is present, is it INSIDE OF AWARENESS? Inside of what?
OK, I see the impossibility of this.
If awareness cannot be found, then how could be anything inside or outside of awareness?
No. Awareness is right here.(my answer from previous post)
You wrote above that awareness cannot be found. So if it cannot be found, then how can awareness be right here?
Yes, I can see that how I answered this is a contradiction.
It's not enough to see that “ I = awareness” is just a belief, but awareness itself is also just an illusion!

Saying that awareness is, is still a subtle form of identification (even if it’s seen that awareness is not the self). The illusion of an independent stand-alone awareness is one of basis of the illusion of the self.

“Awareness Is” – how is it known that awareness is if awareness cannot be found or experienced?
It cannot be known.
If it cannot be found at all, how do you know that a standalone, independent awareness really exists?
I see what you are saying; I cannot.
Saying that it can be known by “awareness is aware of being aware” is not a proof, since this is just a THOUGHT. This is the actual experience (AE) of a thought, not the AE of an independently existent awareness.

And yes this thought is ‘known’, but the knowing of this thought and the seeming knower cannot be separated, just as you discovered.

So if they cannot be separated at all, then how is it known that there is a standalone, independently existent awareness?
It cannot be known because it doesn’t exist
Yes, aware-ing is going on. But there is nothing separate from the ‘aware-d’ object… The object and the aware-ing of it cannot be separated.

There are no two things there. There is no thought + awareness, somehow glued together.
There is just thoughtknowing. As a one unit. None of them exist without the other.
Actually, there is not even such thing as a thought.
There is only thoughtknowing. Without the knowing of it there is no thought. There isn’t a standalone thought.

Just as there isn’t a stand-alone awareness. Without the thought (or any objects), there isn’t an aware-ing either.

So the knowing of a thought, which is a one unit, thoughtknowing, or thoughtawareing, creates the illusion of a stand-alone, independently existent awareness. Can you see this?
Yes, I can see this. But what is behind the illusion of a stand alone awareness? What is Direct Experience beyond awareness? Does THIS even exist? Is there DE beyond awareness?
I know I am answering your question with a question(s), but this is where the inquiry has brought me too!
Love,
Jen

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 1633
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am

Re: Jens freedom

Postby Vivien » Thu May 16, 2019 11:32 pm

Hi Jen,
But what is behind the illusion of a stand alone awareness? What is Direct Experience beyond awareness? Does THIS even exist? Is there DE beyond awareness?
What do you mean by these questions? That what is making or creating the illusion of awareness? Or what?

Does a stand-alone awareness exist?

“What is Direct Experience beyond awareness?” – It it’s clearly seen that an inherent awareness as such doesn’t exist, then this question makes no sense. Beyond what? Beyond nothing?

What you mean by ‘THIS’? Experience?


Let’s dig a bit deeper. AWARE-ING, or KNOWING IS HAPPENING! It cannot be denied. Just as a thought (the container) and a sensation or a sound is happening.

What is being questioned here, is not whether knowing or aware-ing (as a verb) is going on, but whether there is an INDEPENDENT STAND-ALONE KNOWER or AWERE-ER, aka AWARENESS exists.

Just as there is hearing/sound going on, but is there an independent hearer doing the hearing of a sound?
Sensation/sensing is going on, but is there a feeler doing the feeling of the sensation?
Is there a taster of the taste?
Is there a smeller of a smell?
Is there a thinker of a thought?


What we are investigating whether there is a ‘thing’ called awareness that is DOING the KNOWINIG. A SUBJECT.

The assumption is that there are 3 things present:

1. SUBJECT = AWARENESS that is doing the aware-ing or knowing
2. OBJECT (thought, sound, smell, taste, sensation, image = experience)
3. The act of ‘knowing’ or ‘aware-ing’ that is seemingly linking the two, the subject and the objects

Saying that there is an awareness knowing the experience, is the same as saying that there is a feeler of sensations, smeller of smells, hearer of sounds. But with awareness the experience is not broken down to its parts (to sensations, thoughts, smells, etc), but rather kept as a whole, called experience, and awareness is the doer having or knowing the experience. So it’s believed that awareness is the experiencer of the experience.

In order to say, that there is an independently existing subject and an independently existing object, they have to be there without one other. So there has to be a stand-alone thought or sensation without the knowing or aware-ing of it, and also there has to be an awareness = knower without objects (thought, sensation, etc.).

So we have to have an experiential proof that they exist without each other.

So we have to be able to completely separate the knower (awareness as a subject) from the known or aware-ed (as an object, like thought, sensation).

But now, try to peel off the sound from the knowing of it. Do everything you can to separate the two. Not just think about it, but really try to separate them, to have one at the one side and the other on the other side. So how it goes?


Try to find the sound without the knowing or aware-ing of it. How a sound without knowing looks like?


If you can successfully separate awareness from the sound, then you have awareness at the one side, and sound on the other side, without touching each other. So look to the awareness side. How does the pure awareness looks like? What is there?

I ask you to do this to have an experience of the impossibility of it. To have a hands-on experience so to speak, until no doubt is left that there is either a stand-alone (without the knowing of it), or a stand-alone awareness.

Now, repeat this with a sensation. Try your best to separate them. So?
How does a sensation without aware-ing looks like?
Is there such thing as sensation without the knowing of it? – really look for it, not just think
How does awareness look like when it’s separated from the sensation?


Put some food in front of you. Smell it.
Try to best to separate the smell from the knowing of it.
How does a smell without aware-ing looks like? – try to find it
What is awareness like when it’s separated from the smell?


Now, start to eat and pay attention to the taste.
Again, try to best to separate the smell from the knowing of it.
How does a taste without aware-ing looks like? – try to find it
What is there on the awareness side when it’s separated from the taste?


Now, look at the food. Be aware of the visual sight.
Try to best to separate the sight from the knowing of it.
How does a sight without aware-ing looks like? – try to find it
What is there on the awareness side when it’s separated from the image?


Look at these repeatedly many many times. 10-20 or more. Repeat until it’s utterly clear that there is no doer, knower, experiencer, aware-er… there is only knowing or aware-ing going on… but there is no awareness.

Vivien

User avatar
Jenisfree
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2019 2:05 pm

Re: Jens freedom

Postby Jenisfree » Fri May 17, 2019 2:49 am

Hello Vivien,
What do you mean by these questions? That what is making or creating the illusion of awareness? Or what?
What I was trying to ask, but was being expressed wrong is really what is the origin of awaring. In other words, what is the source of it? But I guess even this question implies a separate entity, or a separate cause. I did not use the word awaring though in my question; I was using the word awareness more as a verb, not a noun.
Does a stand-alone awareness exist?
No. This I do understand. It does not seem like I understand it, due to my above question.
“What is Direct Experience beyond awareness?” – It it’s clearly seen that an inherent awareness as such doesn’t exist, then this question makes no sense. Beyond what? Beyond nothing?

What you mean by ‘THIS’? Experience?
I think both of these questions come from some frustration with not “getting” this. The “click” just doesn’t seem to be happening. It feels like it is right in front of me but I don’t see it. I know there is no awareness a separate entity but my mind is getting frustrated trying to see.
Let’s dig a bit deeper. AWARE-ING, or KNOWING IS HAPPENING! It cannot be denied. Just as a thought (the container) and a sensation or a sound is happening.

What is being questioned here, is not whether knowing or aware-ing (as a verb) is going on, but whether there is an INDEPENDENT STAND-ALONE KNOWER or AWERE-ER, aka AWARENESS exists.

Just as there is hearing/sound going on, but is there an independent hearer doing the hearing of a sound?
No
Sensation/sensing is going on, but is there a feeler doing the feeling of the sensation?
No
Is there a taster of the taste?
No
I
s there a smeller of a smell?
No
Is there a thinker of a thought?
No
What we are investigating whether there is a ‘thing’ called awareness that is DOING the KNOWINIG. A SUBJECT.

The assumption is that there are 3 things present:

1. SUBJECT = AWARENESS that is doing the aware-ing or knowing
2. OBJECT (thought, sound, smell, taste, sensation, image = experience)
3. The act of ‘knowing’ or ‘aware-ing’ that is seemingly linking the two, the subject and the objects

Saying that there is an awareness knowing the experience, is the same as saying that there is a feeler of sensations, smeller of smells, hearer of sounds. But with awareness the experience is not broken down to its parts (to sensations, thoughts, smells, etc), but rather kept as a whole, called experience, and awareness is the doer having or knowing the experience. So it’s believed that awareness is the experiencer of the experience.

In order to say, that there is an independently existing subject and an independently existing object, they have to be there without one other. So there has to be a stand-alone thought or sensation without the knowing or aware-ing of it, and also there has to be an awareness = knower without objects (thought, sensation, etc.).

So we have to have an experiential proof that they exist without each other.

So we have to be able to completely separate the knower (awareness as a subject) from the known or aware-ed (as an object, like thought, sensation).

But now, try to peel off the sound from the knowing of it. Do everything you can to separate the two. Not just think about it, but really try to separate them, to have one at the one side and the other on the other side. So how it goes?
It is not possible.
Try to find the sound without the knowing or aware-ing of it. How a sound without knowing looks like?
You cannot.
If you can successfully separate awareness from the sound, then you have awareness at the one side, and sound on the other side, without touching each other. So look to the awareness side. How does the pure awareness looks like? What is there?
It is not possible
I
ask you to do this to have an experience of the impossibility of it. To have a hands-on experience so to speak, until no doubt is left that there is either a stand-alone (without the knowing of it), or a stand-alone awareness.

Now, repeat this with a sensation. Try your best to separate them. So?
You cant
How does a sensation without aware-ing looks like?
You cant find it
Is there such thing as sensation without the knowing of it? – really look for it, not just think
How does awareness look like when it’s separated from the sensation?
There is nothing to see. There is no sensation and nothing to see/no awareness.
Put some food in front of you. Smell it.
Try to best to separate the smell from the knowing of it.
How does a smell without aware-ing looks like? – try to find it
What is awareness like when it’s separated from the smell?
They cannot be separated.
Now, start to eat and pay attention to the taste.
Again, try to best to separate the smell from the knowing of it.
How does a taste without aware-ing looks like? – try to find it
Impossible.
What is there on the awareness side when it’s separated from the taste?
Nothing
Now, look at the food. Be aware of the visual sight.
Try to best to separate the sight from the knowing of it.
How does a sight without aware-ing looks like? – try to find it
You cannot
What is there on the awareness side when it’s separated from the image?
Nothing
Look at these repeatedly many many times. 10-20 or more. Repeat until it’s utterly clear that there is no doer, knower, experiencer, aware-er… there is only knowing or aware-ing going on… but there is no awareness.
What I am seeing is that there is only the verbs, the “ings” going on. That there are no nouns or separate“things” at all. When you say, ‘there is no awareness” in the above question, you are meaning this as a noun, right??

Vivien, thank you so much for your patience. You are so incredibly patient, and I thank you. Is it this difficult for other people to see? I feel so close, yet so far.
Love
Jen

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 1633
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am

Re: Jens freedom

Postby Vivien » Fri May 17, 2019 6:03 am

Hi Jen,
In other words, what is the source of it? But I guess even this question implies a separate entity, or a separate cause.
It’s a same question as what is the source of thoughts? In other words, what is the thinker?
Or, what is the source of sensations? What is the feeler?

Same is true with awareness. What is the source of aware-ing? What is aware?
I know there is no awareness a separate entity but my mind is getting frustrated trying to see.
Can the mind be frustrated?
What is the AE of mind?

Who is it that has a frustrated mind? – don’t just rely on previous memory of looking, but look again.

Always look afresh.
What I am seeing is that there is only the verbs, the “ings” going on. That there are no nouns or separate“things” at all. When you say, ‘there is no awareness” in the above question, you are meaning this as a noun, right??
Yes. But in case of aware-ing ( = knowing), there isn’t even aware-ing or knowing going on without an object.
But even this is not true, since the above sentence implies that there is a separate thought or sensation, which aware-ing or knowing is latching onto.

There is no thought (noun), or sensation (noun) either.
Since neither thought or sensation exist without the knowing, aware-ing of it.
But knowing or aware-ing also doesn’t exist without the thought or sensation.

So we are not talking about 2 things. There is only thoughtknowing or sensationknowing.
But there is no thought and knowing on its own. Can you see this clearly?

There is neither a separate subject (awareness, knower), nor a separate object (thought, sensation, etc). This is what is called non-duality. Can you see this?


But language is dualistic. In language there is assumption that there must be a subject (me) that is doing or having the object (thoughts). But this assumption is coming only from language, in the actual experience there is neither subject nor object that could be found.

We say “It’s raining” – where is this ‘it’? Water is simply falling. Or, “The wind is blowing” – can you find ‘the wind’ or is it just air moving? We also say “I’m thinking” – but is there really an ‘I’ that is doing something or are thoughts simply arising? Have a look and see.

We also say: “I am aware of my thoughts” – but is there really anything that is aware?
Vivien, thank you so much for your patience. You are so incredibly patient, and I thank you. Is it this difficult for other people to see? I feel so close, yet so far.
You are welcome. Let me answer your questions with more questions :)

“Is it difficult for other people to see?” – What is making the comparison?
Where is the one who is comparing, exactly?

What wants to know the answer?
Where is the wanter exactly?


Always look. And always look afresh. Never rely on the memory of previous looking. Always look again.

Vivien

User avatar
Jenisfree
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2019 2:05 pm

Re: Jens freedom

Postby Jenisfree » Fri May 17, 2019 11:21 pm

Dear Vivien,
Here are my latest responses. Thank you.
It’s a same question as what is the source of thoughts? In other words, what is the thinker?
Or, what is the source of sensations? What is the feeler?
Yes, I see that I can easily slip back into the habit of separation, or duality and start thinking of the “what” when there is none. There is no thinker, no source of sensations or a feeler.
Same is true with awareness. What is the source of aware-ing? What is aware?
Yes, I see this, that nothing is aware.
Can the mind be frustrated?
No it cannot. There is no mind to be frustrated.
What is the AE of mind?
There is not one
Who is it that has a frustrated mind? – don’t just rely on previous memory of looking, but look again.
Always look afresh
You just touched on a key for me of what the "I" is NOT doing. Here is where I see that the present moment is the only place to look from. There is no other time or space. I forget to do this, and fall back into dualistic thinking, which causes suffering.
So we are not talking about 2 things. There is only thoughtknowing or sensationknowing.
But there is no thought and knowing on its own. Can you see this clearly?
Well yes, I do see it. But you ask if I see it clearly. This would mean to me consistently, and to this I must say no, to be honest with myself and you. And it’s because I am not looking afresh. Or at times, not even really looking to be honest. Looking must happen constantly, yes?
There is neither a separate subject (awareness, knower), nor a separate object (thought, sensation, etc). This is what is called non-duality. Can you see this?
Yes, my answer would be the same as the one above this.
But language is dualistic. In language there is assumption that there must be a subject (me) that is doing or having the object (thoughts). But this assumption is coming only from language, in the actual experience there is neither subject nor object that could be found.

We say “It’s raining” – where is this ‘it’? Water is simply falling. Or, “The wind is blowing” – can you find ‘the wind’ or is it just air moving? We also say “I’m thinking” – but is there really an ‘I’ that is doing something or are thoughts simply arising? Have a look and see.
Yes, I have done these exercises and there is no “it”, no “I”, and no “me”.
We also say: “I am aware of my thoughts” – but is there really anything that is aware?
No
You are welcome. Let me answer your questions with more questions :)

“Is it difficult for other people to see?” – What is making the comparison?
The illusion of a separate self “seeing” illusory 'others'.
Where is the one who is comparing, exactly?
No where-non existent.
What wants to know the answer?
Nothing
Where is the wanter exactly?
No where.
Always look. And always look afresh. Never rely on the memory of previous looking. Always look again.
YES. This is what I am not doing enough, and why suffering occurs. I am not looking enough ,and in every moment at every thing. I will look more, at every single thing. I will be vigilant with looking.
Thank you Vivien, for your amazing guidance.

Love,
Jen

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 1633
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am

Re: Jens freedom

Postby Vivien » Sat May 18, 2019 1:39 am

Hi Jen,
V: So we are not talking about 2 things. There is only thoughtknowing or sensationknowing.
But there is no thought and knowing on its own. Can you see this clearly?
J: Well yes, I do see it. But you ask if I see it clearly. This would mean to me consistently,
The aim of these exercises is NOT to stop the appearance of separation completely, but rather to SEE that separation, subject-object relation created only by language which does not correspond with the actual experience. But even when it’s seen, it doesn’t mean that the seeming subject-object relation will stop appearing. But rather, every time when it looked at, it’s clear that there is no subject-object relation, only as the content of thoughts which is overlaying the actual experience.

But the aim is not to stop these overlays from appearing, but rather to see them for what they really are. The overlay of in itself is not problematic, as long as we see that it’s just an overlay.
this I must say no, to be honest with myself and you. And it’s because I am not looking afresh. Or at times, not even really looking to be honest. Looking must happen constantly, yes?
With looking, you always have to look afresh and never rely on the memory of previous looking. Why? Because if you rely on the memory of a previous looking in a form of a thought: “I know there is no self” without actually looking afresh for a self, then in that moment the no-self is just a belief. So every time it seems like or feels like as if there were a self, but you just remind yourself with the thought “there is no self”, then you just covering up one belief (the seemingly perceived self) with another belief (there is no self).

So every time I ask a question, you always have to look afresh, to see it again and again what is being pointed it.
It’s the looking and looking and looking and not finding that brings about the realization.
This is what I am not doing enough, and why suffering occurs. I am not looking enough ,and in every moment at every thing. I will look more, at every single thing. I will be vigilant with looking.
During the day, if it seems like or feels like that there is a ‘me’, then look for the me. Especially if there is some emotion is present. Look for the self that is having the emotion. Look for the sensation that is labelled as ‘me who is having the emotion’. Also you can look for the emotion itself. Usually, if the self is seen through during times when the sense of self is more intense, the impact of that looking/realization can be bigger.
I see that I can easily slip back into the habit of separation, or duality and start thinking of the “what” when there is none. There is no thinker, no source of sensations or a feeler.
Watch for identification with the self, just after realizing that identification had happened. For example, there is a ‘waking’ up from the self-referencing narrating thoughts, and at that moment the self is seen through. But a thought interpretation arises saying: “I can so easily slip back into the habit of identification” – and if this thought is not seen only as a thought, but rather it’s content is taken as reality, the identification of the self is back again. Can you see this?
Here is where I see that the present moment is the only place to look from. There is no other time or space. I forget to do this, and fall back into dualistic thinking, which causes suffering.
“I forget to do this…” – if this is not seen as an arising thought, then the identification with the I-thought is there again. – watch out for these… it can come in the form of criticism, frustration, anger, blaming, etc.

Now, back to awareness:
Awareness is not something that is waiting in the background for an object (like thought or sensation) to appear and then latch onto them with its knowing or aware-ing ability, so the thought or the sensation become known by it. For this to be true, there must be not only a stand-alone awareness, but a stand-alone thought or a stand-alone sensation without the knowing element. But there cannot be a thought or sensation without the knowing of them. We can fantasize about it, but actually thought or sensation without the knowing element simply doesn’t exist either. Can you see this clearly?

Is it also totally clear that there is no stand-alone, independent awareness waiting in the background for an object to appear and then latch onto it with its knowing or aware-ing ability?


Rather aware-ing is appearing simultaneously with the appearance of the thought or sensation. But this is even not true. Since no two separate ‘things’, an awareness and the thought appearing together, but just one ‘thing’ appearing ‘thoughtawareing’ or ‘sensationawareing’. Can you see this clearly?

And even saying that only ‘thoughtawareing’ is appearing is not completely true, since the word ‘appearing’ already implies something or somewhere in which or where it can appear. But this is the point where language fails use, due to its dualistic nature.

Again, the word 'clearly' in the questions mean that whether you can see it clearly when looking, and not as a constant state. We are not after a state.

Vivien

User avatar
Jenisfree
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2019 2:05 pm

Re: Jens freedom

Postby Jenisfree » Mon May 20, 2019 10:38 am

Hello Vivien,
Watch for identification with the self, just after realizing that identification had happened. For example, there is a ‘waking’ up from the self-referencing narrating thoughts, and at that moment the self is seen through. But a thought interpretation arises saying: “I can so easily slip back into the habit of identification” – and if this thought is not seen only as a thought, but rather it’s content is taken as reality, the identification of the self is back again. Can you see this?
Yes, I can see this now.


Now, back to awareness:
Awareness is not something that is waiting in the background for an object (like thought or sensation) to appear and then latch onto them with its knowing or aware-ing ability, so the thought or the sensation become known by it. For this to be true, there must be not only a stand-alone awareness, but a stand-alone thought or a stand-alone sensation without the knowing element. But there cannot be a thought or sensation without the knowing of them. We can fantasize about it, but actually thought or sensation without the knowing element simply doesn’t exist either. Can you see this clearly?
Yes
Is it also totally clear that there is no stand-alone, independent awareness waiting in the background for an object to appear and then latch onto it with its knowing or aware-ing ability?
Yes
Rather aware-ing is appearing simultaneously with the appearance of the thought or sensation. But this is even not true. Since no two separate ‘things’, an awareness and the thought appearing together, but just one ‘thing’ appearing ‘thoughtawareing’ or ‘sensationawareing’. Can you see this clearly?
Yes
And even saying that only ‘thoughtawareing’ is appearing is not completely true, since the word ‘appearing’ already implies something or somewhere in which or where it can appear. But this is the point where language fails use, due to its dualistic nature.

Again, the word 'clearly' in the questions mean that whether you can see it clearly when looking, and not as a constant state. We are not after a state.
Yes, there is much more clarity now. Thank you.

Love
Jen

User avatar
Jenisfree
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2019 2:05 pm

Re: Jens freedom

Postby Jenisfree » Mon May 20, 2019 11:18 pm

Hello Vivien,
I wanted to add a bit more to my last response, as the brevity of my answers (all yeses!) may have seemed like I hadn't given them a lot of thought, even though I have been working this dillegently! So, here is some additional response:
Watch for identification with the self, just after realizing that identification had happened. For example, there is a ‘waking’ up from the self-referencing narrating thoughts, and at that moment the self is seen through. But a thought interpretation arises saying: “I can so easily slip back into the habit of identification” – and if this thought is not seen only as a thought, but rather it’s content is taken as reality, the identification of the self is back again. Can you see this?
Yes, I can see this now. I have been practicing looking afresh very frequently, as those difficult emotions and other instances of identification with self come up. I see the clear difference now between what this actually means (the looking afresh) and how what I was doing was always relying on a past thought of "I know I'm not the self".

Like you said in your last response:
Again, the word 'clearly' in the questions mean that whether you can see it clearly when looking, and not as a constant state. We are not after a state.
....what I was always doing was trying to find some constant "state" and bypassed the whole way that the realization of no-self can actually occur.
So this has been most helpful, and I feel a bit like I've turned a corner with this.

Thank you!
Love,
Jen

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 1633
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am

Re: Jens freedom

Postby Vivien » Tue May 21, 2019 12:32 am

Hi Jen,
Yes, I can see this now. I have been practicing looking afresh very frequently, as those difficult emotions and other instances of identification with self come up. I see the clear difference now between what this actually means (the looking afresh) and how what I was doing was always relying on a past thought of "I know I'm not the self".
Very good.
....what I was always doing was trying to find some constant "state" and bypassed the whole way that the realization of no-self can actually occur.
So this has been most helpful, and I feel a bit like I've turned a corner with this.
It’s good that you can see this now. No-self is not a state. States comes and goes. The conviction of no-self doesn’t come and go. But just because the illusion of the self is seen through, it doesn’t mean that it will stop appearing. It won’t. But every time when it looked at, it can be clearly seen that there is no ‘I’, no center, which all the experience is happening to.

So, is there a you?
Has there ever been a you?


You’ve mentioned the concept of now, like “It’s what IS now”. So let’s have a look on time now.

The general assumption that there is a linear time that started somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time or an event that is moving forward on this linear time, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But what is the experience of the now moving along the line of time?
How fast the present moment is actually moving?
How long does the now last?
Where does it start and where does it end?
When does the now exactly become the past?
What is the past in the actual experience?

How is it known that the now is moving? Or that it lasts?
How is it known exactly that there is such thing as 'now'?
What is the actual experience of 'now' or 'the present moment'?


Let’s investigate another frequently assumed possibility.
Maybe, instead of being 'one single now' moving forward on the line of time, there are infinite number of now-s following each other in a line, like pearls on a necklace.
...now now now now now now now now now now now now now....

Is there a gap between each now-s, like the knots between the pearls?
If yes, how the jump/leap is made from one now to the other?
What is doing the jump?
What is the gap made of? What is in the gap?
How long each now lasts?
Or the now-s are glued tightly together to make the transition between them easier? :)

And what makes the now-s to keep them in place in tidy a line and stop them from spreading to all directions? An invisible (unknown) thread?
Please look carefully with each question.

Vivien

User avatar
Jenisfree
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2019 2:05 pm

Re: Jens freedom

Postby Jenisfree » Wed May 22, 2019 2:26 am

Hello Vivien,
So, is there a you?
No
Has there ever been a you?
Never has been, never will be in the “future”, is not presently.
You’ve mentioned the concept of now, like “It’s what IS now”. So let’s have a look on time now.
Great! I am very excited that it appears we are at a new place in the inquiry! I read all 16 new questions regarding NOW but I see that I will need a bit more time to experience these questions. I see clearly now that having a direct experience with the questions is how we see vs. answering from thought or “knowledge” (not the way). Therefore, I would please like to request a bit more time (perhaps a few days) to direct experience these.
Thank you again Vivien, for your amazing pointing and patience. I will be answering soon!
Love,
Jen

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 1633
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am

Re: Jens freedom

Postby Vivien » Wed May 22, 2019 2:30 am

Hi Jen,

All right, take your time. I'm looking forward to your reply.

Have a nice day,
Vivien

User avatar
Jenisfree
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2019 2:05 pm

Re: Jens freedom

Postby Jenisfree » Thu May 23, 2019 3:00 am

Hello Vivien,
Here are my latest responses from looking to your questions about time and now:
You’ve mentioned the concept of now, like “It’s what IS now”. So let’s have a look on time now.

The general assumption that there is a linear time that started somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time or an event that is moving forward on this linear time, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

1.But what is the experience of the now moving along the line of time?
There is no direct experience of anything moving. The direct experience is that there is no line of time for "now" to move along. The line of time is a fiction; an overlay. "Now" is also an overlay-a construct
2. How fast the present moment is actually moving?
The present moment is really a concept. It cannot be isolated and has no parameters and therefore It is not moving at all. It actually doesn't exist at all.
3 How long does the now last?
It is always. Eternally.
4. Where does it start and where does it end?
you cannot find a beginning or end. Eternity is beyond definition
5. When does the now exactly become the past?
It never does. "Past" is just an overlay; a concept just like "the present'
6. What is the past in the actual experience?
Nothing. A thought form or memory both of which are empty containers. This is my direct experience.
7. How is it known that the now is moving? Or that it lasts?
There is no movement. It is awaring eternally.
8. How is it known exactly that there is such thing as 'now'?
There is no now as stated above.
9. What is the actual experience of 'now' or 'the present moment'?
Awaring
10 Let’s investigate another frequently assumed possibility.
Maybe, instead of being 'one single now' moving forward on the line of time, there are infinite number of now-s following each other in a line, like pearls on a necklace.
...now now now now now now now now now now now now now....

Is there a gap between each now-s, like the knots between the pearls?
No
11. If yes, how the jump/leap is made from one now to the other?
This concept is already cancelled out by the answer above.
12. What is doing the jump?
NA
13.What is the gap made of?
NA. there is no gap
14. What is in the gap?
Nothing.
15. How long each now lasts?
Again, this is an invalid concept.
16. Or the now-s are glued tightly together to make the transition between them easier? :)
Cute! But, no they are still non-existent and a mere construct
17. And what makes the now-s to keep them in place in tidy a line and stop them from spreading to all directions? An invisible (unknown) thread?
These are thoughts about concepts and are all empty containers with no application. Time and the now does not exist.

Love,
Jen

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 1633
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am

Re: Jens freedom

Postby Vivien » Thu May 23, 2019 4:59 am

Hi Jen,
J: "Now" is also an overlay-a construct
V: How long does the now last?
J: It is always. Eternally.
If the ‘now’ is an overlay, just a construct, then how can it be always? How can it be last eternally?

What is the AE of the now being always?
What is the AE of the now being ‘eternally’?
What is the AE of ‘eternity’?
There is no movement. It is awaring eternally.
What is it that is awareing eternally?
How is ‘aware-ing eternally’ experienced?
V: What is the actual experience of 'now' or 'the present moment'?
J: Awaring
Awaring??
AE is: image/colour, sensation, sound, smell, taste, thought
What is the AE of awarening? - is it an image/colour, sensation, sound, smell, taste or thought?

What is the AE of ‘now’ or ‘the present moment’? – is it an image/colour, sensation, sound, smell, taste or thought?
Time and the now does not exist.
So time and now doesn’t exist, but ‘eternity’ does?
And what about ‘awaring eternally’?


Vivien


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest