The real seeing

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

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Fri May 17, 2019 1:24 am

Hi Bella,
The felt sensations appear to be located in the hand that is looked at. So the seeingsensation and the feelingsensations arise together, but defenately distinct. They are labeled separately. The only connection is “the same location and time” of the (distinct) sense experiences. But that is already after initial thought. I am not able to notice what is happening before thoughts arise.
Could you please explain what do you mean exactly by the words ‘seeingsensation’ and ‘feelingsensation’?
Isn’t there just a visual image + sensation? Or is there something else?

Or do you mean seeingsensation = visual sight, and feelingsensation = sensation?


“I am not able to notice what is happening before thoughts arise.” – you don’t even have to. It’s enough to ignore the thoughts and see what can be directly experienced. We don’t try to eradicate thoughts, just see what is there ‘under’ the conceptualization of thoughts.
So the seeing provides only that what is seen. All the rest is thinking. Looking in the mirror there is defenately less owning of experiences happening than while looking directly at a body part.
All right. Please go back to the mirror, and investigate this seeming ‘owning’ or ‘owner’ of experience when looking in the mirror, and when looking directly the hand. Compare the two. What makes looking the hand directly more convincing?
As long as I can stay in AE there is no body and no location (of a body)
If the ‘I’ is just a thought or a word, then what is it exactly that can or cannot stay in AE?
The eyesight sensations are in fact constantly changing colours and shapes.
What do you mean by eyesight sensation? Do you mean the visual image?

If so, I’d like you to not use the word sensation with other ‘sense’ perceptions, only with the sensations, because it makes your reply a bit confusing to discern. Please, just simply used the words: mental image, visual image/sight, sound, taste, smell, sensation, thought. Is it all right with you?
Although there seems to be a centre of experience, a sense of location,
All right. Please describe this centre of experience, the sense of location as precisely as you can.

Vivien

Vivien

User avatar
Bella
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: The real seeing

Postby Bella » Fri May 17, 2019 10:01 pm

Hi Vivien,
Could you please explain what do you mean exactly by the words ‘seeingsensation’ and ‘feelingsensation’?
Isn’t there just a visual image + sensation? Or is there something else?

Or do you mean seeingsensation = visual sight, and feelingsensation = sensation?
Yes, sorry for the misunderstanding. Maybe it is my literal translating from dutch. I thought that all the senses provide sensations, but I now see that you use the word sensations only for tactile or feelingsensations.
Please go back to the mirror, and investigate this seeming ‘owning’ or ‘owner’ of experience when looking in the mirror, and when looking directly the hand. Compare the two. What makes looking the hand directly more convincing?
The owning happens when proliferation happens. When I see the hand in the mirror, it is very easy to notice the distinct qualitys of visual sight and feeling. It is easy because of the seeming distance. The two have a different location so to speak.
When looking at the hand directly, there is only one location. That means that all attention goes in the same direction, while looking in the mirror it seems to go to two seperate directions. Therefore the sensations in the hand seems less strong when the hand is seen in the mirror than when the hand is seen directly. And that is why seeing the hand directly is a more convincing illusion.
If the ‘I’ is just a thought or a word, then what is it exactly that can or cannot stay in AE?
Thanks for the question. I need to be more clear. When I did the previous excercises it was always said that I needed to do the looking before thoughts arising. So this time I tried to focus on the feelings and images at the moment they were happening. That is the moment I am talking about. After that I loose myself in proliferation. And I want to be absolutely sure that what I notice is coming from the feelings and visual images, not from thoughts about them. So by staying in AE I meant that I focus on those experiences real time.
You are of course right when you say that the I thought is just a thought. What I meant by using that word is staying with the actual sensations/images/sounds etc. in the now. It is there that I can notice what is happening. When I loose myself in proliferation, I lag behind. And I find myself thinking (or speculating?) about those sensations/images etc.
And because my tendency to proliferation is really strong, this staying in the now is difficult for me to do.
What do you mean by eyesight sensation? Do you mean the visual image?

If so, I’d like you to not use the word sensation with other ‘sense’ perceptions, only with the sensations, because it makes your reply a bit confusing to discern. Please, just simply used the words: mental image, visual image/sight, sound, taste, smell, sensation, thought. Is it all right with you?
By eyesight sensation I do mean visual images. I hope the above comments are enough for an answer? I will do my best to adopt your idiom.
All right. Please describe this centre of experience, the sense of location as precisely as you can.
The shortest way to describe this: now.
This centre of experience seems to be primarily located in the eyes. Because this is the strongest of the senses, it attracts the attention towards the eyes.
But I am aware also of sounds, tastes, smells and feelings. The visual images are still the strongest. It is difficult to notice them as such. I mean that there is already subject object distinction happening, with their accompanying thoughts. And I am not sure of the disctinction between the visual image and the thoughtcontent about the image. Maybe that is also a description of the sense of a centre of experience: that there is subject object distinction noticed. When this sense of duality becomes stronger, there is also a sense of location.
I notice that it is very difficult to describe. There are thoughts/ mental images happening with the content “body, or my body is walking here”. In that way the whole idea of a body here and a world out there is built up.
It is important that there is a connection with “now”. I mean that the attention is on top of what is experienced by the senses at the very moment they happen. And not lagging behind, lost in thoughtcontent.

Bella

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

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Sat May 18, 2019 4:30 am

Hi Bella,
When I see the hand in the mirror, it is very easy to notice the distinct qualitys of visual sight and feeling. It is easy because of the seeming distance. The two have a different location so to speak.
When looking at the hand directly, there is only one location. That means that all attention goes in the same direction, while looking in the mirror it seems to go to two seperate directions. Therefore the sensations in the hand seems less strong when the hand is seen in the mirror than when the hand is seen directly. And that is why seeing the hand directly is a more convincing illusion.
Sit down, close the eyes, and just feel the sensations labelled ‘hand’.
Does the sensation labelled ‘hand’ have any location (with closed eyes)?

Now open the eyes, and while still focusing on the sensation, look at the hand.
How is it known exactly that the sensation is coming from the image/sight/colour (with open eyes)?

Does the sensation suggest in any way that it is inside anything?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it has a location?


Does the image/sight/colour suggest in any way that the sensation is contained inside the image/sight/colour?

Does the sensation know anything about the image/sight/colour?
Does the image/sight/colour know anything about the sensation?

At both cases (open and closed eyes) there is an image which is suggesting the location of the sensation. Both are just images, one is a mental image, the other is the visual image.
Closed the eyes again, and see if the sensation is coming from or is inside the mental image.
Now open the eyes, and see if the sensation is coming from or is inside the visual image.
Repeat this several times. What do you find?
When I did the previous excercises it was always said that I needed to do the looking before thoughts arising.
Yes, you’re right. This is what I usually say at the beginning of the investigation. Let me rephrase this: you don’t have to look for a special state of no thoughts to see this. It’s enough if you ignore what thoughts has to say about this. So the word ‘before’ can be replaced as ‘behind’ the thoughts. Or ‘under thoughts overlay’.
This centre of experience seems to be primarily located in the eyes. Because this is the strongest of the senses, it attracts the attention towards the eyes.
We will look at this soon.

Vivien

User avatar
Bella
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: The real seeing

Postby Bella » Sat May 18, 2019 10:01 am

Hi Vivian,

Thanks for your clarifications. I found both your ways helpful at the time they were needed.
Sit down, close the eyes, and just feel the sensations labelled ‘hand’. 
Does the sensation labelled ‘hand’ have any location (with closed eyes)?
No. With eyes closed the sensation labelled “hand” doensn’t have any location.
Now open the eyes, and while still focusing on the sensation, look at the hand.
How is it known exactly that the sensation is coming from the image/sight/colour (with open eyes)?
With eyes closed, there is no location were the sensation is happening. Then opening the eyes there seems to be a movement of attention in order to blend the sensation with the visual image. Although both the sensation and the visual image are noticed as two distinct events. So the sensation is not coming from the visual image.
Does the sensation suggest in any way that it is inside anything?
No, not at all. But with eyes open it appears to be located. At the same time the sensation is not different than with eyes closed. So the answer to you question is that the sensation doesn’t suggest to be anywhere, not inside anything, not even connected to a location.
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it has a location?
No. As above. The sensation stays the same, whether there is at the same time a visual image present or not. So the idea “location” is not connected to the sensation.
Does the image/sight/colour suggest in any way that the sensation is contained inside the image/sight/colour?
No. The image is the image. The suggestion that the sensation is contained inside the image is a mental image, a thoughtcontent.
Does the sensation know anything about the image/sight/colour?
Negative. The sensation and the visual image are both experienced at the same time. And at the same time there is a mental image arising and other thoughts with the content “I feel my hand”. Sensation and visual image can’t do anything by themselves. They just are.
Does the image/sight/colour know anything about the sensation?
Same answer as above. Thoughts ignored, there is a visual image and there is a sensation. Both happening at the same time.
At both cases (open and closed eyes) there is an image which is suggesting the location of the sensation. Both are just images, one is a mental image, the other is the visual image. 
Closed the eyes again, and see if the sensation is coming from or is inside the mental image.
Now open the eyes, and see if the sensation is coming from or is inside the visual image. 
Repeat this several times. What do you find?
Eyes closed. Thoughts ignored: no location. Mental image noticed: location appearing. As if there is a movement of attention from noticing just sensations to noticing the sensations happening at a certain location.
Eyes open. Thoughts ignored: sensation seems to be at the location of the visual image. But it is as if the feeling wants to escape/is escaping this location as it were. Mental image noticed: the feeling seems to blend with the visual image.
Eyes open, visual image: thoughts with content “I feel my hand” appear. Together with a projection of the feeling upon the visual image (this is also recognised as a thought, a mental image). In this case the feeling “appears” to be one with the visual image (same location).

The sensations are just sensations. They don’t belong anywhere. There can be thoughts about the sensations, including mental images. But the sensation is not the mental image, nor can it be part of the mental image. In fact, the mental image has no location by itself, it can have the content “location”. Sensation and mental image are two seperate events.
The same for feelings and visual images.

When attention is focussed at the sensations and/or mental/visual images (in the now), this is clear. When proliferation starts, the thoughtcontent “I feel my hand at this location” is more prominent. There is an idea of blending sensations, visual image and thoughts.

Bella

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

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Sun May 19, 2019 1:32 am

Hi Bella,
The sensations are just sensations. They don’t belong anywhere. There can be thoughts about the sensations, including mental images. But the sensation is not the mental image, nor can it be part of the mental image. In fact, the mental image has no location by itself, it can have the content “location”. Sensation and mental image are two seperate events. The same for feelings and visual images.
Nice looking.
When attention is focussed at the sensations and/or mental/visual images (in the now), this is clear. When proliferation starts, the thoughtcontent “I feel my hand at this location” is more prominent. There is an idea of blending sensations, visual image and thoughts.
That’s all right. We are not trying to stop the seeming appearance of location. We just investigating if there is really a location at all. We just investigating what is happening ‘under’ the conceptual overlay. But the conceptual overlay doesn’t have to go away. It’s enough to see that it’s just an overlay and not the actual reality.

Now let’s go back to your previous comment about the ‘center of experience’.
This centre of experience seems to be primarily located in the eyes. Because this is the strongest of the senses, it attracts the attention towards the eyes.
But I am aware also of sounds, tastes, smells and feelings. The visual images are still the strongest. It is difficult to notice them as such. I mean that there is already subject object distinction happening, with their accompanying thoughts. And I am not sure of the disctinction between the visual image and the thoughtcontent about the image. Maybe that is also a description of the sense of a centre of experience: that there is subject object distinction noticed. When this sense of duality becomes stronger, there is also a sense of location.
I notice that it is very difficult to describe. There are thoughts/ mental images happening with the content “body, or my body is walking here”. In that way the whole idea of a body here and a world out there is built up.
Although, the illusion of the self is seen through, the ‘sense of me’ still arises due to a life-time of conditioning.
There are several 'sense of me'-s:

- a sense of me in the chest and stomach area that feels
- a sense of me in the forehead (or somewhere in the skull) that thinks
- a sense of me behind the eyes that sees (both ‘visual sight’ and ‘mental images’)
- a sense of me in the ears that hears (both 'real' and imagined sounds)
- a sense of me in the throat that speaks (even when speaking happens only in thought)
- a sense of me in the hands as a toucher

And probably there are more. But all of these are nothing more than sensations that are mistaken to be ‘me’ and the source of particular perceptions (image, thought, sensation, sound, etc.).

It’s really worth investigating all of these, one-by-one.

Probably the most convincing one are the sense of seer, as you already discovered.The sense of seer seemingly resides either in the eyes or behind the eyes. So the so called ‘visual sight’ is observed from this point of view. But what is this point of view exactly?

It's believed that both the 'visual sight' and 'mental images' are coming from the eyes, because when it's investigated the attention automatically goes to the sensation 'of the eyes', and sometimes the image 'of the eyes' also appear with it.

But what are the eyes in the actual experience?
Are there anything to the eyes other than sensations and images (of ‘eyes’)?


Please investigate this in a similar way as you did with the notion of ‘thoughts coming from the head’. Do it with BOTH ‘visual sights’ and ‘mental images’.

When there is either a visual sight or a mental image, immediately try to trace back to the feeling sensation to the ‘eyes’ or ‘behind the eyes’ (or whatever is the most prominent).

You can observe that when the attention is on the sensation of the ‘eyes’, a mental image of eyes might also appears (or not).

(a) While keeping the attention on the felt sensation (of the eyes) ask the question:
Can sight / mental image come from a sensation?
Then stop and just LOOK. Don’t try to analyse it or make logical concussions. Just feel the sensation and look. And although intellectual it might be clear that of course a sensation cannot see, still do the looking, since the experientially recognition what makes the realization.

(b) While keeping the attention on the felt sensation (of the eyes) ask the question:
Can sight / mental image come from an image (of ‘eyes’)?

(c) While keeping the attention on the felt sensation (of the eyes) ask the question:
Can this sensation see?
Is this sensation doing the seeing of the ‘sight’?
Is this sensation the seer?


Try very hard to experience the act of ‘seeing’.
Where does the act of seeing take place (locally)?

Vivien

User avatar
Bella
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: The real seeing

Postby Bella » Sun May 19, 2019 8:15 pm

Hi Vivien,
But what are the eyes in the actual experience?
The AE of eyes is sensation and visual images. Eyes closed: no fixed location. Eyes open: also a sensation and visual images, but located at where the eyes are in the body. So the thoughtcontent “location” can’t be seperated from the sensation (which is all right).
Eyes open: visual images appear, immediately followed by labelling. In AE the experience of “eye” is only sensation and visual images.
Are there anything to the eyes other than sensations and images (of ‘eyes’)?
No. This is clearly seen when I refer back only to the sensation (of eye). This is only concentrating on sensations, all other happenings ignored. Visual images are then still there as well.
Can sight / mental image come from a sensation?
No. There is sensation “of eye”. And there is visual image “of eye”. Everything that happens after that, is mental. This includes labelling, recognition, and all mental filling in of the image.
The sensation of eye is a distinct event from the visual image. A sensation is only a sensation. It can’t “do” anything else. A sensation can be followed by a mental image and there may be a seeming connection. But those seeming connections are thoughtcontent. So there is also no connection between the sensation and a mental image. This is both “seen”.
Can sight / mental image come from an image (of ‘eyes’)? 
No, this is all mentally happening. The eye provides the visual image, no mental images. There can be a seeming connection, but in fact there isn’t one.
When I refer back only to the sensation (of eye), all the rest ignored, than the visual image gets 2-dimensional, just shapes and colours. It is clear that sensations and visual images are seperate events. When including the whole of the experience, which means also labelling and recognising included, than that counts as mental image. This mental image comes clearly from thoughtcontent, not from the visual image. It is added onto the visual image, but is is not the same, nor is it connected. The visual image can be there without the mental image. The mental image can be there without the visual image. They can be noticed at the same time. But they are distinct events.
Can this sensation see?
The sensation can’t see. It has in fact nothing to do with seeing.
The visual image is also not seeing. Seeing happens when labelling and recognition (both thoughtcontent) is included.
Is this sensation doing the seeing of the ‘sight’?
No. It is only a sensation. It is doing nothing at all.
The visual image is also not doing the seeing. Visual images appear when there is light. Seeing or sight happens when the visual image is followed by labelling and recognising.
Is this sensation the seer?
No. It even doesn’t ‘feel’ that way.
The visual image itself is also not the seer. Seeing happens, there is nothing present to “do” seeing.
When the seer is “felt” the image changes. It gets 3-dimensional, the eyes start to move around the object.
Where does the act of seeing take place (locally)?
Not in de eyes. While looking at the object as a thing outside myself, sensations in the body arise. Those sensations are also not the seer. There is nothing to find that could be appointed as the seer.
The act of seeing (visual & mental sight) isn’t happening. There arises a visual image, than a mental image, a labelling and recognising. Nothing is “done”, nothing is “acted”. It happens.
The seeing seems not located in a fixed place. When the eyemovements are felt (sensation), it draws the attention towards the location of the eyes in the body. But this is not the act of seeing. It is drawing attention to a sensation and at the same time to the visual image, the mental image, labelling, recognising and proliferation. Seeing happens in fact nowhere. There is no location to be found. I can see what you mean when you say that different sensations can be mistaken for the seer.

Bella

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

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Mon May 20, 2019 12:56 am

Hi Bella,
The AE of eyes is sensation and visual images
The sensation is the AE of sensation, but NOT the AE of eyes.
The visual image about ‘eyes’ is the AE of visual image, but NOT the AE of eyes.
A thought about ‘eyes’ is the AE of a thought, but NOT the AE of eyes.
‘Eyes’ as such cannot be experienced. There could be thoughts, images about the eyes, but eyes as such cannot be found. Can you see the difference?
In AE the experience of “eye” is only sensation and visual images.
There is no AE of eyes. Can you see this?
The eye provides the visual image, no mental images.
This is a learned knowledge. But is this really the case?
What does AE show about eyes providing the visual image?
How the ‘eyes providing the visual image’ is experienced?
Seeing happens when labelling and recognition (both thoughtcontent) is included.
Does seeing every really happens?
Visual images appear when there is light. Seeing or sight happens when the visual image is followed by labelling and recognising.
“Visual images appear when there is light” – this is also a learned knowledge.
What is the AE of ‘light’?
What is the AE of light causing or making ‘visual images’?
Just because there is labelling and recognition, does this suddenly make or create ‘seeing’?
When the seer is “felt” the image changes. It gets 3-dimensional, the eyes start to move around the object.
What is the AE of ‘eyes moving around the object”?
Can this be experienced at all?
Seeing happens in fact nowhere. There is no location to be found.
Exactly!

Let’s try this out.

With open eyes, look forward and just see whatever is there. Don’t pay too much attention to the sight, but rather to the seeming ‘seer’.

Notice, that it seems and ‘feels’ as the visual sight is in front of this body, especially in front of the face and the head.
Observe very carefully. What makes this sense or feeling of the sight being in front of the eyes/head/body?

Close your eyes, and have a mental image. Hold the image, don’t pay too much attention to the image itself, but rather investigate the ‘I’ that is supposedly seeing it.

Notice that although the eyes are closed it STILL seems and FEELS AS IF the mental image is in front of the eyes/head/body.
What makes this sense or feeling that the mental images is happening in front of the eyes/head?
Which sensation seems/feels to be the seer?


If the eyes are closed the image obviously cannot in front of the eyes/face. But still it seems like. What an amazing illusion! Can you see this?

Now, let’s look at the sense of a feeler. Put the attention on a sensation, and keep it there. At the same time, ask:
Where is the feeler? – and scan through every part of the body for the feeler. Look into the armpits, the upper back, lower back, behind the ears, the back of the head, into the mouth, the forehead, the top of the head, to the throat, into the neck, everywhere.

Which sensation seems to be the feeler?
What makes this sensation seems/feels to be the feeler?


Vivien

User avatar
Bella
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: The real seeing

Postby Bella » Mon May 20, 2019 8:51 pm

Hi Vivien,

Still working on your today questions. I will reply tomorrow.

Bella

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

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Mon May 20, 2019 11:20 pm

Hi Bella,

Thank you for letting me know.

Have a nice day,
Vivien

User avatar
Bella
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: The real seeing

Postby Bella » Tue May 21, 2019 3:29 pm

Hi Vivien,
‘Eyes’ as such cannot be experienced. There could be thoughts, images about the eyes, but eyes as such cannot be found. Can you see the difference?
Yes. There are sensations, and there are visual images. This happens. The connection with the eyes is the sense of location, which is thoughtcontent.
Eyes are a concept. They can’t be experienced as such.
There is no AE of eyes. Can you see this?
Yes. The seeming location of the eye is an illusion, a thoughtcontent.
This is a learned knowledge. But is this really the case?
As we speak of the eye as concept, “the eye” can’t provide anything. It doesn’t exist in AE.
I can see I still am fooled by the use of language. I thought it wasn’t a problem, but now I see how it can strengthen the illusion.
 
What does AE show about eyes providing the visual image?
Nothing. The seeming connection between the visual image and the ‘felt’ location is the illusion.
How the ‘eyes providing the visual image’ is experienced?
It isn’t. It is the illusion. The visual image is there. It is experienced.
I tried to describe the distinction between the experience of the visual image and the mental image. So ‘eyes providing a visual image’ is a manner of speaking, in this case used to point to a distinction. So there is no experience of ‘eyes providing…’, only an experience of visual image or mental image.
Does seeing every really happens?
Ah. That is when the proces of seeing seems complete. Ha ha. The proces of seeing is not happening, only the thoughts arising with content label and recognition.
What is the AE of ‘light’?
Nothing. It is a word, a concept. There is a visual image, or not.
What is the AE of light causing or making ‘visual images’?
Nothing
Just because there is labelling and recognition, does this suddenly make or create ‘seeing’?
No. As above. Seeing is a seeming proces. It doesn’t happen as such in AE, only as thoughtcontent.
What is the AE of ‘eyes moving around the object”?
Nothing. It is a description. In AE there are sensations and visual images. Also thoughts about the sensations and images. The sensation of “moving” is in fact all seperate sensations. The same for the visual images.
Can this be experienced at all?
Not in AE. Because this is an interpretation.
What makes this sense or feeling of the sight being in front of the eyes/head/body?
Very interesting. When I had finished reading the question, the answer was immediately available and clear. Now I need to try and write it down.
So that was a thought arising with a certain content. Now lets look if it can be “seen”.
Seeing is the whole proces, the conclusion or interpretation of all the sense experiences happening. When looking I experience a visual image. I go back to the supposed seer. Than the sensations supposedly located in the eyes are noticed. So most part of attention is directed towards that "place". This is what makes it as if it is in front of the eyes/body. But the eyes and body are mental constructs. So the conclusion that a certain sight is seen before the body/eyes, is a projection, a mental construct, a thoughtcontent. In AE only sensations, visual images and thoughts happen/arise. Those are all seperate events. That what is seen is a thoughtcontent about a certain visual image, and other experiences happening, all fused together in an illusion "seeing". Visual images appear to come from the eye. The eye is part of the body. It seems to have a fixed location. The illusion "seeing" is habitually connected to the illusion of "the location of the eyes", which is another illusion. So this is about the illusion(s) believed.
What makes this sense or feeling that the mental images is happening in front of the eyes/head?
Concentrating on a mental image, I experience sensations that seem to be located in eyes. So the same happens as desribed with a visual image, only instead of a visual image, there is a mental image. It it still projection. Now specifically paying attention to the supposed "I" seeing it: more faded, less intense. Attention goes to other sensations as well. As long as there is a supposed seer, there is attention on sensations "in the eye". That illusion of location stays around. There is a feeling of an urge to investigate the mental image. Those are thoughtcontent. It reinforces the mental image as it were. In fact a new mental image is created. This is also thoughtcontent. It is in the thoughtcontent that the image appears before the eyes. It is an illusion.
Which sensation seems/feels to be the seer?
At several "places" in "the body" there are sensations arising. Apart from those sensations, there is nothing there. Those sensations seem to point to "me".
When looking for that “me” doing the supposedly seeing of the mental image, the attention shifts to other sensations. When looking precisely, the mental image gets a little more attention again. At the same time there is still sensations noticed. Now a looker appears to notice who is doing the seeing. Ah, a “new” looker has appeared! Now “I” am confused. Where to look? Ha ha.
What an amazing illusion! Can you see this?
I would say "a very convincing illusion". That is because of strong sensations arising in "the eyes". The sensations as such do not draw the attention. But the mental image seems to. So the attention goes to the mental image. The sensations are felt, but get very little attention. The combination of the two (or those two happening simultaneously) is so strong that they seem unsepperable from the thoughts about them (thought includes all mental activity).
When I focus on the seeing, the strength of the mental image fades a little. Thoughts ignored is now doable and the mental image is no longer in front of "me", but gets unlocatable.
Which sensation seems to be the feeler? 
Ok, feeling chosen. Then, looking for the feeler. "I" feel. In the body appear other sensations, or other sensations are noticed. Especialy in the axis throat, heart, stomach. They seems to be designed to attract attention towards the fact that there is a body, this body. But they are only sensations, nothing more. And there are thoughts with the content "I am this body". They are both not the feeler.
Is the looker the feeler? Looking and feeling are distinct events, in this case happening at the same time. When focused at the looker, there appears another looker, looking at the looker (or, the sensation that before was labelled as looker, but now seems to be not-existing anymore).
As soon as the thougt appears with content "where is the looker?" a subject-object distinction seems to happen. There appears/arises another looker etc. "That what was looking before" is never found, is nowhere to find. It has disappeared. (the feeling is no longer noticed) (this is an amazing illusion!).
What makes this sensation seems/feels to be the feeler?
I now try to describe how the "looker" seems to be the feeler. It is a bit of a guessing game. Looking seems to happen. But the only "things" that can be experienced are a sensation and mental images and thoughts about looking and feeling. The looker seems to reside in the brain/head/eyes.
The looker seems to be the feeler because it is distinct from that what is felt. It seems to be at another location so to speak. There defenately seems to be a distance between subject and object.
The felt sensations associated with “me” seem the strongest in the axis throat, heart, belly. The “looker” seems to be in the head. Those sensations appear to draw the attention towards the body as “my body, me”. There arises a thought with that content.

Bella

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

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Wed May 22, 2019 1:28 am

Hi Bella,
The connection with the eyes is the sense of location, which is thoughtcontent.
The sense of location is a SENSATION. Sense = sensation.
So the sensation is interpreted by thoughts (and images) as having a location inside the head, as the eyes.
So location as such cannot be experienced. Since only the sensation can be felt/experienced.
The seeming connection between the visual image and the ‘felt’ location is the illusion.
So that ‘felt location’ is actually a felt sensation. It’s the AE of a sensation, but not the AE of location. Can you see this?
Only thoughts and images suggest that this sensation has a location inside the head, as the eyes.
As long as there is a supposed seer, there is attention on sensations "in the eye".
Or, the supposed seer created by mistaking the sensations (of eyes) as the seer. Can you see this?
Those sensations seem to point to "me".
Can a sensation point anything?
Or just those sensations are LABELED as ‘me’?
Now a looker appears to notice who is doing the seeing. Ah, a “new” looker has appeared! Now “I” am confused. Where to look? Ha ha.
:) Is there really a looker?
Or is this just another trick, where a sensation is labelled as the ‘looker’?
The looker seems to be the feeler because it is distinct from that what is felt. It seems to be at another location so to speak. There defenately seems to be a distance between subject and object.
The felt sensations associated with “me” seem the strongest in the axis throat, heart, belly. The “looker” seems to be in the head. Those sensations appear to draw the attention towards the body as “my body, me”. There arises a thought with that content.
So there is a sensation, that is seemingly felt by the looker which is a sensation ‘in the head’.
So actually, there are 2 sensations present, but thoughts label them differently and creates a seeming subject-object relation.

There is a sensation (sensation 1) labelled ‘belly’.
There is another sensation (sensation 2) which has many labels. It’s labelled as ‘head’, as the ‘looker’, and as the ‘feeler’.
But nonetheless, it’s just a sensation nothing else.

So since sensation 2 is labelled as the looker and the feeler, it seems as if the sensation 1 is being felt and looked at by sensation 2. When this is believed, there is a seeming subject object distinction. Sensation 1 being the object, and sensation 2 being the subject. But is this so?


Locate these two sensations (belly and head), and investigate:
Is this sensation labelled ‘head’ doing the looking?
Is this sensation labelled ‘head’ feeling the sensation labelled ‘belly’?

How the looker is actually experienced?
How the feeler is actually experienced?


Vivien

User avatar
Bella
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: The real seeing

Postby Bella » Wed May 22, 2019 7:29 pm

Hi Vivien,
So that ‘felt location’ is actually a felt sensation. It’s the AE of a sensation, but not the AE of location. Can you see this?
Yes. I can feel a sensation in “the eyes”. The sensation is one, the thoughtcontent “location” is two.
As long as there is a supposed seer, there is attention on sensations "in the eye".
Or, the supposed seer created by mistaking the sensations (of eyes) as the seer. Can you see this?
I mean that I feel a sensation at the supposed location of the eyes. And there is a looker noticing this. The location of the looker is somewhere else. I can’t pinpoint that location. As soon as I look for it, another looker appears and the “first” looker has disappeared. It was a thoughtcontent of course.
The sensations in the eyes are noticed, but are not labelled as the seer. The seer seems to be somewhere else.
But I can see it can be mistaken that way.
Where I talked about the sensations in the throat heart belly axis, and the inclination towards the experience of “my body”, there those sensations are mistaken for being “a me”. Not a seer. The seer seems to be somewhere else here also. The seer seems to be located in the brain. But when looked at, it disappears and another looker appears. As I understand you correctly you say that this “looker”, when noticed, is also a sensation. But how is it noticed? By another sensation. Ha ha.
Tried this just now: the second looker is accompanied by sensations. In this case in the head. The sensations are followed by thought with content “looker”. So first there appear sensations, then a thought with content “looking or looker”. Conclusion/seen: the looker is in fact a sensation in AE.
Can a sensation point anything?
Sorry for not being precise all the time. I appreciate you insist.
A sensation can’t point to anything. A sensation can be followed by a thought with content “this is it”.
Or just those sensations are LABELED as ‘me’?
Yes. The sensation is the sensation. The label is thoughtcontent.
:) Is there really a looker?
No. The looker is the great trickster. It doesn’t exist. There was a sensation, and then a thought with content “looker”. The looker is a label. “I” am a label. Ha ha.
Or is this just another trick, where a sensation is labelled as the ‘looker’?
Yes. Great trick. Very hard to see. Thanks for pointing this out to me.
So since sensation 2 is labelled as the looker and the feeler, it seems as if the sensation 1 is being felt and looked at by sensation 2. When this is believed, there is a seeming subject object distinction. Sensation 1 being the object, and sensation 2 being the subject. But is this so?
Exactly. This is a good way to phrase it. There are two or more sensations happening at the same time. One of them is labelled as looker. Because of the labelling there is “placeness” of the sensations with a seeming distance between them. There arises the subject object distinction.
The looker is also labelled “subject”. The other sensations are labelled “objects”. But in fact all sensations are just sensations in AE. The words subject and object are just labels.
Is this sensation labelled ‘head’ doing the looking?
It seems that way. But when looked closely, there is first a feeling /sensation in the belly. Then there appears to be a looker. That looker is located in the head. But actually it is a thought with the content/label “looker”. It appears as “a respons” to the sensation in the belly. So in fact there is no distance between the sensation and the looker.
The sensation labelled “head” is another sensation than the sensation labelled “belly”. It appears and then is mistaken to be the looker. Or labelled as “looker”.
Is this sensation labelled ‘head’ feeling the sensation labelled ‘belly’?
No. It is another sensation.
How the looker is actually experienced?
The looker can’t be experienced. There is no looker, only a thoughtcontent/label. When investigated, it already has disappeared. But there is a sensation, in this case in the head, that attracts attention and then is followed by the thought with content “looker”. That sensations is mistaken to be the looker.
How the feeler is actually experienced?
The same as the looker. Only seems the feeler located closer to the sensation that is investigated. But it is still a thoughtcontent, seemingly connected to a feeling/sensation.

Bella

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

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Thu May 23, 2019 12:42 am

Hi Bella,
And there is a looker noticing this. The location of the looker is somewhere else. I can’t pinpoint that location. As soon as I look for it, another looker appears and the “first” looker has disappeared…..The sensations in the eyes are noticed, but are not labelled as the seer. The seer seems to be somewhere else.
The seer seems to be located in the brain. But when looked at, it disappears and another looker appears. As I understand you correctly you say that this “looker”, when noticed, is also a sensation. But how is it noticed? By another sensation.
The appearance of this seeming ‘looker’ can come from the ‘knowing element’ of experience.

When there is a thought present that thought is known.
When there is a sensation is present that sensation is known.
When a sound is present that sound is known.

So it seems that there is something, like a looker, or a knower (awareness) that is aware of the presence of objects, like thoughts, sensations, etc. This is what creates the subject-object relations.


So, the ‘sense of me-ness’ isn’t just created by thought only. The sense of me-ness, usually have at least 3 if not 4 components.

1. a SENSATION (like the sensation of the eyes, or behind the eyes, or the sensation of the forehead, etc) which is labelled by thought as ‘me’ or the location of ‘awareness’ or ‘knower’
2. the second element is the THOUGHT LABEL put over the sensation itself ‘it’s me’, or ‘it’s the location of awareness’ or ‘knower’
3. sometimes it’s even accompanied with the MENTAL IMAGE about the head or eyes or forehead showing the location
4. AWARENESS itself, or rather say the process of knowing or aware-ing, which is mistaken by thought as an independently existing ‘thing’ or phenomenon

So the sense of self is created when these 4 are welded together, creating a bundle, and not seen them for what they are.

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?

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?
Try your best to separate the two from each other. What happens?


Is there a dividing line between the thought and the knowing or awareness of it?
Can you find the line where the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?

Can you find a thought without the knowing of it?
Can you find knower or awareness without any object (like thought, sensation, sight, sound, taste, smell)?

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.

Vivien

User avatar
Bella
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: The real seeing

Postby Bella » Thu May 23, 2019 7:44 pm

Hi Vivien,

Another interesting day.
But can such thing be found as an independently existing awareness?
There are no things. A thing implies selfhood. Awareness as such can't be found. When there is awareness, there is always awareness of something (not a thing). Awareness of experience including thoughtcontents.
Can a thought be separated from the knowing or awareness of it?
When a thought appears, it appears full content. When it is noticed, it is known. When it is not noticed there is no way of telling there was a thought or not. It is impossible to separate a thought from the awareness of the thought. They are one.
With taste: there is a taste and awareness of the taste. They can’t be separated. The attention can be led away to something else and the taste is “forgotten”. But the awareness of the taste also. When the attention returns to the taste, there is again awareness of the taste. Although it is by then in fact a different taste.
Try your best to separate the two from each other. What happens?
It can't be done. The thought appears full content. It can't be devided. When a thought is noticed, there is awareness of the thought. They are unseperable. As if the thought and the awareness of the thought are two aspects of the same event.
There can be awareness before a certain thought. But than is there awareness of the absense of a thought or awareness of something else. Likewise, after a thought has disappeared, there can be awareness of something else than the previous thought. Awareness is an attribute of experience itself. No experience without awareness.
With taste: when awareness is taken away from the taste, it is because there is another experience that is demanding attention (as a manner of speaking). The taste and the awareness of the taste disappear at the same time. Later there can be awareness of the memory of the taste. But that is a different experience.
Is there a dividing line between the thought and the knowing or awareness of it?
How can it be? When there is awareness of the thought, than there is awareness of the thought. It can't be changed after that. It is not so that the awareness continues through time, there are only more moments of awareness (of experience).
With hearing: it can seem that awareness is more or less strong (so to speak). The sound is there, in the background as it were. It is noticed, but I may be not fully aware of it. This is experience of a sensation of location happening with awareness of that sensation. So there is no dividing line. There is also “knowing” of the sound before it is labelled. When it is labelled, it seems stronger. Or: when is becomes strong enough, it gets labelled.
Can you find the line where the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?
No. They arise simultaneously. The awareness of the thought and the thought itself are one. Otherwise there wouldn't be an experience of thought.
With sound: no. The sound can be sensed when it still very faint. But as soon as it is sensed, there is awareness of it. The two can’t be seperated. But “I” may not yet be fully aware, as when the sound is labelled as sound. So there is a line with labelling, because that is a seperate event. There is no line with awareness, because that is not a seperate event.
Can you find a thought without the knowing of it?
No. I can only know a thought when it is noticed/experienced. In other words: when there is awareness of it.
Can you find knower or awareness without any object (like thought, sensation, sight, sound, taste, smell)?
Who is there to find it? I can’t think of a moment without experience happening, not even sleep.
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.
Sensations. When I start looking for a sensation (of sitting on a chair) I almost immediately notice the sensation clearly. Was it there before? Perhaps I wasn't aware of it? Or maybe I was a little. Too little to "notice", or just a faint "knowing". As above: the sensation and the awareness of the sensation are inseparable. But the sensation and the labelling of the sensation are two different events.
If I look for a certain thoughtcontent, I can't find it. When I look for a thought, I have to wait for one to pop up. When I look for a taste, I have to wait for it to appear. Etc. for the other senses. When I hurt my foot unexpectedly, I am immediately aware of the sensation. The sensation of hurt and the awareness arise together. The sensation is immediately strong and immediately labelled.
When I am not resting my attention on my hand, I don't feel the table. If I am not aware of it, there is no sensation to be experienced (of the hand resting on the table).
It is as if there is an underlying awareness present on which all experience takes place. As if awareness is always present. But it is not. It is only present when there is an experience. Whether they are labelled or not. Experiences differ, awareness not.
One time it was really clear. I noticed a movement of my body. Only after it had moved I realised it was a respons to a sound. That was the moment “I” became aware of “myself”. So the awareness of the sound was there. It was known. But the label “sound” came later and even later a thought about it. The awareness of “me” being the hearer of the sound was another event of which “I” was aware. Or there was awareness of the sensation labelled “me”.

Bella

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

Re: The real seeing

Postby Vivien » Fri May 24, 2019 4:12 am

Hi Bella,
Sensations. When I start looking for a sensation (of sitting on a chair) I almost immediately notice the sensation clearly. Was it there before? Perhaps I wasn't aware of it? Or maybe I was a little. Too little to "notice", or just a faint "knowing". As above: the sensation and the awareness of the sensation are inseparable. But the sensation and the labelling of the sensation are two different events.
How is it known that a sensation was there before noticing it? Just because say so?
Is there a sensation waiting somewhere outside to be noticed?
Too little to "notice", or just a faint "knowing".
Is this really so?
Is there such thing as ‘faint knowing’ or ‘strong knowing’?
f I look for a certain thoughtcontent, I can't find it. When I look for a thought, I have to wait for one to pop up. When I look for a taste, I have to wait for it to appear.
What is it exactly that is looking for a thought or a taste?
What is it exactly that is waiting for a thought or a taste to pop up?
When I am not resting my attention on my hand, I don't feel the table.
What is it that is resting or not resting its attention on the hand?
What has/owns and directs attention?
It is as if there is an underlying awareness present on which all experience takes place. As if awareness is always present. But it is not. It is only present when there is an experience. Whether they are labelled or not. Experiences differ, awareness not.
Just to make sure that awareness-business is totally clear, here are some comments and questions. Since the seemingly existing stand-alone awareness is one of the basic pillars of the separate self.

As you discovered, 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 clearly?


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.

Vivien


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest