Open to Truth

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: 4615
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Open to Truth

Postby Vivien » Tue Dec 31, 2019 4:39 am

Hi Ken,
For this question, I looked and started perusing around my physical sensations. I noticed a particular sensation and then noticed the thought "Well, that's happening." Just then I realized that assuming that anything is actually happening at all is just a thought. Let alone the existence of a self or a non-self. Calling what we observe "movement" or "happening" or even "life" is just a thought. It's all made up.
When there is a sensation present, isn’t it automatically known without any thought saying that ‘a sensation is there’?

Pay attention to the sensation of the feet.

Does a thought is needed to know that there are sensations present?
The moment thought begins to ascribe labels to anything delusion begins. Part of the delusion is that I am a judger and experiencer of whatever this is that is happening.
Just because there is a judgemental thought, does this mean that there is a delusion?
Does the judging thought should stop appearing in order to be clarity?
Or is it enough to see the judgemental thought for what it is, just a thought appearing?


Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
TheMirror
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:01 am

Re: Open to Truth

Postby TheMirror » Thu Jan 02, 2020 9:48 pm

Hi Vivien,
When there is a sensation present, isn’t it automatically known without any thought saying that ‘a sensation is there’?
Wow. This is really interesting. This is absolutely true. The thought of "there is the sensation" just happened to arise before. I wouldn't have considered the thought as necessary.

Yet more insight came when I considered your question. Initially, I felt a challenge arise to the notion of sensations "automatically" being known. A thought arose that only the sensations that are KNOWN are "automatically" known. This challenged the assumption suggesting that there are other sensations happening that are not known.

The experience of paying attention to sensations has the character of randomness. As different areas of the body and experience become more prominent moment by moment. Yet, when a particular sensation is being noticed, it's merely an assumption to think that there are other sensations occurring simultaneously that are not being noticed. So, yes, everything is just automatic including the thought "well, that's happening."
Does a thought is needed to know that there are sensations present?
No. No thought is needed to connect with the sensations.
Just because there is a judgemental thought, does this mean that there is a delusion?
No. Delusion would come once the thought is believed to be coming from a "me" that is somehow separate from that which is being judged.
Does the judging thought should stop appearing in order to be clarity?
No. Clarity can happen in the midst of judgemental thoughts when they are seen as the figments of imagination that they are.
Or is it enough to see the judgemental thought for what it is, just a thought appearing?
Yes, it is enough to see it for what it is, just simply appearing. It's enough because it's all that is actually true. There is nothing else happening. In this way a "judgemental" thought is just the same as a "non-judgemental" thought. There's no better or worse. Thoughts are thoughts...

I had an interesting experience yesterday that I thought I'd share with you. I have two daughters, one of whom is 8 years old and the other is 2 years old. The oldest is understandably having a hard time adjusting to so much attention being given to her younger sister. Our little Lacie (2 year old) also has special needs, so she likely even gets more attention than your average 2 year old. Anyhow, May (8 year old) got into a bit of trouble yesterday for pushing her sister over. This all happened when Mom and I were out of the room. So, I had to do a bit of digging to figure out what had actually happened. When May was explaining the situation to me through tears she insisted that she "didn't know why she did it" and she asked what I do when I realize I'm "not in control of my body"... I marveled at her clarity and insight.

My best parental move was to tell her that she needed to "believe" that she was in control of her body even when she feels like she's not. Also, that admitting our wrong doings and experiencing subsequent consequences are important to curb behaviors so that they don't go unchecked and turn into worse and worse actions. Just then I realized my assisting her in building the illusion so that she can just tear it down later... Our whole life is a Santa Claus story. I always prided myself on not telling my kids to believe in Santa because I didn't want to be guilty of being dishonest with them. Yet, the illusion of Santa is really not all that different from the illusion that we paint through behavior modification and insisting to our children that they have autonomy.

:-)

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4615
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Open to Truth

Postby Vivien » Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:55 pm

Hi Ken,
Yet, when a particular sensation is being noticed, it's merely an assumption to think that there are other sensations occurring simultaneously that are not being noticed. So, yes, everything is just automatic including the thought "well, that's happening."
Great looking.
When May was explaining the situation to me through tears she insisted that she "didn't know why she did it" and she asked what I do when I realize I'm "not in control of my body"... I marveled at her clarity and insight.
It’s amazing :) however it shows that the notion of a separate self is already developed, and this self has no control. But it’s already a belief in a self. When we look, we go a step further to see that there is no control not because I don’t have control, but because there is no I which could have control in the first place. We will look into this deeply later. But first, we have to continue with looking at the notion of awareness.

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 visual thoughts, sounds, taste, etc. Let me know how it went.


Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
TheMirror
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:01 am

Re: Open to Truth

Postby TheMirror » Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:56 pm

Hi Vivien,

I've been trying to work with these inquiries each day.
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. I can't find a separate noun (person, place or thing) in addition to experience itself. I can only imagine that there is such a thing. It feels instinctual to do so, but even that is a thought. The truth is the thought that one exists happens and continues to happen. To call it habitual or to call it instinctual starts to paint a picture of an entity that has habits or instincts. This is imagination too.
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. I can't find a separate awareness besides the thought.
Try your best to separate the two from each other. What happens?
When I first did this I had this image of a slippery fish that I was trying to hold onto LOL... When I try to separate the thought from the thinking or an awareness of it, the point I look at moves consistently with the thoughts themselves. It's inseparable from the thought. Because the thought is all there is. That's all I can actually find.
Is there a dividing line between the thought and the knowing or awareness of it?
I cannot find one. As I said above any imagined point seems to move with the thought itself. This reveals that it certainly is just that, an imagined point.
Can you find the line where the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?
No. There isn't a line where one things starts and another ends. There's just the thought.

Can you find a thought without the knowing of it?
No. This is such an interesting phrasing... so well put. The knowing of an experience is inherent to experience itself. I could assume that there is other aspects other than what is noticed in the moment, but that is assumption and imagination. I would often think of "knowing" or "awareness" as a stationary space within which experience arises, but there isn't anything that is stationary. Everything is changing constantly.
Can you find knower or awareness without any object (like thought, sensation, sight, sound, taste, smell)?
No. There isn't anything else unless I imagine it. But even then, that doesn't mean it's there, that just means I'm imagining it.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4615
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Open to Truth

Postby Vivien » Wed Jan 08, 2020 1:34 am

Hi Ken,
No. I can't find a separate noun (person, place or thing) in addition to experience itself. I can only imagine that there is such a thing. It feels instinctual to do so, but even that is a thought. The truth is the thought that one exists happens and continues to happen. To call it habitual or to call it instinctual starts to paint a picture of an entity that has habits or instincts. This is imagination too.
Nice observations.
When I first did this I had this image of a slippery fish that I was trying to hold onto LOL... When I try to separate the thought from the thinking or an awareness of it, the point I look at moves consistently with the thoughts themselves. It's inseparable from the thought. Because the thought is all there is. That's all I can actually find.
Excellent looking.
The knowing of an experience is inherent to experience itself.
Yes! Well said.
I would often think of "knowing" or "awareness" as a stationary space within which experience arises, but there isn't anything that is stationary. Everything is changing constantly.
I just can repeat myself. You did a very good looking :)
There isn't anything else unless I imagine it. But even then, that doesn't mean it's there, that just means I'm imagining it.
So what is it exactly that imagines?

I’m giving you just this one question. Look very carefully just as you did so far.

Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
TheMirror
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:01 am

Re: Open to Truth

Postby TheMirror » Wed Jan 08, 2020 1:54 pm

Hi Vivien,
So what is it exactly that imagines?
There isn't any imaginations present in experiences such as bodily sensation, sight, smell, hearing, taste... but in the realm of thought there are thoughts that masquerade and pretend like they are more than mere thoughts. They come and go...So, there isn't a separate awareness that can be grasped without experience + thought. The "I" that imagines is an additional thought added to experience or even an additional thought added to another thought I "I am the one thinking that thought".

This made me question "Can a thought pretend?"... No. Thoughts are not real, so they can't perform actions. They can't think themselves into being a real boy. So, I find that there continues to be assumptions about thoughts that ascribe abilities to them which don't fit. This is the realm where the self illusion resides.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4615
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Open to Truth

Postby Vivien » Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:01 am

Hi Ken,
This made me question "Can a thought pretend?"... No. Thoughts are not real, so they can't perform actions. They can't think themselves into being a real boy. So, I find that there continues to be assumptions about thoughts that ascribe abilities to them which don't fit. This is the realm where the self illusion resides.
Let’s look more into thoughts.

What can a though do?
Can a thought think?
Can a thought make another thought to appear?
Can a thought decide?
Can a thought choose?
Does a thought have volition?
Can a thought make things happen?
Can a thought do anything at all? Anything?


Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
TheMirror
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:01 am

Re: Open to Truth

Postby TheMirror » Sun Jan 12, 2020 6:34 am

Hi Vivien,

Sorry for the delay... I'm going to try to get back to daily replies.
What can a though do?
A thought can't do anything of its own accord. It seems to be part of the general process of things. In this way thoughts seem connected to actions. But the idea that they actually are connected or that they produce actions is itself just another thought.
Can a thought think?
I laughed at this notion initially... I can't find a way to even look for this answer in experience. It's just not there. There are thoughts, but there are certainly no "thinking thoughts" or "thoughts that think themselves". To say a thought can think is just the same as saying there's a thinker of thoughts.
Can a thought make another thought to appear?
This is a really interesting question. All of experience has a flow that I can only best describe as having a cause and effect type nature. Yet, "cause" and "effect" are merely concepts. I can think that a thought about one thing produces the potential for a seemingly "connected" thought, but that's all more thought. In experience alone there are thoughts and then more thoughts... saying that they cause one another is another thought. So no, they don't make one another appear.
Can a thought decide?
Haha! This is getting good. There are thoughts and there are actions. To say they are connected or to saying there is a thinker or a doer is another thought. All just happening.
Can a thought choose?
Again, there are thoughts and there are choices. To assume there is a thinker or a chooser or that the thought itself did a choosing is all just more thought. On and on and on... it just happens.
Does a thought have volition?
No. Volition isn't something that can be found in experience. Volition is a concept and an assumption, but it can't be shown to be a reality. Thoughts arise about a topic/scenario/potential action. Then thoughts arise about a level of appeal that the action holds... calling what is experienced in this volition either on the part of the thought or of a self is an additional thought.
Can a thought make things happen?
Thoughts themselves happen. I can't find anything in experience making them happen. Including other thoughts.
Can a thought do anything at all? Anything?
No. I am wondering at this point if anything ever does anything. The whole progression of life is labeled and conceptualized through thoughts. Seeing the nature of thoughts tends to cast doubt on ones view of every aspect of life as commonly understood. It seems more likely that things are happening but not so much that there is any sort of doer doing anything.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4615
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Open to Truth

Postby Vivien » Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:30 am

Hi Ken,

You did an excellent looking :)
It seems more likely that things are happening but not so much that there is any sort of doer doing anything.
All right, let’s look into this.

It's clear that when we breathe, blink, digest food etc. there's no 'I' involved, but how is it for you when walking?

How is it when doing various everyday things like say, brushing your teeth, washing up, that kind of thing? Try all kinds of stuff.

Is there any 'I' there for any of these actions, or are they just happen on automatic?


Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
TheMirror
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:01 am

Re: Open to Truth

Postby TheMirror » Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:44 pm

Hi Vivien,
It's clear that when we breathe, blink, digest food etc. there's no 'I' involved, but how is it for you when walking?
When walking it's very much the same in the sense that everything is very "automatic". A thought may arise, such as "I am the one who is walking." Yet, thinking is happening just as walking is happening. If a thought arises to stop walking in order to "prove" there is an I who is in control of the process, where did the thought come from? I can't trace it to a source.

How is it when doing various everyday things like say, brushing your teeth, washing up, that kind of thing? Try all kinds of stuff.
It's very much like watching a movie at times. In the sense that there seems to be so much content and action, but in a sense nothing is happening. A thought arises, an action ensues...sometimes an action seems to come first, like with scratching an itch. Whether the action came first in actuality or not, there's not a point within experience from which I can see where either arise. They just appear.
Is there any 'I' there for any of these actions, or are they just happen on automatic?
So, any "I" that seems to be there I can see is a thought that arises either before, during or after an action. I feel as though I have a memory of a time when those thoughts had a more embodied sense of urgency or insistence to them if that makes any sense. That the sense of there being truth to an "I" thought previously had more substance and now is growing thinner and thinner.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4615
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Open to Truth

Postby Vivien » Fri Jan 17, 2020 5:20 am

Hi Ken,
If a thought arises to stop walking in order to "prove" there is an I who is in control of the process, where did the thought come from? I can't trace it to a source.
When moving happens a thought appear “I am going to stop now”, then would that thought prove the existence of a separate entity, of a me, who is in charge of the body?

So what is moving the body?

Is there anything, anything at all to be in charge of the body?
It's very much like watching a movie at times.
So is there a separate self, a me/I being separate from the movie, watching it?

What is it exactly that is watching the movie?


Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
TheMirror
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:01 am

Re: Open to Truth

Postby TheMirror » Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:20 am

Hi Vivien,
So what is moving the body?
I don't know. There isn't anything I can find in experience that is doing the moving.
Is there anything, anything at all to be in charge of the body?
No. Not that I can locate in direct experience.
So is there a separate self, a me/I being separate from the movie, watching it?
Great question. No. That's just another thought that arises with a certain type of experience. The thought is "Hey, this is like a movie." LOL Within that thought is also the idea that "I" am the one watching. Truth is it's just an experience and an interpretation within thoughts.
What is it exactly that is watching the movie?
Wow. I don't think there's anything watching it. The whole thing is a movie in the sense of a progression of scenes, but the scenes are all there is. There's no evidence of a viewer. Life is life, a liver of life isn't necessary. A watcher of the movie isn't necessary.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4615
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Open to Truth

Postby Vivien » Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:38 am

Hi Ken,

You did an excellent looking :)
V: What is it exactly that is watching the movie?
K: Wow. I don't think there's anything watching it.
You don’t THINK, or you can SEE that there is nothing watching the movie?
Life is life, a liver of life isn't necessary. A watcher of the movie isn't necessary.
Let’s dig a bit deeper here. Please look very thoroughly again.

Is the ‘liver of life isn’t necessary’ or there is NO ‘liver of life’?
Is the ‘watcher of the movie isn’t necessary’, or there is literally NO watcher of the movie?


Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
TheMirror
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:01 am

Re: Open to Truth

Postby TheMirror » Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:58 am

Hi Vivien,
You don’t THINK, or you can SEE that there is nothing watching the movie?
Thank you. I think there was some avoidance there in how I was answering things.

It is clear however. When I look, there is no one watching the "movie" of life. Any notion of there being someone (a self) is a passing thought... Just a moment ago I took a pause to look at experience, while seeing the simplicity of experience a co-worker walked by my desk. At that point there was a tiny little notion that arose regarding my being an individual in reference to her... the notion of my being a self was a thought that arose and then passed.
Is the ‘liver of life isn’t necessary’ or there is NO ‘liver of life’?
There is no liver of life to be found in experience. It's clear when looking that the notion of there being one is a fabrication brought on by thoughts.
Is the ‘watcher of the movie isn’t necessary’, or there is literally NO watcher of the movie?
There is no watcher. It's not only not necessary (since life is happening without one) it is not an actuality.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4615
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Open to Truth

Postby Vivien » Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:04 am

Hi Ken,

It's clear that when we breathe, blink, digest food etc. there's no 'I' involved, but how is it for you when walking?

How is it when doing various everyday things like say, brushing your teeth, washing up, that kind of thing? Try all kinds of stuff.

Is there any 'I' there for any of these actions, or are they just happen on automatic?

There is no watcher. It's not only not necessary (since life is happening without one) it is not an actuality.
So how does it FEEL to see this?

Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest