John S:

I struggle with the 'I am everything' recognition. The habitual labeling of what is
seen and perceived is getting in the way of the knowing of it. There are those fleeting
moments when concepts and ideas are completely dropped, reality seen like a
newborn baby where the knowing becomes the known, but it's not my everyday
direct experience. In fact, a kind of a fear often arises and this fear brings with it the
need for the labeling of what is seen and perceived, sometimes accompanied by a
thought "How will I function this way?". Would very much appreciate some
pointers on how to stabilize in this.

Empty Mirror: Hi John, please take a read through some of the threads in here, and
we'll arrange for someone to go through this with you ASAP.

John S: Thanks Empty. I've gone through and read quite a few of the threads here and
have taken the time to look at some of the questions posed by the guides. They were very
helpful.

Empty Mirror: Ok, John, so perhaps we could start off with your OP then.

You say: "In fact, a kind of a fear often arises and this fear brings with it the need for the
labeling of what is seen and perceived, sometimes accompanied by a thought 'How will I
function this way?'".

So if you are everything, what is it that would need to function in a certain way?

John S: Hi Empty...It's the habitual identification with the character and that character
seems to want to label everything and stay separate in the belief that it is the only way to
function from day to day and in practical matters.

Empty Mirror: Ok, I know all about the thought story, but if you are EVERYTHING,
including the character and all other characters, and EVERYTHING else, what is it that
needs to function in a certain way?

John S: Nothing is needed to function a certain way from that perspective. Everything
would be as it should be without trying to mold the play in any way.

Empty Mirror: Exactly

So then obviously all of that other stuff ONLY applies if there really is a person in this
that knows of stuff and feels stuff.

So let's see whether there is a person in this that knows of anything at all, or whether the
person is just more of the stuff that is known.

Do you see that there is no thinker of thoughts?

John S: I see thoughts arising and another thought commenting on the thought. Yes, I
only see thoughts against the backdrop of awareness and the "thinker" as just another
thought!

John S: Having said the above, the DE of 'I am everything' is not my reality (at least not
consistently). I recall an interview in which Rick Archer was giving to Rupert Spira
where Rick was reaching out for a cup in front of him trying to "get" that the knowing of
the cup as himself and saying that it is not always his experience. It feels very much this
way here also.

Empty Mirror: Ok, but even the "I still don't get it" is just thought too

And we'll get to the "I am everything" part, but first we have to clear up the "I am a
separate something" part

So instead of worrying about how we're going to get to the "I am everything" part, rather
just take FULL cognizance of what you're discovering along the way.

Is it clear, beyond any doubt. that you are not the author of thoughts?

John S: Yes, this is clear.

Empty Mirror: Ok, well then is it also clear that, since you are not the author of
thoughts, you've NEVER made a single decision?

John S: I see thoughts taking ownership of actions that happen to this body-mind. I've
mulled this over quite a bit and have seen how in my life actions preceding thoughts.

Empty Mirror: Yes, thoughts take ownership of actions, but if you are not the author of
ANY thought, then how could you possibly ever have made any decisions?
John S: It seems a bit sticky to me. A decision can be made without a thought about the
act. But I guess in this scenario, there would be nobody to make the decision anyways.

John S: Yes, I see this

Empty Mirror: Never mind "scenario". I am talking about the reality of "experience".

Don't worry about any theories, or hypotheses at the moment. Right now just look at the
absolute undeniable reality of experience.

Can you catch yourself authoring a thought before it shows up? Or do they seem to
follow by association and pop up already formed?

John S: It seems that thoughts follow by association and pop up already formed. But
then again, I can force myself to think a thought like 'I like the color blue'...

John S: Then again the thought 'I like the color blue' could just as well had been 'I like
pink elephants'

John S: I cannot catch myself authoring any thought at all!

Empty Mirror:

Well then, how could you possibly have ever made any decisions?

John S: Yes

Empty Mirror: Regardless of what thought says about a thinker of thoughts, there is
never any such experience.

So even though there are thoughts which say "Perhaps I should do this, or perhaps I
should do that", there is nothing authoring those thoughts.

And the idea of free will is therefore a complete thought invention. Do you see that
clearly?
And I don't just mean logically. I mean do you see that it is the direct experience of
being?

John S: Yes!!

Empty Mirror:

Ok, well that pretty much takes care of the question in your OP about: "How will I
function this way?", doesn't it?

Obviously if you've never been thinking thoughts then nothing will change

"Functioning" will simply continue as it always has - without any author.

Do you see that?

John S: Amazing!!! Yes I do

John S: Thank you Empty

Empty Mirror: It's my pleasure

But it get's even clearer if you look a little deeper. There are more beliefs to see through

So now let's move on to some other thoughts which have no foundation in direct
experience

Thought says that 'this that is' can be divided into a "knowing", and a "known", but can
you separate a thought from the "knowing" of it?

Is there any dividing line anywhere?

Can you separate a sensation from the "knowing" of it?

In fact, can you separate ANYTHING from the "knowing" of it?

Be sure that you look at the raw experience.

John S: When I touch the coffee table, thought says "it's hard". The sensation "hard" and
the knowing of it ("hardness") in DE are the same. I do not find a dividing line anywhere.
Empty Mirror: Ok, so is it clear that EVERYTHING and the "knowing" of it, are
utterly indivisible.

And that in fact, "knowing" and "known" are UTTERLY, INDIVISIBLY, one?

John S: Not completely. There is a stickiness around "objects in space". I can't put my
finger on it

John S: It's like the habit of dividing things into a subject/object relationship often takes
over DE.

Empty Mirror: Ok, so what is the raw direct experience of an object right now?

Choose one, and notice the raw experience - forget about the yarn that thought is spinning
about time and distance - just the raw experience.

Tell me what it is.

Empty Mirror: And does that habit exist ANYWHERE other than in thought, John?

John S: LOL...I can't describe it! It's just a knowing of it in myself

Empty Mirror: Exactly

And thought shows up and spins a story about it, which includes "time" and "space" and
"me" and "that", but NONE of those things exist (outside of thought) in the direct
experience of being.

Do you see that?

John S: Yes. It's the habit of thought that wants to divide it

John S: I do see this

Empty Mirror: Yes, and thought even says that thought wants to do stuff, but do you
see that thought actually knows nothing?
Just like the words in a book know nothing about what they are saying.

In direct experience, they just show up, like clouds in the sky, or like the tweeting of
birds.

John S: So beautiful! Thank you

Empty Mirror: Well now we get to the part where we see whether there really is
anybody to thank

Are you in a body? And if so, what is your evidence of that?

John S: The body seems to be in me. Or more like "experienced" in me.

Empty Mirror: Ok, so then do you see that all other bodies seem to be in you too?

John S: It was no different than picking up the phone next to me and seeing it in myself.

Empty Mirror: See above question

John S: Yes, I was just noticing this while my "cat" was running around. I cannot even
describe it.

John S: I could sit this way forever without missing anything

Empty Mirror: Well you could never possibly miss anything, because you ALONE
know EVERYTHING there is to know.

So let's look at the idea that the cat or any of the other bodies showing up in this, is aware
of anything - including the John body.

Is there any evidence in *direct experience* that any of them knows of any of this?

John S: There is no evidence in DE of the "John" body being aware of any of this.
Empty Mirror: And what about anything else in this?

John S: In fact it doesn't know anything.

Empty Mirror: Nice

See above question

John S: It's the same

John S: WOW!! This "body" needs to go outside and look at the nighttime skies

John S: Much gratitude my friend

Empty Mirror: Before you go, firstly, do you see that the body never sees the night
time stars?

And, secondly, do you see then that the whole conversation between John and Empty, is
just an appearance in this "show", and since this "show" is indivisible from the knowing
of it, the "show" is the knowing of itself?

So if you (not John) know of it, then you ALONE can not be anything other than this
show of beingness that is the knowing of itself?

John S: The nighttime stars are known and experienced in me (not John) like everything
else. I need to sit with your last sentence a bit

Empty Mirror: You already pretty much answered it

But be completely clear about it. Be absolutely certain whether it really is the direct
experience of being

John S: Yes. I see the reality of utter and complete direct experience of being free of
thoughts and agendas I want to sit with this for a bit and come back again in case I have
some more questions. Thank you again
Empty Mirror: Ok, enjoy

Empty Mirror: How are you going, John

John S: Enjoying the show Empty

Empty Mirror: Cool

You've seen through the idea of a controller, or an author, or a doer, but there is more to
see

When you are ready take a really good look at the questions that I put to you before you
went off to look at the night time skies

John S: To answer your last questions, on a level that I can't describe, it's so obvious
here that this play cannot be anything other than the knowing of myself. It doesn't even
seem to be possible for anything to exist outside of my knowing it. Everywhere I look
and everything I perceive, there is the knowing of it. There also appears to be a "choice"
of seeing everything through the individual "self" with its labeling and separating. But
somehow, the absurdity of that perception is quickly seen and there is a laughter

Empty Mirror: LOVE your reply, John

The laughter tells me all I need to know

Such joy for you here

Empty Mirror: Hey John, one last question, which should be pretty relevant at this
stage.

You said: "Would very much appreciate some pointers on how to stabilize in this."

Is there anything that needs to stabilize in this?

John S: Hi Empty, There is no question of "anyone" or anything needing to "stabilize".

On my motorcycle ride home, there was a noticing of how the body was just functioning
without a thinker or a doer. It just did its thing in the most natural way and nothing else
was needed. There's a dream-like quality to everyday living here and everything seems so
much lighter
Empty Mirror: Cool

I have no more questions then

Brian H:
I'd like Empty Mirror: to help me with the belief that I am the doer of my actions,
and especially with I am the thinker of my thoughts. Time for some clarity.

Vivi J: Hi Brian I am soon of to bed, but I can give you something to look at until
Empty is available.

Are you the thinker of thoughts? Look carefully in direct experience, meaning look at
thoughts this instant. Put anything you have heard, seen, read, learnt, assumed, believed
aside. Look at the 'naked' experience.
Where do thoughts come from, how do they come to be, can you decide what to think?
Can you stop a thought? Can you decide NOT to think? Now I ask you to not think of a
blue elephant with wings and rubber boots. Did any images appear? Were you in control
of not imagining the blue elephant with wings and rubber boots. Where are the entity in
control of thoughts? what exactly happens when a thought disappears.

That should be enough for some time

Enjoy

Brian H: You see VBJ I can do thought experiments and understand pretty clear, but
it still leaves the belief intact. I‘m interested in a dialectic. I would like someone to
ruthlessly break down any logical defense that I can throw at them.

Vivi J: okay throw something at me

Vivi J: Brian If you want to throw something at me....get started

Brian H: Earlier today I saw that there actually is no space anywhere experiencable,
its only conceptual. When that was seen experience collapsed into 2 dimensions like a
movie screen. Same stuff on the screen, but different perception of it. Everything became
one whole including body thoughts and sensations, but for some reason thoughts of
things like me, you, they etc. seem to obscure that unity... The idea I have is that if the
self is seen through completely as imagination the confusion will clear

Vivi J: Yeah...what is that Idea?

Brian H: A thought lol

Vivi J: yes!

Brian H: I‘m on an iPhone so I'm a little slow

Vivi J: that‘s Ok I‘m slow too

 Vivi J: what is the separate self?

Brian H: I can see it... I just get drawn in to the ideas

Brian H: And that was another thought

Vivi J: hehe

Vivi J: what is the I that gets drawn into ideas?

Brian H: A thought lol... This is good though

Vivi J: yes - what is good about it?

Brian H: Its being recognized or known? Don‘t ask me by who though.. Lol

Vivi J: no not who, but recognised by what?

Brian H: It seems as though thought paints a picture or tells a story and attention gets
drawn into it

Brian H: Apparently another thought coupled with a feeling that says its me

Brian H: I don‘t know what.. What could it be but a thought?

Vivi J: Good! Now look carefully What do you know without any doubts?

Brian H: This is..

Vivi J: how do you know?

Brian H: Something is happening

Vivi J: How do you know?

Brian H: Because this is here

Brian H: Its not, not here

Vivi J: easy as my driver‘s license teacher said....experience is , how do you know?

This will be the last question from me to night. S.C. will take over - it was a pleasure

Brian H: I don‘t know it feels as there‘s someone here to know... Thank you vbj
 S.C: yes, how do you know experience is here? It‘s not rocket science, don't over
think it, just how do you know? What‘s the first thing that comes when this question is
asked?

Brian H: Its seen felt heard

Brian H: A thought will try and claim responsibility for that though... It says I see I
feel I hear.. Well not exactly that way but u get what I mean

S.C: Is experience not known simply because it's known? What knows it if not you?
Do you exist?

Brian H: I can‘t say "I" exist... Lol

Brian H: Sounds dumb to say though

S.C: hehe Brian. It does sound dumb to say, and that's for good reason, because you
know you exist, it's the one thing you know beyond any doubt. Isn't that right? What does
"I" really point to all this time?

S.C: (you're not dumb to say it! it just strikes you as funny for a reason is all)

Brian H: I suppose you‘re right..

S.C: So do you exist?

Brian H: I do...

Brian H: I am

S.C: YES.

S.C: what are you REALLY referring to when you say "I"?

S.C: is it not this knowing and what it's known as?

Brian H: The normal everyday behavior that I exhibit doesn‘t reflect that I though... It
reflects a separate body mind Brian

S.C: ^ what is saying so right now? (the only time there is)

Brian H: Knowingness seems to be the real I

Brian H: I would be lying if I didn‘t say I feel a little trepidation here though

S.C: yes.
 S.C: yes, and why is that? (I smell a thought story)

S.C: perfectly understandable

Brian H: I normally feel like I am identified with my body and feelings bad especially
thoughts

S.C: who is identified? Is there someone/thing there identified, or thoughts saying so?

S.C: so let's just look at this knowingness, without calling it I for just a moment, if
there is only this knowingness in direct experience, what else could "you" be??

Brian H: Why call it I at all is what comes up

Brian H: If I say I am going to the grocery store... It‘s obviously not pointing to the
totality of experience

S.C: yes, that is the trepidation, the fear of identification, especially after seeing "no
self" - you don't have to, you'll notice we call it THIS a lot - but do you see how that
trepidation creates a separation as if there is something OTHER than THIS.

S.C: as if there is something that you are that is not THIS so you can't dare put the
label I on it? (separation)

Brian H: I can see that... But feels weird to call it me

Brian H: Or unfamiliar might be a better word

S.C: yes, I know. It did here too. And then I saw that it was paradoxically a belief that
kept a "separate me" alive.

S.C: you've seen the character Brian is a thought story, a label for experience, you've
already seen that. If Brian is just a thought story, what are you?

S.C: all that is left is the knowingness, doesn't matter what you call it - can this
knowing be separated from what it's known as, ever at any time?

Brian H: I must be experience experiencing

Brian H: Seems to be an expectation of a wow moment or something

Brian H: No it can‘t

S.C: yes, and we can drop the experiencing and just leave experience. experience
itself. The expectation, is it anything more than a thought?
 Brian H: So would it be incorrect to say I am the thoughts but not the content of
them?

S.C: No, that would be correct!

S.C: thoughts are inseparable from this that you are, (knowing/known right? check
this) But what the thoughts point to is pure fluff - abstractions. content = abstractions of
this that you are.

S.C: I mean what the thought story about - in reality all thoughts ultimately point back
to the only THIS that IS.

S.C: so around to the OP - can you stop thoughts at will? can you choose to think only
happy thoughts? even if you think "I can think about starting a thread to Look deeper into
this" - where did that thought come from? How do thoughts appear? Can they be traced
back to an origin of any kind? Or do they just pop up?

Brian H: The thought realization seemed to jar something loose... So I am all that is
and all that is what is being experiences right here right now

S.C: that's right.

S.C: do you find anything other than that? what is the only thing that could divide it
up?

Brian H: Nope thoughts just pop up, and I certainly wont be following where they
want to go... Now see that I is the one that gets me... Its obviously not pointing to all that
is

Brian H: Grr

Brian H: So now I can see that all thoughts that point to that me are bullshit

S.C: yes, pointing to a controlling me, yes. Because there isn't one.

Forget "I can't control or can control. I can't do, or I can do" for a moment... does
control even EXIST? Doesn't it require two?

Brian H: The only way I can wangle a controller is with thought, so id have to say no
it doesn‘t exist

S.C: yep.

S.C: so does even THIS that IS *think*?? IS there a THINKER at all??

 Brian H: Nope thoughts just show up like clouds in the sky

Brian H: When any doubts show up they‘re just being released as false

S.C: yep all questions begin to answer themselves.

Brian H: My goodness... Not sure what to say...

Brian H: Guess that‘s it then..

S.C: Yep. how's that feeling?

Brian H: Feeling pretty chilled out right now actually:-)

Brian H: Chillaxed comes to mind lol

S.C: hehe! nice.

S.C: chillaxed. Well feel free to call empty in if there's still confusion, a little birdie
told me he's awake now.

Brian H: Alright well thank you/me whatever and we'll see if confusion starts up
again I suppose... Thx again

S.C: thank you Brian

Empty Mirror: My apologies, Brian, I've had a really busy weekend so far, but it
looks Vivi and S.C. , just did a better job than I could have done, anyway

Empty Mirror: LOVED this one, S.C. : "does control even EXIST? Doesn't it
require two?"

Excellent point!!

Empty Mirror: Anything still seem confusing about this, Brian?

Brian H: I expected the ego to be crushed and experience would take on a whole new
quality that hadn‘t been perceived before. I can see that these are thoughts but still cant
help feeling a little let down.

Brian H: I check DE and see clearly that all of that is just mind crap, but still feel as if
"I" am over here and all of that is over there.... I again can see this is another thought...
Maybe it just takes more and more noticing that thought cant give the answers..

Empty Mirror: Ok, well then perhaps it's because you have seen what you are not,
and have not yet realised what you are.
 Perhaps you have not REALLY realised what you are.

What are YOU?

REALLY!!

Be absolutely CERTAIN about your answer. Don't leave any room for doubts or
theory.

Can this be separate from the knowing of it? Be very clear on that point too.

I don't have much time this weekend, Brian, but perhaps S.C. , or Vivi can help you
look, if I'm not available to look at your answers.

Brian H: I am consciousness looking out on a world is the thought that comes up and
honestly how it feels..

Vivi J: Looking out - from where Brian?

Brian H: From my body Vivi... I'm going to play devil's advocate here instead of
trying to give what I think is the "right" answers, if that‘s ok with you. It seems to clear
things up better for me.

Brian H: When I say things like clear things up better for me, it sounds queer.. like
not quite right

Vivi J: Ok, so you have a body. What is the direct experience of 'my body'? By direct
I mean the raw experience. Is it YOUR body? What makes it your body?

Vivi J: It seems to clear things up better for me. < That's a thought story;) Isn't it?

Brian H: The DE of it is just feelings... feels like something owns it though...

Brian H: Like I own it... it's my body is what I say

Brian H: I don't feel as if I'm my daughter‘s body who is sleeping nearby

Brian H: I can say it's a thought story... which it clearly is, but it seems to make no
difference

Vivi J: 'The DE of 'my body' is just feelings' There is experience of feelings, look
carefully what makes the direct experience of feelings to be 'my body' ?

Vivi J: I'll be on and of for the next couple of hours, so you have some time to look
into 'my body'
 Empty Mirror: Heh heh

That sounds interesting, Vivi

Empty Mirror: Brian, please excuse me, but I need to actually have time to think
about my responses when I do this kind of thing, and I have kind of used all the time I
can today.

I'll try to join in on this again tomorrow, but otherwise will definitely be onto it on
Monday.

Brian H: I appreciate it EM... And yes I will sit and explore "my body" and get back
to you

Empty Mirror: Ok, Brian.

Please post the findings of your investigation, when you're ready, and I'll pick up from
there

Brian H: Its crystal clear now Empty ... I am everything and I am no-thing

Brian H: The realization was made when I realized that I was trying to get rid of
something that was self created... Its like saying I am a tree and then trying to not be a
tree. When this dawned... I sat with my eyes closed and tried to look for myself.. I could
only find sounds, feelings and thoughts... Then Bam!! I instantly saw the seeming
separate me that was being identified with was just pure imagination... I was left with my
jaw hanging, I mean its so simple and obvious but so goddamn hard to get.. Since then
many thoughts have been trying to understand this and analyze it, but I just smile because
I know they‘re just part of the "show" as you put it.. .

Empty Mirror: Nice, Brian

Well all questions should start to answer themselves now.

Let us know if any turn up that don't answer themselves.

Empty Mirror: I have a feeling that perhaps the logic of this is clear to you, Brian,
but that there are still thoughts that the lack of separation isn't actually experienced.

That's usually due to the idea that there are others experiencing something somewhere.
The idea that you are not utterly alone.

Have you noticed the peace and freedom? Is it clear that the only one that has ever
been aware of anything, anywhere, is that which is aware of the reading of this sentence
right now?
 Brian H: Your feeling would be correct... The experience is definitely in flux... One
moment I‘m an individual trying desperately to see and feel the unity... Another moment
there‘s a feeling of wholeness with the individual integrated... There's a strong intuition
that its being worked out though. The difference between imagination and DE seems to
be the soup de jour lately.

Brian H: When there‘s clarity its seen that Brian including all of his fears, and
confusion is an inseparable part of one whole. So it doesn't matter... There doesn't seem
to be identification with the whole, or the individual called Brian.

Brian H: I will say that it used to be taken for granted that there are separate people
experiencing their own version of reality... Now there is a slight doubt almost every time
I have an interaction with someone "else"...

Empty Mirror: Nice, Brian

Yes, there is a sort of fluctuation, and that is a good thing. It's a sign of healthy
skepticism.

This must never be believed. So there will be a period of checking, and doubting, and
rechecking, and that is all very healthy.

Referring to DE is a great way to keep thoughts in check, but in my opinion, the utter
indivisibility of this knowingknown is the most definitive evidence that you can get.

Even in the show, the story of physics is saying that observing and observed are
indivisible.

The FACT that the knowingknown is indivisible is always blatantly obvious.

Brian H: I can see that there is no division between the knowing/known... Only
thought comes in and creates a division... I‘m becoming more and more familiar with the
Wholeness of the DE which is allowing me to discern what is imagined and what is
directly perceived. For instance.. Thoughts and imagination may start presenting me as
having a problem with one of my coworkers. Checking DE though will confirm that there
is just an imagined me having a problem with an imagined coworker.

Brian H: I should have said thought comes in and makes an imagined division

Empty Mirror: Excellent.

Well then all questions will answer themselves.

Perhaps another interesting thing to notice is that the doubting thoughts, AND the
thoughts that counter those thoughts, by referring back to DE and indivisibility, are
happening all by themselves, with nobody thinking them.
 They are as much of the show as anything else is.

So thoughts are really just rearranging themselves in the show, all by themselves.

And as usual everything is seen in total clarity by the show in/as which they appear.

Brian H: Is there a point where the consciousness stays "wider" open? It seems to
collapse down when identifying with a thought or object.

Brian H: It seems when there is clarity that consciousness feels wider or larger..

Brian H: Or more elevated

Brian H: I suppose I could say I feel wider larger and more elevated.

Empty Mirror: It is always "wide". It's only thoughts that say that it isn't.

There is an old Zen saying that goes:

"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood,
carry water."

So most of the time this seems as "ordinary" as ever, but the moment that it is looked
for, the "spaciousness" is noticed.

Jesus said something very beautiful about this "ordinariness" in logion 29 of the gospel
of Thomas:

"29. Yeshua says: If the flesh has come to be because of spirit, it is a marvel—yet if
spirit because of the body, it would be a marvel among marvels. But I myself marvel at
this: how this great wealth has been placed in this poverty."

Brian H: I knew you were going to say its always wide as soon as I typed the last
reply lol
How about thoughts... Do they simmer down some? Because they seem to always be
trying to work out problems... I figure that its due to the imagination that there are
problems in the first place, and an imagined self to have them, but still I'm curious.

Empty Mirror: Yes, thoughts do seem to quiet down.

Well at least the doubting questioning and answering thoughts do. It seems as if their is
a period of intense questioning and rechecking, and eventually, because the questions and
answers are always the same, those thoughts just sort of settle down and stop.
 But other thoughts carry on exactly as before. Thoughts are a natural part of the show,
just like trees and clouds are.

There may be thoughts of frustration in traffic, or stress at work, or any other type of
thoughts, but you'll notice that more and more, they just don't 'stick'. They have no place
to 'land'. So they show up, and disappear pretty quickly.

You should notice a general sense of peace and freedom underneath the normal play of
the show.

And this "foundation" of peace and freedom, seems to become more "solid" over time.

Brian H: When you converse with me or others is there a sense that "I" am speaking?
Or does it just seem to show up in the play? Or is it totally different in some other way?

Brian H: Most of the time it feels like I am speaking, but when I check DE it seems
as though its just happening

Empty Mirror: Yes, exactly. That is what I'm talking about. And you'll find that it's
the same when things like anger, or stress, or frustration, or sadness, show up.

They will be there, and there is an *AUTOMATIC* noticing that they are expressions
of this beingness that you are, just like music is.

Remember that you are NOT the thinker of any thoughts, and are NOT in anyway able
to "direct attention".

So life is just revealing itself to itself.

And there are naturally thoughts here that I am conversing with someone. And there
seems to be a body that is typing these words in response to the thoughts about that
"other".

The characters know nothing about the dream though. They seem to respond to
thoughts, and seem to respond to dream thoughts, but they know nothing about dream
thoughts.

You alone know of any of this that you show up as.

Brian H: Unbelievably strange to the "common" sense, but how can it be refuted. The
only refutation can come from thought which is itself part of the whole. Wow

Empty Mirror: Exactly!!

"Common sense" is a thought construct

 Empty Mirror: Welcome home

Brian H: There still isn‘t a sense that I am alone though... But how can it be any other
way? Only imagination could say there are others...

Empty Mirror: Exactly.

In fact it's exactly the same as a dream. There are clearly no "others" in a dream, and
you are clearly not the dream character, but it sure feels like it

Empty Mirror: In fact there is no such thing as a sleep state dream. There only seems
to be a 'dreamy mode' to this that thought names "sleep state dream".

Brian H: I can see that.. "What is now" in another form..

Empty Mirror: yup

Brian H: Even if what is now turns into some crazy psychedelic 25 dimensional
universe... Its still me..

Empty Mirror: So who can "others" be if you are not Brian?

Who/what are they "other" to?

Empty Mirror: EXACTLY, Brian!!!

Nice observation

Empty Mirror: Even if it turned into some crazy psychedelic pattern with no
thoughts at all, it would still be what you are. You are beingness expressing itself.

Brian H: Resistance feelings are appearing... Just part of the show

Empty Mirror: Yup, just 'doubting thoughts' showing up, and 'answering thoughts'
cancelling them out.

The healthy natural process that I told you about

Empty Mirror: DE and the indivisibility of this knowingknown are simply

undeniable, so eventually those thoughts lose their vigor.

And the entire play of those thoughts is just playing out in complete peace and freedom

Nothing can ever go "wrong"

 Brian H: Just feeling pretty blown out right now... Lots of thoughts trying to grasp on
to the familiar... Wanting it to be as it was... All part of the whole...

Brian H: Thoughts saying this is all a big mind game... Tomorrow will be the same as
it was before... Just thoughts... Part of the whole

Brian H: DE and the indivisibility of this knowingknown are simply undeniable, so

eventually those thoughts lose their vigor.

And the entire play of those thoughts is just playing out in complete peace and freedom

Nothing can ever go "wrong"

I can see that that‘s true :0)

Empty Mirror: To your earlier posts, Yes, exactly.

Thoughts seem to look for a place to "land", but they are just thoughts doing their thing
in this.

Have you read Liad's thread in this group?

Empty Mirror: And another thing to look at is time.

Do you see that "time" is just a thought story painted about this timeless "now"?

Empty Mirror: I only ever showed up in this show to play a part in the show, of the
show revealing itself to itself.

As did Brian

Brian H: No I haven‘t seen Liad's post, and yes I can see that "time" is conceptual...
Past is a memory now and future is imagined now..

Every thought that comes up to deny or escape this is swallowed up in the directly
experienced wholeness of now..

Empty Mirror: Nicely put

Empty Mirror: Freedom!

Brian H: Its bizarre to imagine it like this, but its always said... Truth is stranger than
fiction. Lol

Empty Mirror: It was more bizarre to have ever imagined it NOT like this
 Empty Mirror: Do you see how this dwarfs the concept of God?

Brian H: This process seems incomplete... I recognize that as a thought... But they
keep coming... Lol this is starting to get funny

Empty Mirror: Do you see that you have always been omniscient?

Brian H: I have always known the totality of now... So I suppose that would be
omniscience :0) even if it has only been 35 trips around the sun of omniscience lol

Empty Mirror: 35 trips around the sun is just a story, just like the story of "always".

What I should have said is: "you are omniscience".

Empty Mirror: Check in time again, Brian.

Have you noticed the freedom and peace that I spoke about?

Brian H: There does seem to be a freedom and peace to just let what be, be. It is very
subtle... I expected more of a dramatic difference... The thoughts keep coming and things
can get a little confusing but one check to DE confirms that all is happening as one
whole. Meaning there can be nobody separate to enact any will on what is taking place.

Empty Mirror: Ok, well I'll check in on you every so often and see how things are
clearing up.

Continue to look closely at the idea of others having their own experiences. The
noticing that you **truly** are all that is here, and that nobody and nothing, other than
you, is aware of ANY of this, should allow you to see the incredible majesty of this that
you are.

Brian H: The most valuable part of this (as if this is just some self help thing) is that
the bullshit of life is seen so clearly now... Imagined ideas and beliefs are seen almost
instantly

Empty Mirror: Yup, and the more that they are seen through, the clearer this all
becomes, and the more the magic is noticed

Brian H: I can see the impossibility to know that people are having their own
experiences, but it remains a tough nut to crack...

Empty Mirror: Then look at the beliefs that prop up the idea. Examine them closely,
and be absolutely CERTAIN of what you find.

I'm happy to help you with that if you like, but it really is better if you see it all on your
own.
 Brian H: Obviously my statement that I just made contradicts itself so I can see the
belief, but it relentlessly asserts itself in experience

Empty Mirror: Yes, I agree, so take a look at what it is that seems to make the belief
"reassert" itself.

Would you like to take a look at it, and let me know what the outcome of your
investigation is?

Brian H: I'm happy to help you with that if you like, but it really is better if you see it
all on your own.

I completely agree... This seems like something I need to work out on my own... But if
I get hung up on something that just won't budge I might come back for some ruthless
one on one

Brian H: I really need to get some sleep, but I'll do some deep looking and get back to
you tomorrow

Empty Mirror: How are you going Brian?

Brian H: Strong feelings of frustration followed by intense desire for it to stop have
been arising... Thoughts go crazy when this happens.. Sometimes clarity comes and deep
relaxation happens for a while..
Seems to be a back and forth happening quite a bit. I can understand that its all
happening within me, but damn if its not confusing as hell..

Empty Mirror: All perfectly healthy

Once beliefs have been seen for what they are, thoughts go into a sort of meltdown.

Thoughts saying "there is something here that doesn't see something" are countered by
thoughts that say "there is nothing here that doesn't see something".
And you are the thinker of NEITHER type of thought.

It seems like confusion, but it's just thoughts sort of clearing themselves out.

The confusion of thoughts is seen in utter clarity. They may say that something is
confused, but do you notice that you are not confused at all?

Do you notice that you are seeing the confusion in perfect clarity?

Is there anything in this that can be confused?

 Brian H: I can see the perfect clarity... Then attention gets sucked right down the first
damned thought hole and its off to dreamland...

Brian H: Thought after thought is believed over and over again... Its maddeningly
stupid...

Brian H: Its like being wide awake, and dozing off... Wide awake, dozing off... Wide
awake, dozing off...usually the dozing off takes the form of, why am I not wide awake. I
want to be wide awake. How do I get wide awake? There must be some special formula
to being wide awake and staying that way... Then I sometimes within a relatively short
time frame I notice that this is going on and poof.. Wide awake again. Sometimes
minutes, sometimes hours

Empty Mirror: But are you noticing that the more they are seen to have been
thoughts believed, the less often they stick?

More importantly, do you see that even this whole seeming process is ALSO part of
the show?

The idea that there is something that is turning attention one way or another is PURE
show stuff.

Nothing pays attention to anything. Thoughts say that something is grabbing attention,
but that is not true. There is always 100% clarity ("attention") about what you show up as
- including ideas of certain things sucking attention one way or another.

There can be a feeling of wanting to hang on to something, and for this to always feel a
certain way - but that is ALSO just show stuff.

There is nobody that needs to hold on to anything, and nothing to hold onto. As this
self-aware show, you are always utterly clear about what you show up as. That can never
be lost. It is always this way, and could never be any other way.

Is there really something being sucked down holes, or are you just reporting on the
way that the show is showing up?

Brian H: Imp reporting on how the show is showing up... There seems to be
dissatisfaction happening in the show... There seems to be a not noticing of the self
awareness... Not being self awareness

Empty Mirror: Ok, and you just reported some more on the show.

So obviously you are utterly clear about what the show is about. So is there anything
that is unclear about what is going on?
 Empty Mirror: Is there anything that is really dissatisfied, or is that just what the
show is about?

Brian H: Lol its just what the show is about... Thank you.. You clear things up very
quickly.

Brian H: This is one strange show going on right now

Empty Mirror: Strange, and beautiful, and wondrous

You are all of it

Empty Mirror: Brian, would you like to discuss your belief that there could be others
here?

Brian H: Of course... Though I don‘t think I would call it a belief... I just can see that
it is impossible to know

Brian H: Agreed... Seeing of DE does not show the existence of any other points of
view... But as Greg Goode pointed out it seems to endorse a "belief" that no other point
of view in this exists.. Imp just saying this cannot be known. There is only "this"... Then
thought abstracts from "this"... No other... Other... Self... No self...
So neither one necessarily be imagined... Why is there such a strong assertion that
there isn't other perspectives?

Empty Mirror: Hi Brian. You say: "Though I don‘t think I would call it a belief... I
just can see that it is impossible to know"

Are you ABSOLUTELY sure that what you just said isn't a belief. Are you absolutely
sure that you don't know everything there is to know?

If so, how do you know that?

Brian H: I was on a bit of an ego trip earlier Empty. :0) All comments today
retracted... That was confused, frustrated Brian. I apologize for him, but can't promise he
won't make another appearance in the future :0)

This that I am, is all that can be known. I can never not be here, I can never not know.

Empty Mirror: No problem. No apology necessary

Brian H: I've come to notice that egoic patterns can be identified pretty easy by
feelings of resistance accompanied by murky self centered thoughts. If possible I can
check DE at those times and affirm that it is just thoughts and feelings in This. That then
seems to allow the thoughts and feelings to work their way out... Opening up to a more
spacious relaxed clear state of mind. It's very refreshing :0)
 Empty Mirror: Excellent!

That is exactly what you can expect

Thoughts sort of rearranging themselves, all by themselves.

It's as if where thoughts once pointed to separation, things happen I the show, words
are said, and suddenly thoughts start rearranging themselves to point to this indivisibility.

And the whole thing happens without anybody or anything doing it

Empty Mirror: Hi Brian, just a check in here.

How is it going? Are all questions or doubts answering themselves?

Do you see that nothing ever experiences anything? Do you see that EVEN the
"show"/"dream" doesn't experience anything?

Brian H: Hi Empty, its going good.. Concepts are slowly being worked through.
Thoughts and the ideas that they conjure are measured against DE experiments which
expose their falseness. Identification with the body as a limited part of awareness still
happens quite a bit, but is not fully believed. Experience flip flops from a feeling of me
moving through space and time, to me being an unmovable eternal awareness with the
body and all phenomena in it.

I can see that nothing experiences anything because there isn't anything separate to
experience it. This seems like a mental realization right now though. The DE experiments
seem to help clear stuff like that up though. Thoughts/imagination can be very
disorienting.

Empty Mirror: Hi Brian, it's great that you're noticing that thoughts are rearranging
themselves all by themselves, but it seems that you are still seeing a separation between
"knowing" and "known".

You are still thinking of yourself as a "knowing" (awareness), with "with the body and
all phenomena in it".

Do you see that?

Brian H: That‘s just the way it seems to feel. I can understand that there is no way
that I can be a separate awareness. I assume that it will work itself out through the DE
experiments though.

Empty Mirror: Yes, I'm sure it will, and yes, it does SEEM to feel like that. Here is a
something that I just posted to Liad, on this exact point:
 -----
You say: "it doesn't make sense that awareness that sees them depends on fleeting
phenomena"

Do you see that you are still thinking in terms of separation?

Do you see that you are STILL thinking of "awareness" and "fleeting phenomena" that
awareness "sees".

Do you see that you are STILL imagining a separation between knowing and known,
even though you have clearly seen that no such division exists?

There is nothing "fleeting" about the show at all. It is PERMANENTLY on.

So what is "fleeting" about it?

You are PERMANENTLY showing up as this show, so what is impermanent about

you?

---

You don't have to answer the questions I posted to him, unless you feel the need to.

If you don't, I'll check up on you again in a couple of days

Empty Mirror: Hey Brian, how are you going buddy?

All confusions clearing themselves up? Is the freedom and peace shining through?

Brian H: Hey Empty, there's still some sense of doership going on. It's beginning to
seem like I am standing aside though and watching this doership going on which is a little
strange... And a little funny. I know there is no "me" standing aside watching this
though... It's not easy to explain.

Empty Mirror: I understand what you're saying, Brian

It can seem like you are "watching" a dream, but that is just a thought remnant from
the old belief in "the witness".

The indivisibility of this knowingknown that you are means that you never witness, or
"watch", or experience the show. You ARE the show.

You don't experience the dream. You ARE the dream.

 Do you see that you ARE the sounds, and you are the images, and you ARE the tastes,
and that you are this entire symphony of beingness?

Empty Mirror: Hi Brian, how are you going with looking at the above question?

Brian H: Sorry, busy couple of days. I can see it Empty... I can see that there cant be
a division... There still seems to be a remnant of me and it though.. Its crazy... Its like
believing that 2+3=4 then being shown that it equals 5... I can see that it equals 5 but
thoughts go on saying its 4... And yes I can see they are only thoughts.. I guess it just
takes more time to sink in.

Empty Mirror: Yes, it does, Brian. And it doesn't matter in the least. You'll notice a
new found sense of deep inner peace, and a subtle sense of freedom.

And you will have noticed that there is no sense of fear around the idea of death, or of
"the unknown".

If any of that kind of fear shows up then you need to re-examine the indivisibility of this
knowingknown, and re-examine DE, until there can be no doubt.

Once there is absolutely no doubt about what you are, this just plays out in complete
peace and freedom.

And if you don't occasionally get awe struck at the beauty of this, then you haven't
noticed just how miraculous this mystery that you are, is.

Empty Mirror: You're all that is here

David B:
Could I please request some guidance?

Although I have seen through the illusion of a separate self there is still a feeling of
separation between this body/mind system and others. I think I appreciate what is
meant by the knowingknown, but that is not what is being experienced here.

Help from any of the four main guides would be appreciated. I am in England.

Vivi J: Hi David Imp in DK and can be at you disposal

Vivi J: What is experienced?

David B: Thanks for your help Vivi.

I find it easy to stop thought. When that happens I hear sound, feel the body. Thoughts
appear but there is the option if paying attention to them or not. When thoughts are absent
colours are more vivid.

I'm sat on the sofa. There is a feeling of warmth, of my body resting on the fabric if the
sofa. The football on the television focuses in and out. There is the aftertaste of the ginger
of my drink I just poured.

Vivi J: Sounds like you are the thinker of thoughts. Are you?

David B: It feels more accurate to say I am the experiencer of thoughts. If I stop and
focus (excuse the use of "I" there, it's hard to communicate without it) there's not a
feeling that these thoughts are me. But on another level it could be argued that I am the
thinker of them, as thoughts can be switched on and off at will. If they are not wanted
then they don't have to be there.

Vivi J: So you are in control of thoughts?

Is it really so - or is it that there is a thought 'I stopped the thoughts' (e.g.)

David B: It's hard to know who's in control of these thoughts. There is no 'self' here
controlling them -- when I examine them there's no feeling of ownership. On the other
hand there can be an impulse to stop them. It's kind of like the focus switches to wanting
to experience life unfolding around me and to do that the narration has to be switched off.
If the thought arises that 'I stopped the thoughts' I can see it isn't owned.
 Vivi J: yes the question is if you can find 'someone' that switches the thoughts of or
not - of if it is assumed that they are switch of/on by 'someone'

David B: Then I would say that they are switched off somehow in this collection of
processes we could call David.

David B: At this point I don't know really what that someone is.

Vivi J: Good!

Let's look at this then:

I'm sat on the sofa. **There is a feeling of warmth, of my body resting on the fabric if
the sofa**. The football on the television focuses in and out. There is the aftertaste of the
ginger of my drink I just poured.

Vivi J: What is the direct experience of sitting in a sofa

of sitting
of body?

David B: The direct experience is that there is pressure on my back and legs. Some
parts of my body feel the sofa, others don't.

Vivi J: what is the direct experience of Back?

of legs
and sofa?

David B: Back is slightly twisted, there is a twinge of discomfort. I'm reclined, so

there is more pressure on my ankle than my calf. If I close my eyes my only experience
of the sofa is through this pressure.

Vivi J: Yes, can you see that all experienced are sensations like pressure and twinge
of discomfort + the thoughts 'from my back', 'in my ankle', 'of the sofa'?

David B: Yes I see that.

Vivi J: in direct experience do you have a body?

David B: In direct experience I can see the front of it from the chest down and feel it
from the inside. I feel a heartbeat, my feet slightly cold. So yes I do.

Vivi J: what makes it your body?

David B: It has sensations that are experienced at the location where my

consciousness appears to reside. If that makes sense

Vivi J: I am of to bed now. Sensations are experienced, great.

 In direct experience is consciousness residing in the body and does it belong to you?
What are you? See you tomorrow

David B: Thanks Vivi. Sleep well. See you tomorrow.

David B: Thanks for the guidance last night, Vivi. At this point a bit of background
might be useful.

I went through the Liberation Unleashed guiding process recently, and came to realise
I had no abiding self. For me the realisation came one morning when I was driving to
work. I came to see that the body was driving but there was no self in control. Self was
just a thought. From that point I realised that there was no self doing anything in my life.
There would be impulse to carry out tasks that a thought would later take ownership of.

The biggest realisation came with listening. When music plays there is an awareness of
the sound, but it is not me listening to it. There is simply awareness of the music with no
ownership by me of that awareness. It just is. I have no idea who it is that is aware of the
music.

So to answer your question, in direct experience does consciousness reside in the

body? Thoughts seem to happen in a space located inside my head, but when it comes to
seeing and hearing I experience these outside the body. Sounds happen at the stereo not
inside my ears, the television picture is not inside my eyes. So no, consciousness is
outside the body, and no, there is no feeling that I own these.

Another experience to report. Last night after we had been speaking I went to bed.
Lying in the dark I was aware of the feelings inside my body, as well as the sound of my
wife's breathing by my side. It's tricky describing the sensation, but there was no feeling
that the body sensations were mine and my wife's breathing was 'out there'. They were
both objects with equal billing in awareness and I had no ownership of either.

So what am I? I've got absolutely no idea

Vivi J: Very good observations David - I will be back later today with more
comments

David B: Thanks Vivi.

Vivi J: 'So to answer your question, in direct experience does consciousness reside in
the body? Thoughts seem to happen in a space located inside my head, but when it comes
to seeing and hearing I experience these outside the body. Sounds happen at the stereo
not inside my ears, the television picture is not inside my eyes. So no, consciousness is
outside the body, and no, there is no feeling that I own these.'

Yes, there are experiences - can you distinguish exactly where 'outside' and 'inside'
meet? Can an 'outside' and an 'inside' be found at all other than as a thought?
 'Another experience to report. Last night after we had been speaking I went to bed.
Lying in the dark I was aware of the feelings inside my body, as well as the sound of my
wife's breathing by my side. It's tricky describing the sensation, but there was no feeling
that the body sensations were mine and my wife's breathing was 'out there'. They were
both objects with equal billing in awareness and I had no ownership of either.'

Can you find any division of the experiencing and what is experienced?
What is the distance from hearing to heard? From seeing to seen?

'I experience these outside the body.'

What does the 'I' refer to?

David B: When I said that "I experience these outside the body" it was merely
grammar. There is no hearer or seer, hearing and seeing just happen. I don't feel there's a
me that's experiencing these. In direct experience there's no gap between hearing and
heard, seeing and seen. These just are.

Logic says something must be experiencing these sensations, direct experience says
otherwise.

Vivi J: yes and do you see that hearing-heard are seamlessly one? No dividingline to
be found?

David B: I've never thought about it in those terms before but yes, in my experience
the hearing-heard are seamlessly one. It's the same with the seeing-seen.

Vivi J: what knows about experiences?

David B: Clearly there is experience happening, but in direct experience I can't find
what it is. Any answer given here would probably lapse into theory. It seems that there is
an experiencer centered around this body, but we have already decided the hearing-heard
and seeing-seen are seamlessly one, so how can there be an experiencer? I have senses,
but in direct experience they don't seem to be involved in the various sensing processes.
Does there have to be an experiencer? There is a feeling one is needed, but he can't be
found.

Vivi J: Right there is no experiencer.

There is only experiencing-experience

Vivi J: Yes there is no experiencer

There is experiencing-experience (hearing-heard, seeing-seen etc)

Vivi J: Can you find anything that is not experience-experienced?

 David B: Realising that there is no separation between the hearing-heard and seeing-
seen seems more straightforward because they appear to be 'out there'. I'm examining the
feeling-felt as that seems more personal, more 'in here'.

I'm trying to work out whether there is a gap between the sensation of my body on the
sofa and my experience of that. If I look for an experiencer of those sensations --asking
who it is that is experiencing? -- I can't really find one.

I wasn't convinced of the above so I went to the kitchen. Taking various cold items out
of the freezer I pressed them to various parts of my body (I'm really glad no one was
around to witness this ). There was the experience of cold but no evidence of an
intermediate experiencer. There was no gap between the experience and the experiencing.
I tried the same thing running my hand under the hot tap. Again I experienced the heat
(and a degree of pain!) but there was no experiencer.

So no, I can't find anything that isn't experience-experienced.

Vivi J: LOL David - wish I were a fly on the kitchen wall

David B: I had to do the hot tap thing to wash away all the ice cubes in the sink

Vivi J: Good, so all there is experienced-experience, and experiencing-experience is

indivisible

What knows of this?

David B: It looks that way. There's a feeling of unease, like I want there to be an
experiencer. But even then, there is no gap between the feeling of unease and the
experience of it.

Vivi J: yes are you indivisible experiencing-experience?

David B: There is no gap between experience and experiencing, so yes, I must be

indivisible experiencing-experience.

David B: (During my experiments I didn't test the concept tasting-tasted. I did

however find a bottle of Belgian beer. I'm putting it to the test now. All in the interest of
inquiry, you understand.)

Vivi J: HAHA

Vivi J: I would like you to go experience are you experiencing-experience aka

knowingknown. Can you find any experience not experienced by 'you' (not the person)?
 David B: I'm going to put that to the test and get back to you tomorrow. I want to go
play with the idea. Thanks for your time in working with me again tonight, Vivi. It feels
like I've come a long way in the last couple of nights.

Vivi J: yes...see you tomorrow

Vivi J: cheers

David B: Goodnight

Vivi J: goodnight

David B: Hi Vivi. I've had a day playing with being the knowingknown. And no, I
couldn't find any experience not experienced by me. There is experience of all manner of
objects, inside and out, but I could find no gap between the experienced and the
experience.

I meditated this afternoon. Coming out I felt a space where my body should have been.
I could hear birds outside, feel and hear my breath, feel the warmth and tingle of my
body. I was experience. None of the sensations 'inside' felt any more owned than those
'outside'. No gap in the knowingknown.

I appear to be experience.

Vivi J: Voila

Do you feel anything missing?

David B: One thing I would like to explore is the relationship to others. I get that I'm
experience: sounds, sights, bodily sensations all appear within this experience. That's fine
when it comes to inanimate objects, but when it comes to other people I still feel a
separation. I am not one with them. Should I be?

David B: And what did Empty mean when he kept asking Elena did she know
everything there was to know?

Vivi J: Ok let's explore others then.

Vivi J: There is no separate I. Can you find a separate 'you' in direct experience?

David B: No, I cannot find a separate me in direct experience. I can only assume,
therefore, that there is no self resident in other people as well. This can only be
conjecture, however, as I cannot verify this through direct experience.

Vivi J: What is you direct experience of me?

 David B: Good question. I see a picture, I read your words from which a meaning is
extracted. I assume you have typed them. The meaning promotes looking or further
questions. I communicate with you using a label (your name) which convention makes
you respond to.

Vivi J: Any direct experience of Vivi being a person?

of Vivi being aware of anything?
- Except as thoughts assuming so?

David B: No, I have no direct experience of you being a person, or of you being
aware of anything. Any assumption I made would be nothing but a belief. I suppose that
would be the case with anyone else who came into my field of awareness. Beliefs take us
away from what is true (which I appreciate is also a belief )

Vivi J: Yes - look into that - can you find any direct experience of others being aware
of anything. What is the direct experience of others?
A friend from childhood, the grocer, colleagues at work, neighbours, man on street,
wife?

Vivi J: See you tomorrow

David B: I'll look into that. Thanks, Vivi. Speak to you tomorrow.

Vivi J: GOOD

David B: Hi Vivi. Hope you are having a pleasant weekend.

Saturday was a good day for direct experiencing of others: this morning at the grocery
store and this afternoon at the park with my son. I've been surrounded by crowds all day.
In my observations I have been unable to find any direct experience of anyone being
aware of anything. They have eyes, ears and so forth, but I cannot say for sure if they are
seeing or hearing anything.

What I did observe was life unfolding. People appeared to be communicating with
each other, and interacting with each other, within my awareness. And while I didn't
particularly feel connection with them, there wasn't any feeling of separation either.
These people were just there in the present. There was no separation between them and
my awareness of them, no different to the trees, lake or other things that were around. In
other words they were part of the knowingknown.

People I know are slightly different, obviously. Of course there is the same connection
there always has been, but even with members of my family in direct experience I can
find no evidence that they are aware if anything. As with the people in the park and store
they appear seamlessly in my field of awareness.
 Vivi J: Yes! That is how it is, isn't it? There are no others aware of anything
anywhere.

What is this: 'my field of awareness' in direct experience?

I am having a fine weekend, thank you

David B: There are no others aware of anything anywhere! Wow! That's mental, but
that's the observation. It always amazes me how direct observation throws up things that
go totally against what I've always assumed to be true.

I'm just nipping out now for a bit, but I'll give your question some inquiry and get back
to you. Speak to you later.

Vivi J: great!

David B: I'm back.

Saturday evenings after we've put Jack, our eight year old, to bed I pop out to bring
back an Indian meal. While I'm waiting for it to be prepared I nip into the pub for a quick
beer. Tonight was weird. After my experiencing of others this afternoon I found I now
see others in a completely different way. I observed a whole room devoid of awareness. I
saw people in a whole new way. I'm a teacher. Going to school on Monday is going to be
interesting.

To answer your question about my field of awareness, I experience this as a 3d scene

in front of my body filled with sound. I am aware of a body, experienced as a kind of
tingling warmth. I am aware of thoughts. Sometimes I get wrapped up in these thoughts
and focus moves away from sight and sound a little. Sometimes I am aware of breathing
and a heartbeat when the background noise level is quiet enough.

Vivi J: Anything outside of that field?

David B: In direct experience no, there is nothing outside of that field. That would be
impossible. If there was, and I was aware of it, it would be part of the field of awareness.

Vivi J: Exactly. Now answer your question:

what did Empty mean when he kept asking Elena did she know everything there was to
know?

David B: I wish you could have seen the smile on my face when I read your question.

There is nothing outside of THIS. THIS is all there is to know. Facts, figures,
Wikipedia/Google type stuff are all empty of inherent existence. Thought stuff. All
illusion. In the moment this is all there is to know. Wow. There is nothing else.
 That's going to make teaching a whole lot more interesting.

Vivi J: Hahaa Wish you could see the smile on my faceless face right now Well done!

David B: Thanks Vivi. I'm nearly there. There's one last thing.

In the introduction to the group there were three points.

1. There is nothing but experience. Yep, get it.
2. No division, the knowingknown. Yep.
3. You are the knowingknown.

It's that last point. I get it conceptually but I don't see it. It's not my experience.

Vivi J: Great!

Vivi J: Are you aware of this sentence?

David B: Yes

Vivi J: to be aware of the sentence means to know of it, right?

David B: Right

Vivi J: and the sentence is known

David B: It is

Vivi J: knowing known - has no dividingline - so it is knowingknown right?

David B: Right

Vivi J: 'Are you aware of this sentence?'

What does the 'you' in this sentence point to?

David B: It can only point to my awareness

Vivi J: what is that awareness? Is it the knowingknown?

David B: This awareness is the knowingknown, and there is nothing outside of this

David B: Awareness is everything

Vivi J: Yes and if awareness or knowingknown is everything it has to be what you are
- otherwise there would be something other than awareness - knowingknown...right?
 David B: I am the knowingknown

Vivi J: Yes!

David B: Did you notice I was posting the answers to your questions then before they
reached me? Typing as it clicked. Yes, I am the knowingknown. I think. It's going to take
a while to settle in, but I get it. Wow.

I could sense I was nearly there earlier at the park. I just needed an extra push.

Vivi J: yes the answers came exactly the second I posted It was hilarious If you want
you can come back tomorrow.

Vivi J: How do you know it is going to take a while to settle in

David B: I need to sit quietly with it for a while, let it settle in. When I first realised I
had no self it took a few days. I imagine this will be similar.

I'm going to sleep on this. I'll get back to you tomorrow to let you know how how it's
panning out. Thanks for you pointing, Vivi. It's been great.

Vivi J: Fine David, take the time you need. Imp here anyway

Vivi J: It was a pleasure guiding you

David B: Thanks, Vivi. Speak to you tomorrow

Vivi J: great

Vivi J:

David B: Vivi, I want to thank you so very much. The search for me is over. There is
nothing more to be done.

I needed to get out of the house today to make sure, so this morning I went shopping.
Walking round the mall I could see I was awareness, the knowingknown. There was no
doubt. Nothing but this. And when others appeared in awareness it was obvious they
weren't aware of anything. There's no self in here, why would there be in anyone else. I
hadn't really appreciated that point before.

At the start of my investigation with you I said I felt separation. That certainly isn't the
case now. So even though I had the realisation of no-self I still felt something was
missing, that there was still something more to be achieved. Not any more. There is a
sense of rightness, such that when I was driving home this morning I burst into
spontaneous laughter. I'd been looking all this time for THIS. I found it hilarious.
So once again thank you. I couldn't have done it without you.

Vivi J: Such a joy to hear David - I also couldn't have done it without you

Don't hesitate to come back if............

David B: Thanks Vivi

Vivi J:

Empty Mirror: AWESOME THREAD!!!

Empty Mirror: Woooohoooooo!!!!!!!!

Empty Mirror: Welcome home David

David B: Thanks, Empty

Jaemin Y:
Hey guys, I'd love to request some guidance from Empty Mirror: if possible! I'm
located over in the U.S.

I'm coming over here from LU and feel that I've seen through this "self" illusion,
but found myself still struggling with feeling like I'm contained in a body. And also
separate from the rest of the world.

I read through David Boulter's thread here where he had the same problem, and as
I was reading through it on Monday night, it felt like I was really getting it.
SeeingSeen and HearingHeard were really clicking for me...I could actually FEEL
that there was no division there. And in a way, I was starting to feel that I WAS
what was being seen. I WAS what was being heard.

I had a harder time with FeelingFelt (both physical sensations and inner emotional
sensations), but by the end of the night, I felt like something was happening. I kept
feeling for boundaries with these feelings/sensations and couldn't find any. The
more I searched, the more it felt like something was giving way.

It was really exciting. I remember going to bed Monday night just buzzing and
almost feeling like I was seeing life with HD vision. Well, when I woke up Tuesday, I
had a hard time accessing that again. Maybe it was because I had to do some work
or because my new neighbor was being noisy...I don't know, but I had such a harder
time accessing that "perspective" again.

I feel like if I really focus my attention I can start to feel it again, but as soon as I
stop consciously making an effort, it just goes away. I'm confused as to whether this
is how it works for some people, or if I haven't fully "seen it" yet. So I was hoping
someone here could help me out Thank you!

Empty Mirror: Hi Jaemin,

Is anything really focusing attention?

Be careful of chasing experiences. It's NEVER about the experience, it's about the
insight. I know of quite a few who say that there was never any special experience, there
was just a sort of gentle realization that this is always like this.

I have found that at the route of the issue is the idea of "others". Is it utterly clear to
you that NOBODY and NO THING, aside from you, has ever known anything?

Is it utterly clear that every word that you have ever read or heard, has only ever been
known to you, and you ALONE?
 Jaemin Y: Thanks Empty! So glad to start this convo with you.

// "Is anything really focusing attention?"

It feels like it to me. I don't necessarily believe that there is a "focuser" making it
happen. But it feels as if my body/mind will shift focus from thoughts to sensations and
back. Not so much "I am focusing", but "focusing is happening".

Good point about experiences. I definitely feel like I'm chasing an experience right
now. I'm dismayed that I'm not in this "special perspective" that I was in Monday night.

// "Is it utterly clear to you that NOBODY and NO THING, aside from you has ever
known anything? Is it utterly clear that every word..."

Hmm, no, this isn't utterly clear to me. I'm not sure if I completely understand. Part of
me thinks, "that's ridiculous! Plenty of people know things, proof is all around me". But
another part thinks, "Hmm, but if I look with Direct Experience, I can't ever prove
anything except my own knowledge"

Empty Mirror: Nice reply! You are actually looking at DE when you answer the
questions. Very nice

Ok, so is there such a thing as "mind"? What is mind in DE?

You say: "Part of me thinks, "that's ridiculous! Plenty of people know things, proof is
all around me". But another part thinks, "Hmm, but if I look with Direct Experience, I
can't ever prove anything except my own knowledge"

Exactly

So thoughts say that there are "others" having their own experiences, but are you the
thinker of thoughts?

And are you a person? Because there can only be "other people" if you are a person.
Can you see that?

Jaemin Y: It seems like "mind" exists, I believe it exists. But when I look with DE, I
can't find it. "What is mind in DE?" It's nowhere to be found. There is no mind in DE.
Mind can't be sensed (some could argue that it's doing the sensing) so there's no way it
shows up in DE.

No, I'm not the thinker of thoughts. Thoughts arise on their own, just popping up and
disappearing. They are just appearing the same way sight, sound, and sensation is
appearing - no one controlling them, no one causing them.
 Hmm...I believe I'm a person. But I can see that that's just a thought, a word bubble. In
DE, there is no person...just sensations, sights, sounds, thoughts

Empty Mirror: Another very nice reply

Ok, so you have seen that what is labeled "mind" is nothing but a stream of thoughts,
thought by nobody and no thing, and that some of those thoughts say that there is a
"mind"

So then do you see that "attention" and focusing of attention, are just a thought story
too?

You say: "I believe I'm a person. But I can see that that's just a thought, a word
bubble."

Exactly!

So is there anything here that needs to experience something special, or anything that
needs to understand anything special?

Empty Mirror: If so, what is it?

Jaemin Y: Thanks Empty, I'm trying my best to be honest and clear

Yes, in DE I can see that "attention" and "focusing" are just labels slapped on by
thought. But it seems to me that the thought label is overlaying something real. In my
DE, there is definitely something happening when I "shift focus" from seeing to hearing.
Instead of calling it "focusing", I could instead say "The experience of SeeingSeen has
increased, while HearingHeard has decreased". Does that make any sense?

Either way I agree that "focusing" is just a thought label, but to me, it's in the same
way as "sight" is a label for this indescribable experience of colors, shapes, and light
appearing. Labels to describe something that is happening in reality.

// "Is there anything here that needs to experience something special..."

No, now that I investigate it, I guess it's just a thought. A thought arising that says, "I
need to experience something special." At the same time, a sensation arises within me
that feels like "anxiety" or "unfullfillment". So I think when that Thought + that
Sensation arise together, it FEELS like there is someone who needs to experience
something.

But as I look, I can't find that person. Just thoughts and sensations swirling about. No
"me" here who needs anything.
 Jaemin Y: By the way, I'm also starting to read Greg Goode's The Direct Path. Let me
know if you prefer me to not read anything while you're guiding me!

Empty Mirror: Hi Jaemin, I would actually prefer it if you stayed with just this
pointing for now.

Thought starts to wrap itself up in knows of theories, if you feed it too much.

You are looking very clearly, so far. Stick with this. I'll do my best to stay on task as
diligently as possible. I know that it can seem like I'm a little slow, but I'm guiding 7
people in here, and on PM at the moment, and it can be very taxing.

It's difficult to remember where each one is at, so I have to re-read each thread, and try
to figure out which belief is the stumbling block, and how to get them to see it.

This is ONLY about getting rid of beliefs. That is ALL. There is nothing "new" to see.
There is ZERO "new" knowledge to get. There are ONLY beliefs to shed.

The moment that you truly see that those beliefs REALLY have nothing but
THOUGHT to substantiate them, and that those thoughts are pure fantasy, this is all
utterly obvious.

You say: "In my DE, there is definitely something happening when I "shift focus" from
seeing to hearing."

This is a belief. What in *DE* says that a "shift of focus" is happening?

Be careful of thought stories here.

In a dream, if there seems to be a shift of focus from one thing to another, did anything
shift focus?

You say: "At the same time, a sensation arises within me that feels like 'anxiety' or
'unfullfillment'. So I think when that Thought + that Sensation arise together, it FEELS
like there is someone who needs to experience something."

The "anxiety" and "unfulfillment" show up, and are seen in utter clarity.

So what is not seeing anything unclearly?

And take a look at the "anxiety" and "unfulfillment", what is the DE of them? Look
closely.

And be wary of thought stories.

PS. It's weekend here already, and a long weekend, so I may be a little slow over the
next few days, but no slower than I have been so far
 Jaemin Y: No problem, will stay with just your guidance. And I completely
understand how swamped you are and I'm very appreciative that you're making time for
me! Whenever you can respond to me is perfectly awesome

Re: shift in focus...wow, I can't find it actually happening in DE. I could've sworn that
when I focus on Hearing, my Seeing becomes lessened some way. But as I'm
investigating it right now, it's not like my Seeing ever turns off. Or is diminished in any
way. It is always there. Same with Hearing and Sensing.

I guess as I investigate it with DE, "focusing" is just Thought popping up and

analyzing Sight/Hearing/Sensing in great detail. When I "focus" on Sight, Thought says,
"Look at the texture on that chair. That vibrant pattern. So intricate." Then when I "shift
focus" to hearing, Thought says, "Listen to the crackly static of the air conditioner. It's so
vibrant and alive". But if Thought shuts up, there's no "shifting of focus". Wow...weird
haha. This is messing with my head (in a really cool way!)

// "So what is not seeing anything unclearly?"

I'm not entirely sure if I get this question. It seems to me that everything is being seen
clearly, but there is still identification with thoughts. And there seems to be a Sensor of
Sensations...I don't feel at one with Sensation just yet. When "negative feelings" appear,
it still feels like they're AFFLICTING a "me". Like they're BURDENING or
VICTIMIZING a "me". Did I interpret your question correctly or am I off?

// "And take a look at the 'anxiety' and 'unfulfillment', what is the DE of them?"

The DE of them appears to be a deep, heavy sensation inside my stomach. However,

when I close my eyes and investigate that further...I can't confirm that these sensations
are actually INSIDE my stomach, or my body. With my eyes closed, these sensations are
just amorphous, boundary-less sensations. I can't pin them down. I can't tell if they're
inside or outside or wherever. They seem to just be here with no location at all. They
seem to have some sort of texture to them (heavy, dark) but I guess even that is just a
thought story. There's just sensation floating here, appearing here, no boundaries, no
location.

Jaemin Y: // "This is ONLY about getting rid of beliefs. That is ALL. There is
nothing 'new' to see. There is ZERO 'new' knowledge to get. There are ONLY beliefs to
be shed."

THIS is super, super helpful. I love this.

Empty Mirror: I really love the way that you actually LOOK, Jaemin

These may be the last questions that I'm able to ask you for today.
 You say: "It seems to me that everything is being seen clearly, but there is still
identification with thoughts."

This is very subtle, but do you see that EVEN the idea that something is identifying
with thought, is seen in utter clarity, and is just MORE of the "show"?

You say: "And there seems to be a Sensor of Sensations...I don't feel at one with
Sensation just yet."

And AGAIN, do you see that is also just thought. Take a look at sensation. Is the
knowing of it, in ANY way divisible from the sensation? Is there a dividing line
anywhere between the two?

You say: " They seem to just be here with no location at all. They seem to have some
sort of texture to them (heavy, dark) but I guess even that is just a thought story. There's
just sensation floating here, appearing here, no boundaries, no location."

And that is a great observation. Do you see that it is exactly the same with a dream?
Do you see that dream sensations show up, and a dream body shows up, and dream
thoughts show up that say that the sensations belong to the dream body, and even
sometimes that the sensations are caused by thoughts?

But really, as you've noticed, there is no cause and effect relationship between thoughts
and sensations. They are just simultaneous appearances and thought bundles them
together and says labels the bundle "anxiety".

You say: "When 'negative feelings' appear, it still feels like they're AFFLICTING a
'me'. Like they're BURDENING or VICTIMIZING a 'me'."

Yes, thoughts say that, but is there really anything being afflicted, or is there just an
expression of beingness (pain for example) showing up and being known? Without
thought, saying that something is being "afflicted", what is the DE of "pain" - and please
don't use the label "pain" or the thought story "discomfort" when you try to describe it.

Jaemin Y: Thanks Empty! Never done this before so glad I'm not completely
screwing up lol.

Yes, now that you mention it, even the idea that I'm identifying with thought is JUST
thought. It's another thought story, another word bubble.

But when thought starts to run like crazy, spinning stories, making me out to be a
victim...I still believe it sometimes. And when I do, I feel pain and confusion. But as I'm
typing this right now I'm realizing that's not true in DE either. Sometimes thoughts appear
that will also cause sensations to appear. And it's another thought that says, "You are in
pain. You are confused. Because you are identifying with thought. Because you are
believing it." So I guess even THAT thought is seen with utter clarity and is just more of
the thought show.

After I typed that, I thought to myself, "But I still identify with thought! I want to
STOP identifying with thought, it causes me pain and suffering!" But that thought is just
another thought bubble. And is seen in utter clarity.

And no, there's no boundaries or dividing lines with sensation. There's no separating
between KNOWING of it and the SENSATION itself. It's just more thought bubbles that
say, "You are feeling sensation. You are separate from sensation. Sensation is happening
TO you." Just thought saying that.

I'm just thinking out loud now: For me to be separate from a sensation, there must be
an Experiencer who is Experiencing that Experience (sensation). Which implies that (1)
Experiencer/Experiencing and (2) The Experience are 2 separate things. But in DE, I can
find no actual division of the two! The EXPERIENCING of something and THE
EXPERIENCE itself are one and the same. The sensation of wind blowing on my skin
(The Experience) and the feeling of it (The Experiencer doing the Experiencing) are one
and the same. No division at all! In that way, there can never be an Experiencer. There's
only ExperiencingExperience. KnowingKnown. Wow.

Sorry for the little ramble lol, but "I'm" starting to get this on a deeper level. There's
ALWAYS only KnowingKnown. There's never an Experiencer, even when I seem to
believe it. It's always just a thought bubble saying nonsense.

Okay, part 2 of my reply coming in a minute...

Jaemin Y: And sorry my responses are so damn long, I've always talked too much

I'm not sure I entirely understand the dream analogy. I can see how the body is illusory
(it's just a concept), but in my DE, sensations are real...they're happening. Same with
thoughts. They are real, they are happening. It's just that the CONTENT of thoughts is
not real, but the thought themselves are actually appearing. Can you explain this further?

// "But really, as you've noticed, there is no cause and effect relationship between
thoughts and sensations. They are just simultaneous appearances and thought bundles
them together and labels the bundle "anxiety"."

Yes, I agree that thoughts an sensations are doing their own thing independently and
thought is what tries to bundle them together. But it also seems to me that sometimes
thought DOES cause sensations? Sometimes a painful thought will appear and whenever
that thought shows up, a familiar painful sensation will show up right afterwards. Is that
not cause and effect?
 And to your last point, no, there's nothing really being afflicted. It's just an expression
of beingness showing up and being known. But then it's just thought that comes in and
says, "I'm in pain! Pain is afflicting me!"

Without thought, the DE of "pain" is just this neutral sensation. It feels warm, slightly
heavy, deep, and it's kinda just floating around - but again, these are just more thought
labels. The true experience is indescribable, but it definitely feels like there's texture and
weight there.

Empty Mirror: Hi Jaemin, you're continuing to actually look at DE, which is great!!

You say: ""But I still identify with thought! I want to STOP identifying with thought, it
causes me pain and suffering!" But that thought is just another thought bubble. And is
seen in utter clarity."

Yes, exactly correct!

Even the idea that something is identifying with thought is just an idea. There is
NOTHING here that can identify with thought. Only thought says that anything is
identifying as anything.

Thought is showing up and telling a story about an individual amongst individuals, and
how that individual wants and needs stuff.

But those thoughts are the only thoughts that exist ANYWHERE. There are no others
having thoughts ANYWHERE. So although thoughts tell a story about an individual,
there can be no individual, because there are no others for the individual to be individual
to.

It can seem as if Jaemin is thinking thoughts, and acting in accordance with thoughts,
but that isn't true. The two things are just simultaneous appearances. Just like in a dream,
the dream character acts in accordance with dream thoughts, but clearly the dream
character has zero awareness of those thoughts. The dream character's behaviour and the
dream thoughts are just simultaneous appearances.

You say: "I'm not sure I entirely understand the dream analogy. I can see how the body
is illusory (it's just a concept), but in my DE, sensations are real...they're happening."

I'm just using the dream analogy to show that even though thought says that the
character has thoughts and sensations, quite clearly that is only a thought story.

Do you see that in a dream, although there may be dream sensations of pain, and the
first person dream character may appear to be in pain, clearly the pain is not in the dream
body, and clearly the dream character doesn't really feel the pain?
 The dream thoughts and the dream sensations and the dream body are just
simultaneous appearances.

In fact it's not really an analogy, because nothing ever went to sleep or woke up. This
dream that dreams itself just seems to have 'modes' which thought labels "dream state"
and "waking state". There is nothing here that could really sleep or wake up. The "dream"
is NEVER "off".

Do you see that?

About pain, you say: "The true experience is indescribable, but it definitely feels like
there's texture and weight there."

Even the "weight and texture" part of that is just a thought story

But yes, the sensation is impossible to describe, it's just one expression of this
beingness, and thought labels it "pain" and says that it is bad, and says that it can be
suffered, because it "shouldn't have happened to me".

But you've noticed that, because you said: "there's nothing really being afflicted. It's
just an expression of beingness showing up and being known. But then it's just thought
that comes in and says, "I'm in pain! Pain is afflicting me!"

Ok, so you've seen that pain is an expression of beingness, that you are in no way
separate from.

And you've seen that in fact NONE of this "show of beingness" is separate from the
knowing of it.

And you've seen that there are no "others" having their own thoughts or experiences.

And you have seen that you are not in a body. That you are not Jaemin.

And yet, here you are, knowing of all of this.

So what are you?

Jaemin Y: Another awesome, detailed post. Thanks for the time and effort you're
putting into this Empty. You've given me some real good stuff to chew on...

// "But those thoughts are the only thoughts that exist ANYWHERE. There are no
others having thoughts ANYWHERE."

Hmm...I initially want to reject this premise. It seems like there are lots of people
having thoughts everywhere, such as the thoughts you are sharing with me through words
right here. But again, when I investigate with DE...that can't be proved. The only
thoughts I can verify are the ones appearing right now ("my" thoughts).

It seems like others are thinking because I hear talking and I read writing (like
yours)...but I guess that doesn't prove that others are thinking. Sounds of talking and
visuals of writing are appearing, and that's all that can be known firsthand. So in DE, no
other thoughts exist except for the ones appearing to "me". Which means I can't prove
that others are thinking, or that there are even independent "others".

But just because I can't prove it directly, does that necessarily mean others and other
thoughts don't exist? Does the absence of other's thoughts in my DE ACTUALLY
confirm that they DON'T exist at all? Hmm...but I guess if I can't directly confirm it
through DE, then it's just a thought story. And maybe whether or not the thought story is
true is irrelevant...no matter what the thought is saying, it's STILL just a thought story. Is
that right?

// "Just like in a dream, the dream character acts in accordance with dream thoughts,
but clearly the dream character has zero awareness of those thoughts. The dream
characters behavior and the dream thoughts are just simultaneous appearances."

Aha! With that, this "dream analogy" is starting to make sense to me.

When I'm dreaming, it's CLEAR that Dream Thoughts are NOT happening INSIDE
the Dream Body. Dream Thoughts are just appearing (exactly the same as Waking
Thoughts - just appearing and being known). The Dream Body may be carrying out
behaviors, but it's not being driven by the Dream Thoughts. Dream Thoughts and the
actions of the Dream Body are just happening simultaneously.

Same with Dream Pain. This example might be even clearer. Yes, Dream Sensations of
pain arise, but it's clear the pain is NOT inside the Dream Body. The Dream Body doesn't
actually FEEL pain. How can it? It's not a real body. Dream Pain arises simultaneously as
the Dream Body stubs its Dream Toe…but clearly the Dream Pain isn't actually being
caused by the Dream Toe hitting the Dream Floor.

But right here, I feel like pushing back. Thought argues, "But of course a Dream Toe
isn't real! So it's not actually feeling pain. But YOUR toe is real! If your Real Toe hits
that Real Wall, it will really hurt!"

But again, if I exam that with Direct Experience…the only thing saying that this is a
Real Toe is thought story. The only thing saying that this is a Dream Toe, or this is
Dream Pain, or this is Real Pain…is, you guessed it, thought story!

When thought story isn't involved, there's no difference between Dream State and
Waking State, is there? It's all the same. Sensations, thoughts, images, sounds…all
arising and appearing. But it's only thought story that would categorize some as "Real"
and the others as "Dream".
 Whoa.

And with that, I think I understand what you mean by "The 'dream' is NEVER 'off'".
Whoa. This is some trippy shit haha. It's only Thought Story that would label one
experience a "Dream" and the other "Reality". Just thought.

Man, I feel like I need a moment to let this all sink in. I know, I know, you're gonna
say, "WHO needs a moment?" lol. But yeah, this is really taking me for a spin and I'm
not sure if "I" fully grasp this yet…

Let's go to the final questions.

// "Ok, so you've seen that pain is an expression of beingness, that you are in no way
separate from."

Yes.

// "And you've seen that in fact NONE of this "show of beingness" is separate from the
knowing of it."

Yes. Thought Story still sometimes argues with this realization, but yes.

// "And you've seen that there are no "others" having their own thoughts or
experiences."

Not sure if this has fully been seen yet…

// "And you have seen that you are not in a body. That you are not Jaemin."

Not sure if this has been fully seen yet either… Even with all we've discussed, I still
feel like rejecting this statement…

I think if you could help me with these last few stumbling blocks, then I can fully
answer your last question. Sorry for being a little slow, but I want to be as honest with
you as possible. Thanks for continuing to help me Empty!

Empty Mirror: You're still looking openly and clearly, Jaemin. This is a pleasure for
me

You say: "Does the absence of other's thoughts in my DE ACTUALLY confirm that
they DON'T exist at all?"

The belief in "others" is a difficult one to see through if you believe that you are a
person.
 But once it's clear that you aren't a person, it's pretty obvious that there can't possibly
be "other people".

The reason you believe that others are aware of stuff, is because you believe that
Jaemin is aware of stuff.

But Jaemin has never been aware of a single thing. Just as in a "sleep dream" it
SEEMS like the first person character is aware of stuff, and it SEEMS as if other
characters are aware of stuff, but actually NONE of the characters is aware of
ANYTHING. Not even the first person character.

Do you see that?

The only difference between a "sleep dream" and the "waking state", is thought.
Thought says that one happens while something is asleep, and that the other happens
when something is awake - but that is PURE thought story.

Do you see that it's utterly impossible to prove that this isn't a "dream" right now? And
that in fact, it's only thought that says anything about something going to sleep and
waking up?

Going by your last replies, it's pretty clear that the idea of being in a body is the main
belief that needs to be seen through.

What proof do you have that you are in a body?

And please be sure to remember that you have no proof that this isn't a dream, when
you look for proof that you're in a body.

Do you see that in a dream, there seem to be dream thoughts and dream sensations, and
that the first person character seems to react to dream thoughts and to dream sensations,
but that it really doesn't know anything about them?

Do you see that the thoughts and sensations and body are all just simultaneous
appearances, which thought is tying together?

Empty Mirror: Jaemin and I are nothing but dream characters, pointing this self-
aware dream, that you alone are, back to itself.

Jaemin Y: Whew. This is getting pretty damn interesting Empty. I spent the past 3
hours really chewing on this...but I'm not sure if I CLEARLY see all this yet.

The dream analogy has been really helpful and I've been exploring it like crazy! I
started off by imagining a dream and picturing this Dream Character thinking thoughts,
feeling pain, seeing sights. But it's clear in this example that this Dream Character isn't
ACTUALLY thinking thoughts in it's head, or feeling pain in it's body...thoughts and
sensations are just ARISING simultaneously. Of course the Dream Character isn't doing
or feeling these things!

So then I started pretending that this "real world" was actually all just a dream.
Because you're right...there's NO WAY to prove that this isn't a dream. Sensations,
Thoughts, Sights/Sounds arise in both the Dream World and Real World. It's only
thought story that says one is a Dream and one is Real.

So I tried to pretend that I was actually in a Dream right now. I observed myself
typing, pinching myself, hearing things. I typed out my stream of thoughts and everything
made LOGICAL sense that I was not in a body...but it still wasn't CLICKING. It still felt
like I was arguing against reality.

And so I tried another avenue. I tried looking for all the PROOF that I was in a body.
And every time I came up with a point (like, "I can feel the keyboard under my fingers"),
I then immediately imagined that same scenario in a Dream ("But in a Dream, that
doesn't prove anything. The Dream Body isn't actually feeling a keyboard. There are only
Sensations of feeling a keyboard ARISING simultaneously.")

This approach seemed to shake things up the most! I did that with every single point of
PROOF I found, and when tested in a "Dream World", realized that none of them held up
as factual proof that I'm in a body! It seems like the only information we ever get is
coming from Senses + Thought ARISING...being KNOWN. And all of those could be
happening in a Dream as well as in Reality.

And yet, even with all these realizations, and even with the logic all making sense to
me...I still feel like I'm in a body. Maybe I need to just sleep on it or investigate further,
but as of right now, I still feel like I'm in a body. Any thoughts on what I might be "doing
wrong"? Thanks Empty, I appreciate this so much.

Jaemin Y: By the way, something seems slightly different today. As I'm going
through my day, I continue to play with this idea that I'm a Dream Character. Nothing
conclusive yet, but it's very interesting...

Empty Mirror: You say: "And yet, even with all these realizations, and even with the
logic all making sense to me...I still feel like I'm in a body."

And in a dream, doesn't it seem like you're in the dream body?

Please tell me what it "feels" like to be in a body

Jaemin Y: Looking with direct experience, the experience of being in a body only
comes through the different senses. I feel External Sensations (my fingers hitting the
keyboard, my legs pushing against the chair). I feel Internal Sensations (an energy inside
of me that feels like an emotion).
 I see Visuals (my hands and torso in front of me). I hear Sounds (my breathing). And
there is movement (my fingers moving) but I guess that's just a combination of Visuals +
External Sensations.

And last but not least, there are Thoughts. And Thought is what's labeling all of these
sensations. It's taking these indescribable, boundary-less sensations, and chopping them
up into different pieces (Sights, Sounds, Internal vs. External Sensations, etc). And then
Thought strings together all those sensations and says, "Tada! Those all add up to you
being in a body!"

All these Sensations (and Thoughts) are just arising and KNOWN. But Thought comes
in and says that those things are being SENSED by the body. Are being INTERPRETED
and RECEIVED by the body. But again, that is JUST A THOUGHT. There is nothing
experiencing or receiving any of these Senses or Thoughts. There is just the KNOWING
of them. That's it.

So that's my experience of what it "feels" like to be in a body. Logically, this all adds
up for me and all makes sense. And I can feel my attachment to "being in my body" is
starting to loosen up. But it's still not implicitly understood for me...I feel like I have to
keep reminding myself, convincing myself of these above points. Maybe I just need more
time to let it sink in?

Jaemin Y: Okay, let me explore this line of thinking a little further. So I've been
wondering...if I'm not IN a body, then where am "I"? Clearly it feels like there is a me
here but if I'm not in a body, WHERE am I? What am I?

And it seems like the only answer to that question is that I am what is arising in this
moment. And in DE, that is Sensations/Sight/Sound and Thought. That is ALL that is
appearing in the moment. So I am THAT that is appearing.

I am the visuals that are being known (right now: my iPhone screen, fingers, and my
room). I am the sound that is being known (the hum of the refrigerator and the ambience
of crickets chirping). I am the sensations that are being known, both internal (emotion
swirling around in my stomach, my lungs expanding) and external (the feel of the iPhone
cradled in my hands). I am the thoughts that are being known ("I wonder what I'm going
to write next after this sentence?").

I am these appearances. I am not an experiencer located inside a body. I am not a

character named "Jaemin". I am the senses appearing right now. I am the senses and
thoughts that are being known, and only that. And to use your guys' favorite word: I am
the knowingknown

Am I on the right track here? Again, this makes sense to me when I type it all out, but
it still feels like its not "100% seen" yet, 100% of the time. But this is slowly becoming
clearer and more implicitly understood.
 Jaemin Y: Empty? Just making sure you haven't forgotten about me lol

Empty Mirror: No, Jaemin, I certainly have not

I owe a few people replies, but had to do some real work yesterday

I will get back to you in the next few hours.

For now, my answer to your last question is, yes, you are definitely on track. But forget
about the understanding of it. Notice the direct experience of it.

By now you know that anything I say is just an appearance in you, and that you
ALONE know of any of this.

So what is missing right now?

Jaemin Y: Yeah figured you were busy but just wanted to check!

And yes, all the words that you've typed are just an appearance in me. Looking through
DE, there are just words appearing and being KNOWN by me. And through DE, they are
only known by me (how can I directly experience anyone else‘s knowledge? I can only
directly experience what is appearing to ME and me alone).

So if I look with DE and without engaging thought (which wants to say, "Obviously
Empty is typing to you, he's a separate person" but I can see that it's just a thought), then
this all seems to make sense.

So I'm not sure what is missing I guess... Maybe I was expecting a more surreal
experience like David B: after he was guided (he mentioned feeling like he was in a
dream). Or when I read posts by others in HoM, they all seem overcome with a beautiful
connection with the world...taken with the sweetness of awareness.

And instead, I feel like my experience has been mundane with intermittent, subtle
feelings of "something interesting maybe starting to happen".

So maybe the problem is having expectations on what my experience should be like

and comparing my experience to others. I can see that that's all just thought story. If I
focus on my direct experience and the sensations that are being known here/now...there is
nothing missing I guess...

Empty Mirror: LOL

"Comparing experiences to others"???

What others??
 There are NONE.

You are all that is here. And this IS what the experience is like. Exactly like this.

This is EXACTLY what you look like right now?

If you have ALWAYS been this, why would anything change?

Empty Mirror: Ok, Jaemin, I've read your replies, and as usual they are spot on

I only have one other question to ask you.

When you say: "But it's still not implicitly understood for me...I feel like I have to keep
reminding myself, convincing myself of these above points. Maybe I just need more time
to let it sink in?"

What is this "me" and "myself" that you are referring to?

Jaemin Y: Hmm. Again, I explore this with direct experience and I can't find a "me"
or "I". I think to myself, "I don't get it yet. Maybe I need to read more books or need
more time."

But that's just a thought story. Just words inside a thought bubble that appears and is
known. "Me" and "myself" are just thought story. There is no "me" who is "confused".
There is no "I" who "doesn't get it". There is just this experience, here and now...this
experience being known in sensations, sights, sounds and thoughts. This is all there is.
Anything that says otherwise is just a thought story, just words inside a little thought
bubble.

Empty Mirror: Yes, there is just this, and you ALONE are it.

There is only this ONE knowingknown, and only **ONE** knowing of it. So if you
know of it.....

You are all that is here

And I and Jaemin are nothing but appearances in you

Empty Mirror: Do you see that?

Jaemin Y: My instant reaction is, "How can I KNOW that I ALONE am it? Aren't
there as many knowingknowns as there are human beings? As there are living creatures
out there? Aren't they all experiencing their own knowingknowns??"

But again...again...again...that is just a thought story. When I look with direct

experience, there is just THIS. There is ONLY THIS. This ONE knowingknown. That is
all that can be experienced through DIRECT EXPERIENCE. That is all that can ever be
experienced.

And even though thought story will disagree...this one knowingknown is the ONLY
knowingknown. And because "I" know of it...I am all that is here.

Everything...your words...this body...the fingers typing in front of me...the sounds of

the refrigerator humming...the thoughts that are saying "This doesn't make logical
sense"...these are ALL just appearances in me. There is this ONE knowingknown. I am
the ONE knowingknown. I am all that is here. Everything is just an appearance in me.

Yes, I guess I see that. As long as I ignore the thought stories that pop up and try to
protest. But even those thoughts are clearly seen. And those thoughts are part of this ONE
knowingknown.

Empty Mirror: There is nothing ignoring thought stories or believing thought stories.
Even that is just a part of this show that you alone are.

Nothing here knows anything about this apart from you ALONE.

Jaemin Y: Haha yes, even "ignoring the thought stories" is just another thought story.
And even that is just an appearance in this ONE knowingknown that I am. The ONE
knowingknown that I ALONE am.

Empty Mirror: Yes.

And even the thought that there is something that says that it is the knowingknown is
just another part of this show, that you alone are

Jaemin Y: Yes, even that is just another thought story lol

Empty Mirror: From here it's really a matter of just looking at DE, and seeing
whether Jaemin, or any other person in this is aware of anything at all, and looking at
whether there is any POSSIBLE way to separate this from the knowing of it.

And that will happen, but nobody will be doing it.

Because EVEN THAT is also just part of the show

Empty Mirror: Do you see that there is nobody and no thing here that could ever
teach you anything?

Empty Mirror: Do you see that there could never be anything that you don't know?
 Jaemin Y: // "From here it's really a matter of just looking at DE, and seeing whether
Jaemin, or any other person in this is aware of anything at all, and looking at whether
there is any POSSIBLE way to separate this from the knowing of it."

Okay, so when it comes to Sensations/Sights/Sound/Smells/Thoughts...it completely

makes sense that there is no one who is AWARE of these things or EXPERIENCING
them. There is no Experiencer. There is just Knowing.

But I'm still a little confused when it comes to DOING. It still feels like there is a Do-
er. It feels like "I'm making my arm move", or "I'm investigating my beliefs"....ahhh, but
just the same as everything else...it's only THOUGHT that is saying "I'm moving my
arm" or "I'm doing this". Movement is happening. Investigating is happening. And there
is no DOER making it happen...it's just HAPPENING. There is no DOER...it's just being
KNOWN. There is nobody doing it.

Doing is a part of the show, the same as Sensations/Sights/Sounds/Thoughts. There is

no way to separate ANY of these from the KNOWING of them.

(Sorry, I'm thinking out loud and apparently answering my own questions lol)

Jaemin Y: By the way do you have a word you prefer to use besides "Doing"?
Sounds clunky...

Jaemin Y: // "Do you see that there is nobody and no thing here that could ever teach
you anything?"

Hmm, could you elaborate on that one a little more? Trying to make sense of that...

// Do you see that there could never be anything that you don't know?

Hmm...yes, I think this makes sense. With direct experience, ALL there is what's being
KNOWN. The Sensations/Sights/Sounds/Thoughts that are being known right here and
now are ALL that exist. There could never be anything I DON'T know, because (looking
with direct experience) if it is not KNOWN here and now...it doesn't EXIST. Direct
experience only deals with what is being known RIGHT NOW, RIGHT HERE.

Anything saying, "There's something out there that you don't know"...that's just a thought
story.

Empty Mirror: To elaborate, if you are all that is here, who or what could teach you
anything?

Jaemin Y: Do you see that there is nobody and no thing here that could ever teach
you anything? "

For some reason this is confusing "me". A thought says, "Empty is teaching me right
now" so lets examine that with direct experience.

In direct experience, I am reading Empty's words. There are words and concepts being
KNOWN. And then new thoughts being KNOWN. But there is no "Jaemin" who has
been taught and is "changing".

There is simply words being known, reading happening, and thoughts being known
(thoughts that may be new and different from previous thoughts). This is all just
happening. There is no "me" being taught.

And maybe there is no Empty who is doing the teaching. With DE, there are just words
on a screen being KNOWN. There is no person named Empty or a teacher there. Just
words being known, which lead to new thoughts being known.

Is this the right direction?

Empty Mirror: Yes! Yes! Yes!

Beautiful

Empty Mirror: And do you see that none of it is of any special significance?

Not even the noticing of this indivisibility. Even that is just a show of this beingness
that you alone are.

Do you see that?

Jaemin Y: In direct experience, there is nothing special about any of the appearances
being known. They're just being KNOWN. Again, it is only a thought that would come in
and say, "This is special". And even that thought is simply known also.

Jaemin Y: I'm realizing I sound like a broken record lol, but this seems to be what
helps me clarify things the most

Empty Mirror: Is there really anything that needs to clarify anything?

Jaemin Y: Nope, just a thought story that says so!

Empty Mirror: Yup

Just more show

Empty Mirror: Just this that you are, thissing

 Jaemin Y: There's nobody who needs to clarify anything. There is reading happening,
thinking happening, thoughts being known, more thinking happening, typing happening.
Just this this-ing. Just life life-ing. Nobody this is happening to or controlling all of this.

Is that right?

Empty Mirror: What does DE tell you?

What does the indivisibility of this knowingknown tell you?

Jaemin Y: What does DE tell me about what exactly?

Direct experience never seems to "tell" me anything. Thought is always "telling" me

stuff. DE instead just shows me. And the experience always comes in the form of the
senses (sight, sound, sensation, etc) or thought.

Jaemin Y: And maybe "show" isn't even the right word. Direct experience just IS. It
simply is whatever is arising and being known here and now.

Empty Mirror: You say: "DE instead just shows me. And the experience always
comes in the form of the senses (sight, sound, sensation, etc) or thought."

Ok, then in reply to your question "Is that right?" (in your third comment above this one)
I ask you, what does DE "show" you?

Does DE show you that there is anything that needs to clarify or understand anything?

And yes, "show" is just a word used to describe this apparent "show" of beingness.

No words can capture this *yumm yumm* *tweet tweet* *ouch ouch*

You say: "It simply is whatever is arising and being known here and now."

Yes, that is correct. But there is no division between the "arising" and the "knowing".

This that is "here now" is also the knowing of itself.

Do you see that?

Jaemin Y: Yes, direct experience shows me that there is NOTHING that needs
clarifying. Things are happening, sensations are known, thoughts are known, and that's it.

Sometimes thoughts will say, "I am confused," then reading or other actions will happen,
new thoughts will pop up, and then a thought will pop up saying, "I get it now."

But there was nobody "getting it" or "confused" in the first place.
And yes, there is no division between what is "arising" and the "knowing". They are one
and the same. No separation. If it is here now, it is the knowingknown, and it is all that
exists.

Jaemin Y: By the way Empty, ever since Friday, "I" feel like a big perspective shift
has happened. It seems like "I" finally get that all there is this knowingknown...and I can
just sigh and relax.

This crazy seeking energy within "me" has also relaxed and thoughts seem to be dropping
more and more. It's becoming easier and easier to just be here, now. And I'm starting to
see everything as me.

It's really cool and exciting...and at the same time, it's completely mundane and has
ALWAYS been like this. I just see it more clearly now (or more accurately, now there are
new thoughts saying, "Ah, there is ONE knowingknown that you are alone. And even this
thought is just a thought being known, there is no ME here")

Empty Mirror: Love your replies, Jaemin!!!

I think that perhaps I'll leave you for a while to just notice that lack of others, and the
indivisibility of this all for a few days, and check in on you then.

In the mean time, remember that Jaemin and Empty are utterly unaware characters, just
playing out a play that points this show that you are, back to itself

Jaemin Y: Thanks Empty, and I love your guidance! Talking with you has been an
amazing experience. I'd say "enlightening", but we all know how loaded that word is

I think this sounds like a good plan. Let me sink into this and just notice for a few
days. If we could check back in later this week, that would be great. Thanks for your
continual support and guidance, I really cannot thank you enough!

Empty Mirror:

Empty Mirror: Ok, Jaemin. Check up time.

Is there anybody here?

Jaemin Y: Long time no talk Empty!

No sir, nobody here. To be honest, it still feels like there is most of the time (27 years
of thinking this way, my thoughts continue to default to that story)...but it's always only a
thought story saying that. Senses + Thoughts all happening simultaneously, and thought
story strings them together and says they add up to a person. But every single time I
check and look, nobody there!
 Empty Mirror: And is it you doing the checking, or does it just happen in the same
way that identifying thoughts happen?

Jaemin Y: "Checking" is just happening. The same way breathing is just happening.
The same way that thoughts are just being known. It's just life happening, no do-er or
controller at the helm.

Jaemin Y: And no one they're happening TO. They're just happening.

Empty Mirror: Absolutely!

And isn't that COMPLETELY AMAZING?

Jaemin Y: Yeah, it's pretty damn awesome Its all just life doing its thing. Life life-ing
away

Empty Mirror: Beautiful

Jaemin Y: So Empty, I've had some time to just go about my life and let this all settle
in (I know I know, I can practically hear you say, "WHO needs settling?", but you know
what I mean). And...well, here's what I have to report:

I haven't had any crazy blissed out experiences. I'm not walking around in a constant state
of ecstasy and peace. But what's different now is that I DON'T expect to. And for me, this
is HUGE.

With your guiding, I feel like a fundamental shift has happened. I really SEE that there's
nowhere for me to get to, and that there's nobody here to get there.

There's just THIS this-ing. And that's all that's ever was and ever will be. This one
KnowingKnown alone. And I have always been that...that's never changed.

I get it now. Anytime I feel confused. Anytime I feel lost. Anytime I feel like "I'm not
there yet" and "I need to get there"…it's always just a thought story. That's it. And even
that thought is clearly seen. There's no confusion here. There's nobody lost. Everything is
exactly as it should be.

And that's the biggest shift for me. For the first time in my entire adult life…I finally feel
content with what's HERE and NOW. I'm not trying to run away from what's happening,
and I'm not trying to grasp for what hasn't happened yet. For ONCE, I feel like there's
nothing missing from the present moment. Not one iota. How could there be…I AM the
present moment. It's all perfect the way it is, and all happening the only way it could.

It might be easy to feel this way when things are all hunky dory, but I've had a few shitty
days in the past week and it was FASCINATING to see that I wasn't trying to run from it.
It just was. Emotions were coming up. Negative thoughts were clouding my mind. And it
was all perfectly what was happening.

That was big for "me".

And with that, I suddenly realized that my "desperate seeking" was over. I've been
desperately seeking my entire life (whether it was success, social status, world travels, or
enlightenment) and always felt that there was something OUT THERE that I needed, that
would fill what was missing IN HERE.

Well, it was certainly shocking to realize that I was no longer

struggling…grasping…running. I was okay to just let things be as they are. And even if
my thought stories started spinning like crazy, even that too, was allowed to just be.

So again, I'm not in a blissed out state. I don't feel at one with the entire universe. And
when I try to wrap my head around what's happening, I still find myself confused most of
the time. But at the same time, something is fundamentally different. I don't feel like
there's anything missing anymore. And what's happening right here, right now, is perfect
exactly as it is.

So let me know if you think there's anything I'm missing or need to investigate further,
but as of now, I feel like my desperate seeking - and as a result, my desperate need for
guidance - is coming to an end.

Either way, Empty, I want to thank you SO much for helping me and for so patiently
guiding me throughout all this. There were countless factors that got me to this point, but
your guidance was a HUGE part of that. The breakthroughs that came from our
conversations were absolutely amazing. Thank you so much, you are awesome Empty.

Empty Mirror: Awesome post, Jaemin

So much joy for you

Much love and gratitude to you for sharing that

Empty Mirror: And you are clearly not missing anything

Empty Mirror: Anyway, how could you miss anything? You know EVERYTHING
that can be known

Jaemin Y: Haha exactly! Much love and gratitude to you for helping a brother out
Steven L:
This thread is for Empty Mirror:

I've been interested in non-duality for a few years now, but only realized recently
that I haven't really been after awakening all this time, but something "better."
This turned me off it. I'm not sure what I'm looking for now, but it isn't peace, love
and happiness, all that warm, fuzzy crap. I don't know where I'm going but I can't
seem to stop. I've started looking heavily into belief recently and where my inquiry
is taking me feels right.

In reference to your pinned post, I think that 1 (there is nothing but experience),
and 2 (there is no division between "knowing" and "known") are understood. 3
(you are this knowingknown) isn't. I think I see that knowingknown---including
what I consider to be "me"---is all there is, but don't see where I fit in. Not sure if
that makes sense...

(I'm in India so time zones might be an issue.)

Empty Mirror: Hi Steven, I'm just about to leave for a poker evening with friends,
but will get back to you on this tomorrow. I'm on Australia time.

Steven L: Wonderful! No rush, we'll talk later.

In the meantime I'm looking into 3: you are this knowingknown. I see that all there is
this knowingknown. And I exist, for I can't say that I don't exist. Logically then, I would
have to be this knowingknown. Still hasn't hit me for some reason...

Empty Mirror: Steven, I must apologise for not getting back to you today. I thought
that I would have time, but I had a VERY busy day, and had my parents, and my kids and
their partners, all come around for dinner here tonight, so I've had very little time for
HoM.

It's midnight here now, but I promise to get back to you before midday my time
tomorrow

Steven L: All good Empty. Goodnight!

Empty Mirror: Hi Steven

Let's start with a simple question. If you see that this knowingknown is indivisible,
what knows of this sentence?
 Please look hard at this question.

Steven L: I know of the sentence. Not I, Steven, the body-mind, for Steven, the
body-mind is not present when the sentence arises. There is only the arising of the
sentence and the knowing of it, for the sentence could not exist without it being known.
The arising of the sentence and the knowing of it is the knowingknown and they are
indivisible.

I've already concluded in my earlier post that I exist, for at no time can I say that I
don't exist. All there is the knowingknown, and I exist. The knowingknown must
therefore be me, must always be me, no matter what shape or form it may seem to take.

Steven L: I'm sorry but we need to backtrack a bit. I'm not convinced that I exist; it's
still a belief at this stage. Just because a thought says, "I exist," or, "I can't say that I don't
exist," doesn't make it true.

What is "I"? If an "I" can be found then "I" exists, I exist. But isn't "I" just a concept
arising as the knowingknown?

Steven L: I don't exist.

There is experiencing, the knowingknown. It's here, it's happening, it's undeniable.
And it being all there is equally undeniable. But am I needed for experiencing to happen?
Am I needed for THIS to happen? There's no evidence of that because there's no evidence
of me, yet experiencing takes place anyway. I don't exist. I'm not needed. THIS is
happening without me. I can't be found, so I don't exist. Just because something can't be
seen, does that mean it doesn't exist? If we're going by direct experience alone, then yes. I
can't exist.

Empty Mirror: Wow!!!

Steven, that was a perfect example of seeing everything clearly (in your first reply),
and then thought coming in and creating complete confusion in the next two replies.

How can you possibly say that you don't exist??

If you are aware of this sentence, how can you possibly say that you don't exist???

Look at your first reply, and look at the word "I" and see what it is pointing to.

You even said it in your first reply.

Steven L: "If you are aware of this sentence, how can you possibly say that you don't
exist???"
 There is a sentence, but there's no me. "I am aware of the sentence" is just the next
arising.

My first reply was based on the assumption that I exist, an assumption that wasn‘t
verified. I can't find me, so how can I exist? There is no evidence of me in direct
experience. If I don't exist then how can I be the knowingknown? There is only the
knowingknown.

Empty Mirror: Steven, you are just believing nonsense that has been fed to you in
LU.

How do you know of all of these "arisings" if you don't exist?

Empty Mirror: How do you know of the arising of the sentence???

Steven L: I hope not. I'm trying not to believe anything supplied by anyone else
without verifying it for myself first. This is why I'm questioning my existence in the first
place; it seems like an assumption.

I'm not claiming to know of any arisings at the moment, for I can't find a "me" to know
of them. Something is clearly happening. Call it experiencing, the knowingknown,
whatever. Does that mean that it must be known by something/someone? Can't it simply
be known, without a subject? There is no experience of a subject. Why claim that one
exists, that it's me? If anything, this seems like a belief.

If I'm wrong please point out the flaw in my logic. I don't want to believe you. I want
to either know it or see through it for myself.

(Hope I'm not being too difficult here. I appreciate this back and forth Empty. )

Empty Mirror: How can you claim not to know of any arisings if you have just told
me about the arisings, Steven??

Steven L: There is knowledge of arisings. They are known. The known and knowing
are inseparable, hence why we can call it "knowingknown." I don't see where an "I" fits
in. It's not "Iknowingknown." Knowing of arisings happens and telling of arisings
happens. Both of these are arising as the knowingknown. Where does an "I" fit in?

Are we talking about the same thing? What do you mean by "you"?

Empty Mirror: Do you know of this sentence?

Empty Mirror: I am addressing YOU that is aware of this sentence.

Empty Mirror: Are you aware of this sentence or not?

 Empty Mirror: Don't worry about what "you" are right now. I am asking YOU
whether you are aware of this sentence?

Steven L: Ok then. At first thought, yes, I am aware of the sentence.

Empty Mirror: Ok, so we know that you know of stuff. So please take a read of your
first reply in this thread.

You know for CERTAIN that you know of stuff. And you know for certain that the
knowingknown is indivisible. So if you know of this, how can you be other than this?

Empty Mirror: I'm addressing that which knows of this sentence, so if you know of
this sentence, how can you be other than this knowingknown?

Steven L: I think my confusion lies in the mixing of viewpoints, relative vs.

absolute. If we acknowledge objects, stuff, the sentence, then we're talking from a
relative point of view which requires a subject. If that's the case then the subject is me, I,
awareness. The sentence is known by me. In direct experience though the sentence is
inseparable from the knowing of it, from awareness, from me. Therefore there is only the
knowingknown, and I am that.

Does this make more sense? The idea is very new to me so it isn't too steady. Barely
holding together actually.

Empty Mirror: Hi Steven. Yes, it does make sense, but it seems that it isn't "steady"
because you are seeing some sort of difference between the absolute and the relative
other than thought.

The ONLY difference between the 'absolute' and the 'relative', is in thought. You are
ALWAYS the 'absolute' but thoughts say that there is a relative.

You say: "I think my confusion lies in the mixing of viewpoints, relative vs. absolute.
If we acknowledge objects, stuff, the sentence, then we're talking from a relative point of
view which requires a subject."

Why does it require a subject???

"Objects, stuff, the sentence", etc, are just the so called "known".

But you've already seen that they are indivisible from the knowing of them. Not only
individually, but as a whole too.

The entire symphony of sensations, thoughts, smells, sounds, tastes, and thoughts
makes up a single, indivisible, "show" of beingness.

And the "show" is utterly indivisible from the so called "knowing" of it, is it not?
 Do you see that you have NEVER experienced ANYTHING?

Steven has never experienced anything, because dream characters know nothing about
the dream, and the dream in which Steven shows up, also never experiences anything. It
**IS** the experience.

Do you see that?

Do you see that you ARE the sounds, and you are the images, and you ARE the tastes,
and that you are this entire symphony of beingness?

INCLUDING thoughts that say there is a relative. They are ALSO part of the
symphony that you are.

Steven L: Thanks Empty.

Your post is completely in line with the conclusion I came to yesterday and further
developed on my own this morning. Yes, the relative exists in thought alone. In reality
there is only ever the absolute, and I am THAT. The thought of the relative arises only as
THAT, as me.

"Why does it require a subject???"

A subject comes up in thought, e.g., "I know of the sentence." "I" is the subject. This is
the so-called relative, which only exists in thought. In reality there is neither subject nor
object, just THIS, the symphony that I am, as you so beautifully put it.

I am slowly becoming more comfortable with the idea, but I fear that it is a belief I am
adopting, for somehow it isn't known. I don't want to replace old beliefs with new ones. I
want to shed all beliefs.

Empty Mirror: I absolutely agree!!

So what is this "I" that wants to shed beliefs? Is there really anything believing
anything?

Is there even anything believing that it is everything?

Look at this carefully

Steven L: I tried answering your questions, Empty, and utterly failed. (Good!) I'm
confused again; my mind's in knots. How do I know that I am awareness? I think my
reasoning was flawed in one of my earlier posts and it wasn't caught. I said:

"If we acknowledge objects, stuff, the sentence, then we're talking from a relative point
of view which requires a subject. If that's the case then the subject is me, I, awareness."
 Is this true? Is the subject in the sentence, "I see the table," awareness? The sentence is
just a thought, which is known by awareness. I'm tempted to say, "I know of the
sentence," because that's how it sure as hell feels, but isn't that also just a statement, a
thought known by awareness? Where do I fit in? What am I? If I can see that awareness
and "I" in the relative are one, my understanding can take that up to the absolute and I'm
set, but I'm not seeing any of this at the moment. Frustration!!

Empty Mirror: Who said that you were "awareness"?? Certainly not me.

Why do you think that you are "awareness"?

You haven't answered my question. You've only described a jumble of random

thoughts.

Please re-read your reply before your last one, and in the light of that reply, please try
to answer my questions.

Steven L: I meant "awareness" as "the knowingknown." It says that I am the

knowingknown in the pinned thread. I'm not sure how I can answer your questions when
I don't know or even believe that I'm the knowingknown. I don't see why I'm necessary to
begin with. Why can't there just be the knowingknown? Why claim that I am the
knowingknown? What is "I"?

I'll try your questions from my current point of view:

1) So what is this "I" that wants to shed beliefs?

There is no "I" wanting to shed beliefs, there's just the knowingknown as which the
statement, "I want to shed beliefs," arises.

2) Is there really anything believing anything?

No, it's just a thought arising as the knowingknown.

3) Is there even anything believing that it is everything?

Same as above.

Ok, that wasn't so hard. I guess "I" isn't (I'm not) needed after all.

Steven L: "You know for CERTAIN that you know of stuff. And you know for
certain that the knowingknown is indivisible. So if you know of this, how can you be
other than this?"

No, thought says, "I know of stuff." In direct experience there is only the
knowingknown. No I, no stuff, just knowing, being.

Empty Mirror: You have just come full circle again.

 I am addressing that which is aware of this question. Are you aware of this question or
not?

Empty Mirror: It is VERY SIMPLE question. It doesn't require any essays.

Empty Mirror: It's a simple yes or no - anything else is PURE thought.

Empty Mirror: Please COMPLETELY forget about any dogma that you were taught
in LU. PLEASE!

They certainly did NOT show you that the "I" doesn't exist in LU, the ONLY thing that
they showed you was that "I" does not point to an individual, or a person.

How could you possibly be convinced by anybody or anything that you don't exist????

It always utterly amazes me that such a belief could even exist. It's like denying that
"this" is here.

Empty Mirror: There is JUST the knowingknown. Are you separate or other than
it???

Can't you see that if there is JUST the knowingknown, then you can not possibly be
anything other than the knowingknown??

You seem to want to be able to claim to know of this knowingknown, but then to claim
not to exist. So how do you know all of this if you don't exist?

Because the only way that you could claim not to exist is to claim that you don't know
of this sentence.

PLEASE, PLEASE drop this fear that you have of the word "I". The word "I" has only
ever pointed to that which is aware of this sentence.

I have absolutely no idea to shake a belief that you don't exist, other than to point out
that you know of this sentence.

I will have to ask someone else in here to try to help you if you can't shake that belief.

I simply have no idea how to help someone with such an irrational and illogical belief.

Empty Mirror: Ok, Steven, I've thought of a question which may point you back to
DE. In DE is there a sense of "existence", or "beingness", or "aliveness"?

And if so, are you in any way separate or apart from that sense of beingness?

Empty Mirror: LOL

 Oh no. I've just realised that even if you say "yes", you will claim that it's not you that
knows of that feeling.

Sorry, Steven. You're going to have to dig yourself out of that belief. I don't think there
is any way of helping you get out of it.

Steven L: "In DE is there a sense of 'existence', or 'beingness', or 'aliveness'?"

Yes, most definitely.

"And if so, are you in any way separate or apart from that sense of beingness?"

This is where I get frustrated. Why are you bringing a "me" into the picture? All there
is this "existence," "beingness," or "aliveness." Anything else is a concept arising as
THAT.

Steven L: I can't see how "I" is anything more than a concept arising as the
knowingknown. If all there is the knowingknown, then where is there room for an "I"?
Even if this so-called "I" is nothing but the knowingknown itself, why bring it into the
picture in the first place?

I'm sorry Empty, I just can't get my head around it.

(By the way, in this inquiry I'm doing my damnedest not to rely on any information
provided by anyone else, unless it's been confirmed in my own experience. I'm open to
having all of my beliefs shattered, so long as I actually see through them myself;
otherwise all I'm doing is replacing them with new ones.)

Empty Mirror: You say: "I can't see how 'I' is anything more than a concept arising
as the knowingknown."

And of course it is not. "I" is a concept that points directly to this knowingknown.

You ask: "If all there is the knowingknown, then where is there room for an "I"?

But there isn't even a "knowingknown" - that is also just a pointer!!!

"Knowingknown", "this that is", "that which is aware of this sentence", "oneness", "I
am", are all just words that point to this .....*vroom vroom* *yumm yumm* *tweet
tweet*.

If you can't use words to point to that which is aware of this show (basically the self-
aware show itself) then it is absolutely pointless to discuss anything.
 So any word that points to this "knowing that is its own known" OBVIOUSLY has to
be used.

If I say do YOU know of this sentence I am pointing directly to you that knows of it.

So I am using the word "you" to point to that which is the knowing of the known
sentence.

So I am using the word "you" to point directly to this knowingknown

Can you not see that????

Empty Mirror: Now you haven't answered my question. Do you know of this
sentence? Yes or no.

No essay please.

Steven L: Given what you've said above, yes, I know of this sentence.

Empty Mirror: Ok

So you, if you know of this sentence, and this sentence is the knowing of itself, can
you see that you ARE this knowing known?

And not just the sentence, but the ENTIRE show, or which the sentence is just a small
part?

Empty Mirror: Obviously I don't mean Steven when I ask: " can you see that you
ARE this knowing known?"

Steven is just known - like this sentence is.

Steven L: If you are asking if the "you" that knows of this sentence is this
knowingknown, then yes. Same for the entire show.

Using "I" as a label pointing to this knowingknown seems very misleading to me. I've
spent my entire life using that term to point to Steven, this body-mind. Now we're saying
that it points to the entire show, so it's almost like we're shifting identification from the
body-mind to this knowingknown. There is no one to identify with this knowingknown
though. There is only this knowingknown.

Steven L: Sure feels like I am this knowingknown though, like I'm the entire show,
whatever "I" is in this case.
Empty Mirror: What is there to identify as anything?
 The word "I" points to this knowingknown, and the word "this" points to this
knowingknown, so what is identifying as what in the sentence "I am this" ?

Steven L: This knowingknown is identifying as this knowingknown? That's a tad

odd...

Steven L: Is "I" always a label pointing to the knowingknown?

Empty Mirror: Umm. If it's the exact same thing how could anything be identifying
as anything, Steven??

There has to be two things for identification to happen.

You just seem to have a fixation on the idea of "identification".

"Identification" takes two. Is there two here?

Empty Mirror: Words, concepts, thoughts - none of them can ever do anything but
point you to this indivisible knowingknown that you alone are.

Steven L: Ok, identification isn't possible. Same with pointing.

Steven L: So what's next my friend?

Empty Mirror: Well now please look at the first paragraph of your OP, and try to tell
me what my reply to you would be please.

Empty Mirror: And what do you mean by "same with pointing", Steven?

Steven L: I meant that pointing also takes two, which there never is.

Which OP do you mean exactly Empty?

Empty Mirror: Pointing can only happen if there is the appearance of two, Steven.

So what happens is that one dream character seems to POINT out to another dream
character that this is just a dream.

But NEITHER of the dream characters knows anything about the pointing.

This self-aware dream that you alone are, ALONE knows of what it shows up as.

Do you see that?

 The OP that I'm talking about is the original post that you started this thread with.

Steven L: I think so. Empty seems to be pointing something out to Steven. Neither
know of the pointing. Neither know of each other. Empty, Steven and the pointing are
appearances as the knowingknown. Only the knowingknown knows of them.

It means that no appearance relates to any other appearance, for appearances can't
know of each other. All appearances arise independently as the knowingknown.

There is no story, no meaning, no purpose; there is only the knowingknown expressing

itself as whatever is present in this timeless moment.

Empty Mirror: Yes! Very nicely put. So could there be anything to seek?

Empty Mirror: Is there anything that needs to be found? Is there anything that needs
to be different?

Steven L: I guess not, if THIS is it. Who would there be to seek? What would there
be to find? What could be wrong with what's here, now? There can be no alternative, for
all there ever is, is THIS.

A character in a dream may seem to be seeking or want things to be different. None of

it is significant though. None of it really means anything. There is nowhere to get,
nothing to get and no one to get it. There's just the dream as which all this seems to be
playing out. It's the same with the knowingknown and what one would normally call
"reality"; just the knowingknown seemingly unfolding as THIS.

Empty Mirror: And do you see that you **ARE** this knowingknown?

Do you see that you ALONE are this one knowingknown, with no other?

You are all that is here.

And do you see that you are not only the melody but every note in it too?

So when the show includes characters, you are the characters, and when it includes
pain, you are the pain, and when it includes love, you ARE the love?

Steven L: If "you" points directly to this knowingknown, as was discussed

yesterday, then yes, it's understood that I am this knowingknown. It feels that way too.

There is only this knowingknown. Any seeming other would just be an appearance as
this knowingknown.
 This knowingknown is inseparable from its expression. If I am this knowingknown
then I am its expression as well, whatever shape or form it may seem to take. I am the
entire show.

Empty Mirror: In your original post you said. "I don't know where I'm going but I
can't seem to stop. I've started looking heavily into belief recently and where my inquiry
is taking me feels right."

Does it still feel like there is anything to search for?

Steven L: Yes, it does. It isn't logical, but the feeling is definitely still there as well
as the impulse to search and deconstruct belief. It feels like this new understanding is
very flimsy at the moment and barely holding together. I'm reminded that this feeling is
but an appearance as the knowingknown.

Maybe this just needs time, or there might be other so-called sticking points. I don't
know.

Empty Mirror: Ok, well take a bit of time, and just notice direct experience, and
remain vigilant to all of the beliefs that you have seen through.

And this is important. Remember that every word that you read, or hear, is only ever
known to you, and you alone.

I'll check in on you in a few days

Empty Mirror: Steven, another thing to ponder is "Why is this not logical?"

Because thought says so?

Empty Mirror: Just like thoughts say that this that is, can be split into a "knowing
and a known"?

Empty Mirror: And here's an even better question to ponder, Steven.

Logical to who/what?

Steven L: Eh? I don't need time off. Got plenty of time. Keep hitting me!

Not till I've answered these questions first though.

Steven L: "And this is important. Remember that every word that you read, or hear,
is only ever known to you, and you alone."
 Yes, very important. The entire show is only ever known by me alone. There is no
other. Steven, Empty, others, objects, places, concepts, emotions, everything is only ever
known by me alone.

"Steven, another thing to ponder is 'Why is this not logical?' Because thought says so?
"

Thought will say many things. Thought will say that I am Steven, that I am in here and
that the world is out there, that there are others, that there are many, that there is
separation, etc, etc, etc. Thought can say anything. In actuality though, thought is nothing
but an arising as me, this knowingknown. Its content is insignificant and meaningless.

"Logical to who/what?"

To no one apparently, for no one is present when the thought arises. But there never
actually is anyone or anything. There is only ever this knowingknown, playing, seeming
to take this shape or that. And I am THAT, all of that.

Steven L: What we call objects are nothing but sounds, smells, tastes, sensations,
colours and thoughts. What is called "Steven" is nothing but a mix of these (not really).
Just noticed, how can a sound know of a sound? How can a colour know of a colour?
How can a thought know of a thought? Preposterous. Only I can know of objects. I am
the knowing of the known objects. I am this knowingknown.

Empty Mirror: Very nice answers, Steven

Does this feel like a belief? Can you find any belief that is necessary to see what all of
these words are pointing to? Do you need thoughts to see this.

Does it feel like there is any need for any answers about anything?

Has the seeing of this changed anything in any way?

Any newfound sense of peace, or freedom?

Steven L: "Does this feel like a belief? Can you find any belief that is necessary to
see what all of these words are pointing to? Do you need thoughts to see this."

In a way it does feel like a belief. I seem to have to notice that I am the knower of the
entire show first, then that's taken to me being the substance of it, the knowingknown. In
the end, the feeling that comes with that feels genuine, but there seems to be a process
involved in "getting there" and someone who needs to initiate this process.

"Does it feel like there is any need for any answers about anything?"

In direct experience there are no questions, so answers aren't needed.

 "Has the seeing of this changed anything in any way?"

Don't feel it's seen but intellectually understood. Nothing seems different except for a
deeper level of understanding.

"Any newfound sense of peace, or freedom?"

Only when inquiry's taken to this knowingknown that I am.

Steven L: Well, maybe not someone who needs to initiate this process, but an
initiation of some kind seems to need to take place for it to happen.

Empty Mirror: Some really nice answers in there, Steven

Love your answer about "questions". Short and totally to the point

You say: "Only when inquiry's taken to this knowingknown that I am."

And do you see that you are not the one making the enquiry?

You say: "Well, maybe not someone who needs to initiate this process, but an
initiation of some kind seems to need to take place for it to happen."

Do you see that is ALL part of the show? Do you see that nothing initiates anything?

The show even includes thoughts arguing with one another it seems.

Amazingly with no thinker of either side of the thought argument.

All just you happening.

Steven L: "And do you see that you are not the one making the enquiry? ... Do you
see that is ALL part of the show? Do you see that nothing initiates anything?"

This knowingknown that I am doesn't do anything, doesn't initiate anything. It simply

is. I simply am. Something called inquiry seems to happen and I know of this happening.
The appearance called inquiry arises in/as me, this knowingknown. No one initiates
inquiry.

It is assumed, believed that Steven initiates inquiry, but where is Steven? We can never
find Steven outside of colour, smell, taste, sound, sensation and thought. How can a
colour initiate anything? How can a sound initiate anything? How can a thought initiate
anything? The notion is absurd. All of these are but appearances. They don't do. They
don't initiate. They appear in/as me, just as the so-called inquiry appears in/as me, this
knowingknown.
 Inquiry, or what is called inquiry, is in no way needed by me, this knowingknown, to
achieve any so-called purpose. The knowing that I am is one with all that is known, all
that seemingly is. What could there be to achieve outside of this? What could be needed
to achieve what already is? Inquiry seems to arise as a modulation of me. An inquirer
seems to arise as a modulation of me. But ultimately there is only me, this
knowingknown. There is nowhere to go and nothing to achieve. There is no outside to
me. I am all that can possibly be. I am fullness itself.

"The show even includes thoughts arguing with one another it seems. Amazingly with
no thinker of either side of the thought argument."

One thought says that inquiry is needed. Another thought says that inquiry is
purposeless for there is nothing to achieve. These thoughts arise independently in/as me.
They seem to be arguing with one another, but this is not possible for how can they even
relate to each other? They are nothing but appearances and so can do nothing but appear.

There is no meaning in the content of these appearances. In fact there is no meaning in

the content of any appearance. There is no point to any appearance. They are simply
expressions of this knowingknown, are nothing but this knowingknown that I am.

Empty Mirror: I'm loving the clarity of your answers, Steven.

By now you will have realised that I can't do anything for you, because I'm also just an
appearance of you

Nevertheless, I'll advise that you spend a few days noticing DE, and noticing that
NOBODY and NO THING but you, knows about ANY of this.

I'll check in with you in a few days

Steven L: Thanks Empty.

Empty Mirror: Thank you

Empty Mirror: Hi Steven, this is the check-in that I promised

All clear? Any confusion?

Steven L: Hey Empty. I think I have an intellectual understanding of how the

illusion works, but the belief in it is still very strong. (Of course there is no illusion;
there's only this knowingknown appearing as this entire show.) Not sure that anything
more can be done here unless you have a suggestion.

Steven L: I guess there is more to do here Empty. Just read Liad's thread where you
say:
 "I'm having a lot of difficulty understanding why it matters AT ALL what they say, if
you are not the thinker of them."

It's obvious that I'm not the thinker of thoughts. I have no control over them
whatsoever. I can't choose them, stop them or predict what will come next. They just pop
up and I know of them.

What isn't obvious at all at the moment, which I'm finding very odd, is why their
content doesn't matter. This was so clear a few days ago and somehow I seem to have
completely forgotten why. I can't see the link between not being the thinker of thoughts
and not having to believe their content. Damn this is weird. It's like I've had a memory
wipe.

Steven L: Seeing now that thought content only seems to point to objects:

This is my body.
That is a wall.
This is bad.
I am upset.
The fruit is rotten.
I want more to eat.
I ate too much.
She is wrong.
He hurt me.

None of these so-called objects can be found in direct experience though; there's just
this seamless knowingknown. So thought content is just gibberish really. We don't need
to pay it any mind. (Not that there's a "we" who can or can't...)

Still don't see why me not being the thinker of thoughts signifies that they don't matter
though.

Empty Mirror: Well if there is no thinker of thoughts then the "me", that they refer to
as the thinker of thoughts, doesn't exist.

Perhaps what you're doing is looking at the intellectual implications of seeing through
beliefs, rather than the direct experience of this, Steven.

It's one thing to acknowledge that the knowingknown is logically indivisible, but it's
quite another to notice that, if that is the case, you REALLY are all that is here.

Do you see that if you are all that is here, then you ARE every experience? Do you see
that you are all of this, in all of it's crazy glory?

Including the thought that says that something should matter or not matter?
 Steven L: I'm not sure how I'm supposed to "see" this in direct experience. If I think
about it, I get it, but it feels more intellectual than anything.

"Do you see that if you are all that is here, then you ARE every experience? Do you
see that you are all of this, in all of it's crazy glory?"

Yes, I can see this if I think about it. Maybe there will be a recognition for a few
seconds and then it's gone. When I'm reminded I usually think about this again along with
its implications, and the recognition returns for a few more seconds. The understanding is
very flimsy though. Sometimes some pieces of the puzzle are forgotten (like this thought
thing) and it takes hours of inquiry for them to be "remembered."

Empty Mirror: Just more of the show

What is there that sees something for a few seconds?

Nothing but thought fluff.

****ALL**** part of the show.

And you see it ALL

So what doesn't see what all of the time?

Steven L: Yes Empty, just more of the show. And this is often recognized. The
recognition is also seen to be part of the show.

"So what doesn't see what all of the time?"

Whatever's happening is never not this, this knowingknown, so there's never a problem
really. I can see that. "Sometimes." Again, only thought fluff, all part of the show. "This
isn't permanent though." More of the show. "Arg, this is frustrating!" More of the show,
and so on and so forth...

Empty Mirror: Lol

Exactly

And is ANYTHING affected by it?

Is there really anything that has EVER been confused about anything?

Steven L: "And is ANYTHING affected by it?"

No, there's nothing to be affected by it. The show rolls on and I simply know of it.
"Is there really anything that has EVER been confused about anything?"

I guess not. Thought will suggest that there is such a person. More thought fluff, more of
the show. No one to be confused, nothing to be confused about. Just the show and the
knowing of it.

Empty Mirror: Indivisibly so

(Conversation continued via private message)

Steven L: Still don't get it. :/

Would it be better to continue in my Doorway thread?

Empty Mirror: Ok, just stop for a moment.

Answer this question honestly to yourself. Do you know of this.

Just answer it to yourself.

Once you have answered to yourself, let me know the answer?

Steven L: Knee-jerk answer is, "Yes". Honest answer is, "No, this is known."

Empty Mirror: How do you know that it's known?

Steven L: I don't know this. This is known.

It doesn't feel personal.

Knee-jerk answer is probably just habit.

Empty Mirror: Nobody EVER said that it was personal.

Steven L: Because this IS. It's here, so it's known.

It has to be.

Empty Mirror: Who said that it was personal?

OMG Steven!!!

How the hell do you know that it is known????

Empty Mirror: Did you go through LU?

 Steven L: No. Neil guided me for a bit but he was pretty inactive. I whined and he moved it
to FB and left the confines of LU.

How is it known? Because it is. How do you know it is? Because it's known.

Empty Mirror: Is it something other than you that knows it?

Are you somehow outside of the knowingknown circle???

Steven L: There's only this knowingknown.

Known field of perception.

This.

Whatever you wanna call it.

Empty Mirror: Who filled you with this fear of the word "I"?

Steven L: No idea. :P

Empty Mirror: Are you other than this?

Steven L: Claiming that I am this or other than this just feels like fluff that thought attempts
to add onto this. This is. Isn't that enough?

Empty Mirror: Do you really sit there believing that you don't exist, and that this is known
by something other than you?

Enough for who????

Steven L: No, I never said it's known by something.

Empty Mirror: So how is it known?

Steven L: It just is?

Empty Mirror: Is it the knowing of itself?

Steven L: That's how it sure as hell feels.

Yes. This is and is known.

Empty Mirror: Feels to WHO/WHAT?

Steven L: I think we talked about this yesterday. That's clear.

To no one!
 These are just thoughts coming up trying to describe this that is.

These thoughts are known

Not by me or an other. Just known.

Empty Mirror: How can you sit there and say "that's just how it feels" while at the same
time claiming that you don't exist??

Steven L: I dunno man, it feels right. I just get confused when an "I"'s thrown into the mix.

In a manner of speaking.

Maybe I am allergic to it.

Empty Mirror: Really, Steven, this is just a completely insane discussion

It only feels wrong because you have some weird fear of the word I

******ONLY******* if you imagine that I points to a person, could it feel confusing.

If I points to this that is the knowing if itself, where is the separation??

Steven L: Ok, so maybe that's it, but honestly it seems to be more than that. Isn't it only a
thought that can claim that "I am this that is"? In DE, there's just THIS. THIS is. That's it.

Empty Mirror: obviously it's only a thought. Without thoughts there would be absolutely
nothing to talk about. It's a thought pointing to the self-aware nature of this.

Steven L: There is none if "I" points to this knowingknown, but why does it feel like I'm being
forced to adopt this belief when in DE it's seen that only THIS is, that it's one with the knowing
of it, that there's no outside to it, etc?

Why do I have to call this "I"? Why do I have to claim that I am THIS? It just doesn't sit right.
Maybe it is what I think I points to.

Maybe I just can't get past the idea that "I" points to this apparent person.

Empty Mirror: OH my fucking God Steven. Please don't accept any belief. Please go on
believing that you don't exist while sill claiming to know stuff.

If you don't see the complete ridiculousness of that, I can do nothing about that.

Yes, that is EXACTLY your problem.

You can't get away from the idea that I points to a person.
 Steven L: THIS is. If your "I" points to THIS that is, then obvious "I" exists, "I" exist.

I'm not claiming that THIS doesn't exist.

Empty Mirror: If you believe that you can know anything at all, but not exist, there is
absolutely nothing that I can do for you.

You've gone down a thought hole that is pure insanity.

How the fuck can you say that this exists?????

How do you know???????????

Steven L: Eh?

Empty Mirror: How do you know that this is here?????

Steven L: It's undeniable! THIS is. It's here. It's known.

You're telling me that THIS doesn't exist?

Empty Mirror: Please answer that question.

How do you know that this is here??

Of course it exists

Steven L: Thank god.

Empty Mirror: I am asking you how YOU know that it does??????

Steven L: I don't mean "here" as in "not there."

I don't know how to answer that question. It's undeniable.

lol, "you"

Empty Mirror: Please just answer the question, and don't just tell me that it is just known, I
want to specifically know how YOU know.

Ok so it's undeniable that you know.

And is that knowing in any way separate from this known?

You can't claim that this is known while still claiming that you don't know of it. Can't you see
that?

If you don't know of it then how do you know that it's known?
 It's just utterly illogical.

"I" has NEVER pointed to a person. It has always pointed to this knowing that is its own
known.

Do you see that?

Do you see that you can't claim to see that there is just this, and them claim that you don't
know anything?

If you don't know anything then how do you know that there is just this?

Somewhere along the way, you have been fed the belief that you don't exist, and you can't
shake that belief it seems.

How could you possibly believe that you don't exist?

Don't you wonder how it is that you know of this, if you don't exist?

But if you look deeply at what I has ALWAYS been used to point to, is this knowingbeingness.

The "personal I", or the "I" as some sort of individual in this, DOES NOT exist.

Those "I"s exist only as ideas .

Or rather, point only to ideas.

But the "I" that has always pointed to this knowing that is its own known - this *vroom
vroom* *yumm yumm* *ouch ouch* that is the knowing of itself.

Steven L: Gotta admit it confuses the hell out of me.

Empty Mirror: Why should the word "I" point to anything separate in this?

What about the questions that I asked?

Steven L: Aside from habit, I don't see a reason why. But then, why should the word "I"
point to this that is?

Yes, there's a bunch of questions. Want me to answer them all in one block?

Empty Mirror: When you say I am, what are you pointing to?

Steven L: Well it could be either "I, Steven, exist" or "THIS that is exists." It depends on the
context.

Empty Mirror: It seems that you feel that you are in some way separate from this.
 Or other than this

Steven L: Ok...

Empty Mirror: Do you believe that this exists, but that you somehow don't.

If so what are you?

And if you don't exist how could you possibly know of anything?

Steven L: I don't understand. These questions confuse the hell out of me John. I don't know
how to interpret them.

Empty Mirror: Steven if I used the word popcorn to refer the that which is aware if this
sentence, would you accept that you are popcorn?

They are such simple questions in such simple language, Steven.

What is confusing about them?

I ask you whether ****YOU*****, that knows of this sentence whether you know of them,
and you can't answer that question without going into a long philosophical debate????

It's a simple question. You are trying to turn this into rocket science.

It is all VERY simple.

Do you or don't you know of it? Just simple English. Let's pretend that we are not ticket
scientists, and we're just having a normal conversation.

Steven L: Same with the popcorn question. I don't know from what level they're being
asked. I don't know whether I should answer them from a context of you = Steven, or you = this
that is.

In the popcorn question, there's a knower (popcorn) and a known (sentence). There's duality.
Would I accept that I'm popcorn? No, because in DE there is no knower and known; there is no
separation. There is no knower in DE, just the known which is one with the knowing of it. One
could say that there would be just the sentence, which is known.

Steven L: Sorry, I'm really trying.

This is giving me a bloody headache.

Empty Mirror: My God, you can not answer from Steven

Are you Steven???

 Steven L: If I were to ignore all of the non-dual background and answer the question as an
average Joe, then yes, of course I would say I know of the sentence.

But of what use is that?

Empty Mirror: Are you a person in a body?

Yes, please, for God's sake, please forget about all of the nondual garbage that you've been
fed.

Steven L: If you want me to answer from the point of view of an individual, then yes, I'm a
person in a body.

If you want me to answer from an individual's point of view then why don't you say so?

None of these answers reflect DE, but if this is what you want then I'll play along.

Empty Mirror: Oh my God, are you serious?

Are you joking with me?

You have got to be joking with me.

Steven L: Fuckin hell man, I'm really trying here...

It might be obvious to you but I have no idea from which angle you're coming from. I'm doing
my best to follow.

Empty Mirror: Forget about what you ate. Just answer this question straight.

Are you aware of this sentence?

For GOD's SAKE, just answer this one question honestly REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU ARE

Answer this HONESTLY to yourself at least

Do you know of this sentence?

Steven L: I, Steven, know of this sentence. I can see it and read it.

Empty Mirror: I have to tell you that I have NEVER come across someone so deeply lost in
philosophy.

DE requires no philosophy degree.

You are turning thus into a totally insane thought loop.

FOR FUCK's SAKE

 What utter shit!!!!

Steven L: I don't know whether to laugh or cry. :(

Empty Mirror: I just specifically asked you a question which specifically said DO NOT ASUME
WHAT YOU ARE

Just answer the fucking question and worry what the fuck you are ***AFTER*** that

Steven L: Ok, I didn't get that. In DE, there's just the sentence.

Empty Mirror: Steven I BEG you to throw all of that shit out of the fucking window

I ***BEG*** you

Steven L: What the fuck do you want from me? You don't want me to answer from an
individual's point of view, you don't want me to look at DE. What the hell do you want?

Empty Mirror: Pleeeeeeeeeease

Steven L: I don't understand.

Empty Mirror: Please

Just answer my fucking question do you know of this sentence?

Just a normal answer None of this philosophical bullshit

Just a fucking straight answer, without some stupid fucking nondual qualification to the
answer.

It's as if you have been brainwashed, and can't just answer a question direct from the heart.

You are acting as if I am asking for one of two philosophical points of view.

You say "the question is known", as if it is known be something other that you.

And I DO NOT mean Steven when I say YOU

How the hell do you know that the sentence is known unless you know that it's known?

You and I are going to have to do some serious de-brainwashing.

I'm just astonished.

You seemed so close.

 Who did you go and speak to?

Steven L: Well, to be honest it feels like I'm close. I think we're just having trouble
communicating.

Empty Mirror: It's like you are fully back in the belief that you are Steven,

Steven L: Well, I do feel like I'm Steven 99.9% of the time.

And yes, I can see that that's just a thought.

I don't feel like I've seen through self.

Never did.

Maybe you thought I did?

Empty Mirror: No, you are not close.

You were, but something has happened in the past day or two.

Somebody has confused you again.

Steven L: Looking forward to the serious de-brainwashing.

Steven L: Ok. Well, to be honest, in the Doorway thread I never felt comfortable saying "I am
aware of this sentence." The only reason I said it is the same reason I said it today in the HoM
thread:

If "I" is being used as "knowing" here, then no, it would be absurd to deny that "I" know of the
sentence. It would be like saying that this known sentence isn't known.

Steven L: And here, if you think LU brainwashed me, you can have a look at my thread:
http://liberationunleashed.com/nation/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1876&sid=529c86a4931c1ece33c
3b9111d904e88

I was at a different place back then, had a shopping list of expectations, believed everything
thought said, etc, but if you think it can help.

Where that thread ends, I PMed with Neil for a bit and we did some Greg Goode-type inquiry.

Empty Mirror: Ok, well I'll have to speak to you some other time..

Steven L: Sure.

Empty Mirror: Just tell me one thing before I go.

Steven L: Only if you don't ask if I'm aware of this sentence.

Empty Mirror: Do you believe that you don't exist?

Steven L: :P

I believe that Steven doesn't exist.

Empty Mirror: That was NOT my question.

Steven L: Well, no. I believe the opposite and sometimes see through the belief.

Ok...

Empty Mirror: What????

Just a normal answer PLEASE

Steven L: I meant that I believe that Steven exists and sometimes see through the belief.

Empty Mirror: Just a simple yes or no

Steven L: Ok, will try to answer your question again.

Empty Mirror: Do you exist?

Yes or no ONLY as your answer *******PLEASE******

Only, only, only a yes or a no.

Do you exist.

How long does it take to type a yes or a no?

Steven L: I don't know

I know you want a yes or no, but I don't know.

I can say that I believe I exist. It would feel wrong to say otherwise.

But I can't rule out not existing yet.

That probably won't satisfy you.

Empty Mirror: Ok well if you HAD to give a yes or no answer, do you exist or not?

Steven L: It feels like I do, so yes, based on that feeling.

That feeling, that thought, whatever.

 Empty Mirror: Even when I say that you have to answer yes or no, you are unable to answer
without qualifying your answer.

Holy shit man, I've honestly never known anybody to have got themselves so confused that
they really doubt that they exist.

Even while claiming to know that this exists.

I'll catch up with you as soon as I can.

I must say that I'm pretty shattered that you are so confused after you seemed so close,

Steven L: I'm sorry.

But better that it's out in the open I guess.

Empty Mirror: Not your fault.

Trust me, no matter what those idiots have fed you. If you know of this sentence then you
most definitely do exist. And you are not a person.

Steven L: Well, I'm sure you don't mean "trust me," but ok.

We've been doing this for 2.5 hours. Sorry this took up your evening.

Anyway, you gotta go and I have to do some ashram stuff now.

Thanks for being here.

Steven L: And here's a heart, even though you were so fucking mean to me today. <3

Maybe I need to be slapped around a bit... :P

Ok, gotta go. 'Night John.

Empty Mirror: :)

Steven L: The hunt is on!

Empty Mirror: Morning :)

Steven L: Good morning!

Haven't gotten up this early in months.

I feel great!
 Empty Mirror: Cool :)

Steven L: You asked yesterday who brainwashed me into thinking I don't exist.

Empty Mirror: Yes

Who

I just can not imagine saying that "I know that this is here", and then saying "but I don't know
if I exist".

How could I possibly know that this is here, without being here to know of it??

Steven L: The answer is no one, but I did read Jed McKenna's books before HoM, which
changed everything, and "no belief is true" was drilled into me. The problem is, he says, "I am,
and no belief is true." (Paraphrasing.)

I dunno man, but I wanna get to the bottom of this. :)

Empty Mirror: Well exactly. The fact that you exist goes without saying, if you know of this
sentence

How could you know that this is here, if you aren't here to know of it?

Steven L: If I say "I know it," then I'm the knower.

But there is no knower in DE.

There's just THIS, whatever it is.

What I don't get is why I have to claim that "I exist" or "I don't exist" if both are equal
appearances in/as THIS.

Empty Mirror: ABSOLUTELY NOT

To say that you know it does NOT imply a knower

Steven L: Ok...

Empty Mirror: The VERY IDEA of "knowing" is the problem!!!

the word "know" is pointing to a QUALITY of this that you are

And you are NOT a person

The "person" is "known"

It is "known" as a part of this entire "scene" that is "known".

 And "known" is also ONLY a quality of this that you are

Steven L: Where does "this that you are" come from? The rest is crystal clear.

Empty Mirror: You just keep repeating the exact same thing over and over again, and just
absolutely refuse to answer logical questions

It is an INFERENCE by the VERY FACT that you are here

Are you here or not?

For God's sake, Steven, please just stop getting into theory and just answer a straight question

Steven L: I don't know damnit! Thinking always goes back to a "me" but I always dismiss it
cause it's a thought.

Empty Mirror: OMG thought is all that you have to work with !!!!!!!

Steven L: Ok...

Empty Mirror: Pease, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please,
please, please, please forget about all of the shit that you have been told.

Steven L: What shit do you want me to discard and what shit do you want me to keep?

Yesterday I answered from the POV of your average Joe and that wasn't what you were
looking for.

Empty Mirror: Now just forget about the question of what you are for now. Pretend that
you never heard of this type of enquiry before, and just answer the questions NORMALLY -
WITHOUT THE NONDUAL BULLSHIT.

FOR CHRIST SAKE, STEVEN!!

Stop telling me what fucking perspective you are answering it from, because you OBVIOUSLY
don't have any idea what perspective you are answering from.

Are you aware of this sentence or not?

Steven L: If I drop the "nondual bullshit" then I believe I'm this person. That's how I feel.

Empty Mirror: I DID NOT FUCKING ASK THAT!!!!!!!

Steven L: And given that, yes, I'm aware of this sentence.

Empty Mirror: I ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to carry on with you if you keep qualifying your
answers.
 I want a straight fucking answer, without any qualification at all.

Are you or are you not aware of this sentence?

***ONLY*** yes or no.

Steven L: Yes.

Empty Mirror: Thank you

Thank God

Steven L: I don't like it though.

Empty Mirror: You don't like it because of all of the shit that you have been told

Steven L: Fine, have me see that.

Empty Mirror: I don't think that I can Steven

Steven L: I only said yes because it feels more true than no.

Empty Mirror: Well thank GOD for that

Steven L: But it doesn't feel right in that I wouldn't stake my life on it.

But if I had to make a choice I'd go with yes.

Which I did.

Empty Mirror: Please tell me who has been teaching you or guiding you

I want to speak to that person online and tear him a new asshole

Whoever has been teaching you is a confused fucking idiot spreading his confusion, and
creating a VERY BIG problem.

Your problem is WAY worse than believing that you are a person.

Way, way worse.

Jed McKenna has never said "I don't exist"

Steven L: Things started changing with LU and Neil. No one else guided me but him. Then I
read Jed's books and that changed everything. I did my own inquiry into belief. Then I joined
HoM and was guided by you. It's at about that point that this happened.
I said that didn't I? :)

Empty Mirror: Yes

And Neil certainly didn't ever say that to you

Steven L: Yes, I know.

Empty Mirror: And nobody in HoM has ever said it

Steven L: I know.

Looking into belief led to this then.

Didn't have a guide for that except "no belief is true."

Empty Mirror: Ok, if you don't exist, but this does, what is this?

Steven L: This is life.

Empty Mirror: How do you know?

Why is that not a belief too?

Steven L: What else could it be?

Hmm.

I guess that is a belief. This is indescribable, yet you're asking me to describe it.

Empty Mirror: What is this "me" that you are referring to?

Steven L: Steven.

Empty Mirror: So are you a person?

Steven L: In speech, yes.

Empty Mirror: What does that mean? I asked you if you are a person?

Steven L: No.

There's belief in being a person though.

Empty Mirror: How do you know?

Steven L: How do I know I'm not a person?

 Empty Mirror: How do you know that there is a belief?

Steven L: Because the belief in being a person isn't substantiated in DE.

Empty Mirror: And how do you know that?

Steven L: Because this body is known, just as everything else in THIS is known.

Empty Mirror: If you don't exist, how do you know that though?

Steven L: This is where I get confused.

Empty Mirror: So would I be

I would wonder how I could possibly know something if I don't exist

Steven L: "If you don't exist, how do you know that though?"

Do "I" know that? It feels more like it's just known.

The answer is appearing in THIS.

Empty Mirror: The answer is appearing to what?

What knows of the answer?

Steven L: Can I say THIS?

Empty Mirror: Sure.

So you are claiming that this knows of this? Well then how do you know of it too?

You obviously do, because you are telling me about it.

Steven L: Again, this is where I'm confused. It's like you keep trying to wedge a "me" in
there.

Empty Mirror: If this only knew of itself, how do you explain that you do too, unless you are
this that knows of itself?

Steven L: Yes, I saw what you were getting at...

Empty Mirror: But YOU are the one claiming all of this?? How can I ignore you???

YOU are the one claiming all of this stuff, so how can I possibly ignore you?????

Steven L: If you're saying that I'm the one claiming all this stuff, then you're saying that I'm
the person sitting at this computer, thinking and typing away.
 Empty Mirror: Rubbish.

Steven L: Yes, the person is seemingly claiming all this stuff.

Empty Mirror: I am addressing that which knows of this sentence right now.

Steven L: And that's appearing in THIS.

Empty Mirror: I am addressing that which knows of this sentence

Is that which knows of this sentence, in some way separate from this that is?

Steven L: No, this that is the knowing of itself.

And I truly appreciate that expression now.

I get it.

But I don't see where labelling that "me" comes in.

Empty Mirror: Labels are only pointers - they can only point.

"This" points to this that is the knowing of itself. "I" points to this that is the knowing of itself.

Look at the word "I" and think about when you say "I" know that this is here.

What is it that knows that it is here?

Steven L: This that is knows that this is here.

This is weird.

Empty Mirror: If this is the knowing of itself, what is it that knows this is here?

Can you see that the words "I know that this is here", can only be known by this that is the
knowing of itself? So the "I" can only point to this knowing beingness?

Yes, this, AND ONLY this, could possibly know that it is here.

So if you know that this is here, then you can not possibly be other than this that is here.

Steven L: I see your logic. Hold on.

Empty Mirror: Logic is all there is in this game of concepts.

If you can't rely on logic then you have absolutely no way to investigate anything.

And logically, if you know that this is here, you must be here to know of this.
 And if you are not a person, and there is no separation, then you can only possibly be this that
is the knowing of itself.

Steven L: The "I" in "I am going to the market" doesn't point to this that is. It points to the
person.

Empty Mirror: Yes, but if you say I know then you are pointing to this "knowing".

So that which knows, does not go to market.

The going to market is "known".

Whenever you say "I know", you are pointing to this knowingknown.

When the word "I" points to a person, then it is pointing to an appearance in this
knowingknown, but when you say "I know", you are pointing directly to this that is the knowing
of itself.

Steven L: Ok.

Empty Mirror: The point is really that the knowing of this can in no way be separated from
it, so if "you" know of this, you can not possibly be other than this.

That doesn't mean that you have to be anything specific, it means that you have to be this, in
its ENTIRETY.

Or you could say that there is no "you" that is separate, different, or other than, this that is
the knowing of itself.

Do you see that?

Empty Mirror: So there is no "you" that can be found as a separate thing in this.

Steven L: Vaguely.

This is what nudged me:

"Look at the word 'I' and think about when you say "I" know that this is here.

What is it that knows that it is here?"

Empty Mirror: Ok, well only you, and you alone, can know whether you know of this, but
since this is the knowing of itself, if you do know of it, do you see that you can not be in any way
separate, different to, or other than it?

Steven L: Yes, I can see that if I know of THIS, then I am inseparable from THIS.
 Empty Mirror: Woohoooooo!!! :)

Steven L: IF.

Empty Mirror: Then you can not possibly be Steven

Because Steven knows nothing about this.

If what? :D

Only you know whether you know of this :)

Obviously if you don't know of this, then you have to be somehow separate from this.

Because this that is, is indivisible,

Steven L: My mind's turned to mush.

Empty Mirror: :)

Steven L: Can't make sense of what you're saying.

You're celebrating but this is far from over.

I think I need a break.

I see your logic. If THIS is the knowing of itself, and I know of THIS, then I can be nothing other
than THIS that is.

THIS knows of THIS. I know of THIS. THIS = I.

Ok.

Empty Mirror: Yes.

And remember that there is only this ONE knowingknown

So there is only ONE knowing of itself

If you know of this, then you can be the ***ONLY**** one.

Steven L: Yes, I think that was clear.

Empty Mirror: So you and you alone can be this that is the knowing of itself.

Not Steven, but you that knows of this.

And that knows of Steven.
Steven L: Arg.
 You're jumping ahead.

"I am THIS" is on very shaky ground now. I'm trying to work it out.

No, "I am" is on very shaky ground.

"I know."

Empty Mirror: Forget about "I am"

This is the knowing of itself. If "you" know of it, you can not possibly be other than it.

Steven L: "I know THIS" is on very shaky ground.

Not convinced that "I" know of it yet.

Trying to work it out but you keep typing!! :P

Empty Mirror: Well only you can possibly know whether you know of it

Your ENTIRE issue is with the word "I". It's as if you are stuck on that word.

How can I refer to that which knows of this sentence without using a word to point to that
which knows of this sentence????

It is utterly impossible to point to that which is aware of this sentence witout using a word to
point to it.

So I use the word "you"

And when you point to that which is aware of this sentence, you say: "I know that this exists"
so the word "I" is CLEARLY pointing to that which knows of this sentence.

Steven L: You're confusing me again.

Had my foot in the door.

Look, I need to sit with this on my own.

Empty Mirror: Ok :)

Steven L: This is hanging by a thread.

I'll brb.

Fuckin hell.
 I had it for a second.

Empty Mirror: ok, cya :)

Steven L: Whatever it was, it's completely gone now. It wasn't much to start with anyway, so
whatever.

Reread our convo just now and can't make sense of it. :(

Empty Mirror: It was very important, but we can get back to it :)

Steven L: Ok, looking forward to that. :)

Steven L: Hey John.

You ready for round 3? :D

*ding* *ding*

Empty Mirror: Sorry buddy, not tonight :)

Busy with my younger son and amid some huge joy.

He broke down in tears of joy and relief last night, when he suddenly saw what was being
pointed at :)

Has only just been able to contact me because he had no phone and was alone.

Steven L: Eh? Wow!

Ok man, no worries.

Enjoy your time together.

<3 :)

Empty Mirror: Thanks buddy :) <3

Steven L: Top of the morning to you John!

Here are my thoughts of the morning:

What you were getting at yesterday and the day before was that if I claim that THIS is known,
then I know of THIS. Is that right?

Who can claim anything but a person? I now agree that if Steven claims that THIS is known,
then Steven knows of THIS. That makes perfect sense. You can't claim that something is known
unless you know about it.
 You're saying though that "I" points to THIS that is the knowing of itself. I don't understand
how the "I" in "I know of THIS" can point to THIS that is the knowing of itself and not Steven.

In "THIS is known" or "I know of THIS," is THIS claiming that it knows of itself? Is that possible?
Can THIS claim anything?

When you ask me, "Do you know of THIS?" is THIS asking itself if it knows of itself?

Hmm... What is it that can know of THIS if THIS is all there is? Only itself. If I claim that THIS is
known, then, according to you, I'm claiming that I know of THIS. It would mean that I am THIS
that is the knowing of itself.

Still don't see how "THIS is known" is the same as "I know of THIS" if there is no person
making the initial claim.

THIS can only be known by itself though. When "THIS is known" is claimed, it actually means,
"THIS is known by itself." If the "I" in "I know of THIS" stands for THIS that is the knowing of
itself, then there would be no problem in saying it. Both "THIS is known" and "I know of THIS"
would mean the same thing.

Any knowing can only be known by itself. Therefore, in any claim of "I know..." the "I" can only
point to THIS that is the knowing of itself. That is the only possibility.

Steven L: Anything known is known by THIS that is. Any claim of knowing something is made
on behalf of THIS that is. I know = THIS that is knows.

Steven L: So let me get this straight. The expression "I know <insert choice known>" only
exists as thought. It can be spoken or written, but first it appears as thought. So during the
course of the day (and night), any such thought that comes up is really just THIS expressing itself
in a way that points directly to itself. It's a reminder saying, "Hey! Remember me? Just knowing
myself here. What else can know anything but me? I'm the knowing of this known that I am."
Actually, it's not just when such an "I know..." thought comes up, but all the time, every time
something is known, which is... always.

Steven L: Are we on the right track here?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmFHy1zjDBw

:D

Empty Mirror: G'day, Steven, you're pretty close, but not quite.

Steven NEVER says anything, and Steven never does anything because Steven knows nothing
about anything.

He seems to do stuff but he isn't. The show is just playing out.

 The dream ALONE knows what's happening, and all activity is sourced in the dream alone.

The dream is pointing back to itself.

This alone knows what it shows up as.

Empty Mirror: Been a busy social day here, and still have visitors, but do you see the big
difference?

Steven may say stuff like "I am aware of this", but he knows nothing about what he is saying.

**ONLY** this dream that dreams itself, knows about ANY of this.

So if you know of it you can be nothing other than this dream that dreams itself.

Do you see that?

Steven L: Right, Steven doesn't know of anything. Anything known can be known by THIS
alone, for everything is nothing but THIS. Only THIS can know itself. What else could there be to
know? If something else were found, that too would be known.

"I am aware of THIS" still appears. The only thing that can know of THIS, as stated above, is
THIS, therefore "I" can only be THIS that is.

Steven L: There's only one knowing, the knowing with which THIS is known. The "totality"
that THIS is, knows itself. That's it.

Empty Mirror: Yup :)

And therefore you alone are this that is :)

Steven L: Ok.

So what's next? :P

This understanding's wobbly as fuck and seems like I convinced myself of it, except that it's
logical. I'll be looking for holes.

Oh shit, there's only knowing.

Knowing-being.

Whatever thought describes, the thought itself is known.

If it spins a story of fear, that story's only made of knowing. The content's irrelevant.

All content's irrelevant, because it always boils down to knowing-being.

 All content's irrelevant, because all appearances* always boil down to knowing-being.

Haha.

I was reading SC's thread on belief from yesterday, where Rita refuses to look. You ask, "Rita,
what is it that could fear anything, EVER?" I thought, "Well, why don't we have a look?" And this
came up.

There's nothing that can fear anything. Stories of fear arise and these thoughts are known just
like anything else.

Knowing's seamless. Not just between knowing-known, but also between all supposed
"knowns." There's just this one knowing.

Knowing-beingness.

Empty Mirror: Seems that you get it :)

Steven L: So long as you don't ask me what's aware of this sentence!

Oh, I mean, if I'm aware of this sentence.

You should ask though, just for the hell of it. :)

Empty Mirror: Yes, knowing-beingness, knowingknown, "I am", "the Self", oneness, and
many other labels.

I used to talk about this as awarebeingness.

just labels.

Of course you are aware of this sentence. You are aware of EVERYTHING

Steven L: :)

Empty Mirror: Because you are this that is aware of itself. :)

And since you ALONE know of this, obviously nobody has ever shown you anything :)

Steven L: When would that have happened? Who'd have done it? Who'd have been
showed? The entire story is known as a thought arising now.

Who knows the story? I do. Only I can know anything. And since the knowing is one with the
known...

Inseparable from the known...

Well bloody hell, I'm this that is.

 Empty Mirror: It didn't ever happen :)

Nobody knows the story

It's just a story showing up right now.

And known by this that manifests as the story and knows of itself.

Steven L: Didn't mean "I" the person. :P

Empty Mirror: Of course you didn't :)

Steven L: "It's just a story showing up right now.

And known by this that manifests as the story and knows of itself."

I believe that's what I meant.

Unless you see a discrepancy that I don't.

Empty Mirror: Nothing can ever believe anything. Beliefs are just thoughts that other
thoughts say are true.

Always seen in utter clarity by this in/as which they show up as.

Steven L: Yes.

Empty Mirror: Sounds like this is clear now :)

Steven L: Meh, needs to settle.

Empty Mirror: And this can be tested and retested against DE, and the result is always the
same :)

Steven L: Although that doesn't mean much now does it. :P

Empty Mirror: Settle for what/who? :)

Steven L: What's to settle?

Empty Mirror: Exactly :)

Steven L: Ok, well let's see what happens.

Empty Mirror: Gotta go now. People still here.

Peace <3
 Steven L: Morning John!

Empty Mirror: Gday Steven :)

So is this a bit clearer now?

Steven L: Funny enough it feels like the other way around. :P

Empty Mirror: Well while you believe that you don't exist, you couldn't possibly be more
confused :)

There is ONLY ONE thing that you can be sure beyond any doubt or thought - and that is that
you exist. That you are 'here'.

Steven L: Not sure what I believed, but it doesn't feel like there's much difference, except
that now there seems to be more trouble "accessing" this, thinking about this, doing inquiry,
etc.

Ok, let's see if I have a handle on that.

Empty Mirror: It is the ONLY thing that you can know beyond any doubt, because you are
here to know of thoughts - even tough thoughts are pure emptiness - ZERO meaning

Steven L: Hmm...

Don't I know everything equally?

Empty Mirror: You know of everything yes

but since thoughts have no meaning, knowledge is just pure rubbish

if thoughts suddenly turned into the tweeting of birds, you would sstill know of everything
turning up

Steven L: Didn't mean "know" as in knowledge, more knowing of everything.

Empty Mirror: You would still know of sensations, perceptions, tweeting of birds, and there
would be ZERO knowledge.

Steven L: Knowledge as in store-house?

Empty Mirror: Knowledge as in the content of thought

There is no storehouse

The ONLY knowledge that exists is whatever thoughts are showing up right now.
 Steven L: Yes, I know that. Trying to understand how you're using the word.

Ok.

Ok, this hasn't been seen. Can't remember why "THIS exists" = "I exist." Trying to work it out
again.

Ok, if I say "THIS exists," it's the same as saying "I know that THIS exists," and since the only
thing that can know of THIS is THIS itself, then I = THIS.

Empty Mirror: Because you know of it, and it is pure knowingknown

Steven L: Have I got that right?

Empty Mirror: Yes :)

Steven L: Well, it seems logical.

But I seem to need to be reminded again and again and again.

Empty Mirror: Forget about logical

Steven L: It's not intuitive.

Empty Mirror: Look at the DE of it

Intuitive is always in thought

Just look at the DE

Zero division between knowing and known

No thinker of thought

No others

DE will show it all to you

Because you are all that is here

Steven L: Yep, see all that in DE.

Don't see that in DE. :P

Empty Mirror: Well is there a sense of "hereness"/"presence"?

Steven L: Not sure.

 Hereness, yes

The presence of THIS, I guess.

Empty Mirror: Ok, so if you are here, and know of this, and this that is here, is the knowing
of itself, it's pretty clear.

Steven L: THIS is here so it must be present. Ok. Hereness and presence, check.

I don't see that I'm here and that I know of this in DE.

Ok, we're back to the same thing.

Empty Mirror: It's just a matter of realising that the "you" and "I" that are used is because
there is no other way to point back to this presence that "you" are not other than.

How could you possibly be other than this, if you know of it?

You ABSOLUTELY have to stop thinking that the "you" is pointing to a person.

Steven knows NOTHING about this

Steven L: Well, look, we're talking DE.

In DE there's no "I know THIS."

There's just THIS this-ing.

Empty Mirror: You can not possibly be separate from this knowingknown if you know of it.

Steven L: Ok. I see that.

Empty Mirror: In DE there is the knowing of this

Steven L: Logically.

Right...

Empty Mirror: In DE there is the knowing of this. And that very knowing is this that is the
knowing of itself.

Steven L: Got it.

Empty Mirror: So the "you" is pointing to that which is the knowing of itself.

Steven L: Where'd "you" come from now?

What "you"?
 Empty Mirror: Just words floating around in this, and the "I" has always pointed to this
knowingknown

Steven L: The word "I"?

Empty Mirror: Yes, when you say "I" know, you are pointing to that which is the knowing of
this.

Because only this knows

Steven L: Got that.

Yes, ok, that's clear.

Sorta.

I know what you mean anyway.

Empty Mirror: LOL :D

Steven L: Well it's better than two days ago. :P

Empty Mirror: "You" are all that is here

Steven and Empty know absolutely nothing about this

Steven L: The you/I in "I know"?

Empty Mirror: Yes

When I say "you" I am referring to this knowingknown that knows of this sentence

Steven L: Well not all that time.

You asked if I lived in India permanently.

So you doesn't always point to THIS.

The "I" in thinking doesn't always point to THIS.

Empty Mirror: When I say it to you it does. When you say it to me it doesn't

Steven L: It tells a story about "I" the person.

Empty Mirror: No it doesn't!!

It addresses that which knows of this sentence

 How else do you point directly with words to that which is the knowing of this sentence??

Steven L: When a thought says, "Shit, I don't wanna work today," or "I'm tired," or "This
fucking heat's killing me," it's pointing to THIS that is?

The "I," I mean.

The "I" is pointing to THIS that is?

Empty Mirror: Correct

Sometimes it points to the idea of an individual in this

Steven L: ...

Empty Mirror: But when you say "I hear" you are really pointing directly to that which
knows of the sound

Steven L: The "I" in those thoughts* is pointing to THIS that is?

Empty Mirror: No, you are typing too fast

I'm replying to earlier messages

Steven L: I'm the one with the shitty connection! :P

Ok...

Empty Mirror: But when I say "you" in this conversation, I am most often pointing directly
to this knowingknown that knows of this sentence.

Obviously not with questions like do you live in India :)

Steven L: Alright...

If I say "I hear" then I'm really saying "I know of this sound." What is the only thing that can
know of this sound? THIS that is, itself. So "I" = THIS that is.

Empty Mirror: Exactly

Steven L: Any type of knowing basically.

Empty Mirror: Yup

Steven L: So the notion of doing only exists in thought. THIS never does anything.

THIS knows of the thought that speaks of doing though.

 Empty Mirror: Exactly

Yup

And Steven knows **NOTHING**, sp if you know of the thought, you can be nothing other
than this.

Steven L: Ok, let's stop here for a second.

"I know of the thought" is in speech, thought.

Empty Mirror: Huh???

Steven L: "I hear the sound" is expressed in speech, thought.

That's what I mean.

Empty Mirror: Yes, words can only ever point

Steven L: So we're talking about the knowing related in speech, in thought, in words?

Empty Mirror: We're talking about awareness of thoughts

Steven L: But "I know of the thought" only comes up in a thought, in words.

Empty Mirror: And points to what?

Steven L: To THIS that is the knowing of itself.

"I know of the thought" = "THIS knows of THIS"

Empty Mirror: Yes

Steven L: Ok. Scrolling up.

Empty Mirror: :)

Steven L: "It's just a matter of realising that the 'you' and 'I' that are used is because there is
no other way to point back to this presence that 'you' are not other than."

Empty Mirror: This knowingknown

That is "here"

This known that is the knowing of itself

Steven L: There's no other way to point back to THIS in words, you mean?
 Empty Mirror: Yes

Steven L: Hmm...

Lemme try to find another way! 3:)

Empty Mirror: Is it necessary? If this knowingknown is all that is here, and "you"
(knowingknown) know of this sentence, then "you" can not possibly be other than this
knowingknown.

And Steven and all other appearances in this have NEVER known anything.

Steven L: Right, cause only this knowingknown can ever know of anything.

Cause only I can ever know of anything?

Yes, I guess that works.

Empty Mirror: Correct :)

Steven L: Meh.

Well, dunno of it's just a matter of this settling and getting used to some "I"s pointing to THIS
while other "I"s will keep pointing to a supposed person.

Not sure where the hiccup is.

Empty Mirror: Who/what is it that needs convincing of anything?

Is there anything here that could be confused.

Steven L: Hmm, just thought.

Empty Mirror: Yup :)

Steven L: Thought fluff, I mean.

Empty Mirror: Yup :)

Nothing is really confused about anything

Nothing is not seeing everything perfectly clearly

Steven L: Anything that isn't knowing is just thought fluff?

Empty Mirror: Yup

 And all thought fluff is always seen in total clarity

Nothing is confused about it

Steven L: Right, cause seeing clearly is knowing. Knowing of thoughts speaking of confusion
is also clear seeing.

Empty Mirror: yup

Steven L: Ok. How can confusion exist in knowing? Knowing is clear seeing. Everything is
known. Everything is seen clearly, even thoughts of confusion.

Empty Mirror: Yup

Steven L: Ok.

Ok. I think my problem is/was that I couldn't see how thought content could point to THIS that
is the knowing of itself, how any claim of "I know..." is a direct pointer to THIS.

I was seeing that thoughts and all other appearances were simply arisings in THIS, as THIS,
that the knowing and known were inseparable.

Empty Mirror: Somehow this points back to itself :)

Steven L: Does that make sense?

Empty Mirror: Yes

Steven L: I don't think I was so confused. :P

I just couldn't talk about it or understand what others were saying about it.

The Understanding was there though.

Or maybe it's more than that.

Empty Mirror: Of course it's more than that - the "understanding" is also just a pointer
pointing back to this that is indivisible :)

Steven L: Which understanding?

Empty Mirror: This knowingknown can never be understood , because concepts could
never capture that of shich they are only abstractions

Thoughts now point to this that is the knowing of itself, rather than to the idea of something
separate in this now.

Steven L: Ahh...
 Ok, that's pretty important.

Empty Mirror: LOL :D

Steven L: Could I replace that with, "Some thought content now points to this that is the
knowing of itself"?

Empty Mirror: To who/what? :)

Steven L: Cause all thoughts are made of knowing.

Empty Mirror: Yes :)

Yes

There will still be thoughts that point to something separate in this

Those thoughts will always do that

Because thought knows nothing about any of this

Thought does not see this indivisibility.

Steven L: Important to who/what? Hmm... Not me.

Empty Mirror: Only this that is the knowing of itself sees its own indivisibility - in the
'reflection' of thoughts

Do you see that thought knows nothing about any of this?

Steven L: Yet some thought content can seem to point to this anyway.

Empty Mirror: Yes

And once it does, thoughts seem to become very transparent

They never get to rebuild the idea of an individual in this

Even though they talk about it

Steven L: Thought can't know. Only I, this knowingknown, can know. Thoughts are known.

Empty Mirror: Yup

Steven L: "And once it does..." And once what does?

Empty Mirror: Once thought has pointed back to this indivisibility, the thoughts about an
individual become somehow more 'transparent'

Steven L: Interesting.

Ok, let's see where this goes.

Nice talk John. :)

Infinite thanks. :) <3

Empty Mirror: you're welcome :)

Nobody here to thank anyway ;) <3

Matt B:
Hello, I've been around LU and other portals and studies for a while, and have
acted as a guide, as well. I can easily and heartily agree with the three points: 1)
obviously there's nothing but experience, 2) no border is experienced between
knowing and known, 3) knowing that I'm knowing, I have to be knowing-known /
known knowing.

And yet, I have no evidence of 'awakening' in terms of ending the search or

pacifying egoic obsession and conflict. So I assume there's a deep intellectual
understanding, and even confirmed glimpses of awakening. But it's not manifest yet,
in my opinion.

There are a couple overwhelming ongoing challenges in my lifestory right now. This
has seemingly added to the doubt and lack of penetration experienced.

My question is, can known knowing really be unshakable, finally ending the search
for itself?

I'm not sure who to ask for help. I have seen Vivi and Sunni around for a while, and
know I like and respect you. Also have to say, I have limited time due to full time
work and childcare, but I can post about once a day.

With gratitude and warmth,

M

Kari: Hi Matt. Vivi is out for a day or two. So is SC.

I am happy to step in, (or you can wait) until they come back.

In the meantime, you may want to check out some of the 1:1 threads here in The
Doorway. Good stuff.

In fact, it can be helpful to look at your own direct experience as you're reading the
questions that were asked in these threads.

Matt B: It would be wonderful to dialogue with you, Kari, thanks for being here.

Kari: Great! I will be home and back on line in a couple of hours.

Kari: Hello Matt

I‘m going to start off with this before jumping in to the ongoing challenges in the Matt
lifestory.

You said: ―…I have no evidence of 'awakening' in terms of ending the search…‖
Can you find ‗awakening‘ in your direct experience of being? If so, what do you find?
Please describe it.

‗Search‘ – Is there anyone searching? Can you find a person who searches, or is that just
a thought?

What about ‗intellectual understanding or glimpses? Can you find a person who would
have glimpses?

Let me know what you find.

Matt B: Thank you. I want to spend the night with these questions.

Matt B: 1) In direct experience of being, there is no awakening or lack of awakening.

However, being is awake. So my question becomes, is there any non-direct experience of

being, or conditions where being/awakeness is not experienced?

2,3) In the direct experience of being there is no seeker or glimpser or intellect.

Is there any non-direct experience of being, or conditions where absence of individual

self is not experienced?

Kari: Hi Matt

You asked: "is there any non-direct experience of being, or conditions where
being/awakeness is not experienced?"

Direct Experience is nowness/hereness/beingness.

Is anything not experience?
Can you find a non-direct experience?

You asked: ..."or conditions where absence of individual self is not experienced?"

Do you find an individual self?

Or...
Is "individual self" just a thought?

Matt B: Thanks for enhancing the additional inquiry questions I found.

If "individual self" were ultimately a thought, then thoughts would apparently exist as
non-direct experiences of being-ness. So my inquiry question seems to remain: is there
any indirect experience of being? Are there real thoughts?

In direct experience of beingness there are no self-thoughts, no indirectness. This fact

doesn't yet seem to address the thoughts and illusions that bring suffering. For some
reason, I don't want to prematurely claim that there are no thoughts, no suffering, no
indirect experience of being....

Matt B: To answer your first question more directly

Can I find a non-direct experience of reality? Yes, a thought.
Can I find a thought? Not yet.

Matt B: Do you find an individual self? Yes, as a habitual thought (and the fact that it's
not real doesn't seem to make a practical difference).

Kari: I'm at the office and will respond to you when I get home in a few hours.

Kari: You asked, "Are there real thoughts?"

If by real, you mean true, then no. Thought knows nothing of experience.

When I asked you if you could find an individual self, you said, "Yes, as a habitual
thought."

It's really thought, referencing a separate self.

Another thought saying, "Yeah! That's true!"
Another shows up and says, "I've got some big problems."
Another shows up and says, "I don't know how to deal with them."
^^^^ All that, is thought saying that another thought is true.

The sense of an individual self seems to drop when the idea of a separate self is seen for
what it is... thought.
Thoughts can still refer to 'me', but it's not taken as true. And what you are, never took
them as true.

In looking at what you called your lifestory, can you see the thoughts saying that other
thoughts are true? Take a closer look at these self-referencing thoughts. Can you see how
they 'build' a story of a Matt?

What you are, doesn't believe in anything.

What you are isn't affected by anything, ever.
What you are has never searched for enlightenment/liberation/freedom.

There is no end to a search that never began.

Matt B: Thank you. Yes, I do see, in general, how thoughts-about-thoughts build a

lifestory, and the appearance of a separate, substantial person. Also, I see in specific
instances how this transpired. Also, right now, looking at thought and sensation, I can see
how the interpretation "self" appears and is apparently believed. But nothing has seemed
to "drop"....

Kari: Hi Matt - You say that you do see, in general...

By "in general" what do you mean?

And by "Drop," you mean the sense of a separate self, yes? What are you expecting with
the "drop"?

Let's look at that a little closer then. Start with the basics.
Are you in a body? Can you think up thoughts?

Matt B: Sorry, I didn't mean 'I see in general,' rather with a comma: 'I see, (that) in
general...,' the life-story being a generality.

I was quoting you when I said "drop". The expectation is that the sense of self would
drop when it "drops", and this would be recognizable and not imagined.

When I'm looking it's clear I'm not in or of a body or a mind. Both body and mind are
perceptual arisings, and a perceptual arising can't be a container for other arisings ("in a
body"). Nor can an arising cause another to come into being ("think up thoughts").

When I'm not looking, yes, there is apparent bodymind identification at play, with
containment and causation stuff.

This is a great little contemplation, btw, thanks for the gift:

"What you are, doesn't believe in anything.

What you are isn't affected by anything, ever.
What you are has never searched for enlightenment/liberation/freedom.

There is no end to a search that never began."

Kari: My last question for the day. You aren't a thinker of thoughts. You aren't in a
body. What are you?

Matt B: ....No-thing somehow pretending to be a thing.

Kari: Interesting. How can a no-thing do anything? Take a look at your direct
experience and see if you can find this No-thing.

Matt B: Beautiful question. Of course nothing wouldn't be nothing if it could be found.

But neither would nothing be nothing if it were an "it" to do something.
I'll try to let some direct looking happen and write back tomorrow.
Thanks so much.

Kari: You are what is aware of this sentence. Look for that. Good night, Matt.

Matt B: Thanks, I get the feeling I could look at that and remind myself of that and
contemplate that, etc. for a very long time....
Kari: Time is nothing but a belief.

And since you're not the 'thinker of thoughts' or a person in a body, can you really
contemplate anything?

This may seem like I'm being nit-picky, but it's a way to get at any beliefs that are
showing up.

Do you exist? I'm not asking Matt the character. I am asking that which is knowing of
this comment.

Matt B: The warmth of YES appears, as well as the clarity of 'no answer' (insofar as I
am not the thinker or contemplator, neither am I the answerer of questions.)

Kari: Ok. "The warmth of YES" is the answer to the question that I was asking YOU.
Matt is completely unaware of YOU.

Kari: So, let's look further at this, YOU.

YOU are THIS that is.

What is THIS that is?
It is experience that is aware of itself.
In fact, there is nothing but experience and YOU are it!
What is, just as it is right now, is what YOU are.

Notice the scene in front of you. That scene is known, is it not?

Who or what knows of it?
Can you find a knower or just a knowing?

Matt B: Ah, this is nice! Knowing experiencing is everywhere found. The Knower I
could never find, and that was incredibly frustrating. Knowing experiencing is simply
present, no problem....

Kari: Yes. No knower. You said in your OP that you can't find a division between
known and knowing.

Have you noticed that in your experience, thought cannot possibly label every little
thing?

Take driving for example.

Hands (connected to arms) on the steering wheel. Legs and feet. Dashboard and mirrors.
Trees, cars, trucks, road, lines, dirt, hood, sky, sounds, pedestrians and all kinds of stuff.
Way too much for thought to label.
See if you can notice one seamless scene without the thought labels; no matter what's
happening.
Take a close look at this.
You are knowing of it; the knowingknown.

The known doesn't exist without the knowing of it.

Knowing doesn't exist without the known.

Look carefully at this. No division, yes?

Matt B: Yes, knowing does not equal labeling or cognition.

Yes, there is no division between knowing and the known.

Matt B: Whether the known is labelled or not, it is "experience".

Matt B: There's no 'me' to be found other than experience.

Matt B: "Knowing doesn't exist without the known." Meaning, they arise together? To
whom?

Matt B: To knowing-known itself, seamlessly; experiencing appearing to

experiencing....

Matt B: The intellectual consciousness is strong in me, this morning.

Matt B: I'm wary of adopting a view, rather than seeing.

Kari: Good morning, Matt. Thank you for the chuckle.

You said, "There's no 'me' to be found other than experience."

When you say, 'me' are you speaking of the idea or sense of a 'me' or are you speaking of
that is aware of this comment?

To answer your knowing question.

There cannot be an unknown. As soon as you are knowing of it, it is known. If there is no
known, there cannot possibly be a knowing.

What YOU are, is the knowing of itself (the known). One does not exist independently of
the other. It's impossible.
YOU are this self-aware dream/play/game/life (whatever you'd like to call it).

Matt B: "When you say, 'me' are you speaking of the idea or sense of a 'me' or are you
speaking of that is aware of this comment?"
Two 'me's (awareness and a sense/idea) are not found. The idea 'me' is
experienced/experience too....
Matt B: no division between the so-called "false self" and the experiencing I am....

Kari: "Two 'me's (awareness and a sense/idea) are not found."

I'm not sure what you mean, here.

The idea of a 'me' is just that...an idea/thought.

The "awareness" is not found.

Do you mean the awareness of a sense of a 'me'?
Or do you mean that YOU as awareness, is not found?

You said: "The idea 'me' is experienced/experience too...."

Can you find anything that was EXPERIENCED?

Look at this one closely. It's got a couple of beliefs floating around it. Try and find them.

Matt B: The proposed division between awareness and the thought "me" is not found.

Kari: Thank you!

Matt B: "Can you find anything that was EXPERIENCED?" I love this question. I can't
find a thing that was experienced, outside the experiencing. The idea 'me' is not found,
and the awareness is not found as a thing.

Kari: And what about "Experienced"?

Matt B: Ha. "Experienced" is a thought. A thought is not proof of anything.

Kari: What are some of the beliefs that float around that word?

Matt B: Beliefs: a real thought is out there, being experienced. Experiencing happens in
time. An experiencer is doing the experiencing....

Kari: Beautiful! Yes. Time. An experiencer. So, you want to try a cool and fun
experiment for the weekend? Or do you have something you'd like to discuss?

Matt B: Experiment! Soon I'll be away from computer for a day.

Kari: Here it is.

Have fun with it.

Throughout the weekend, notice the ONE scene without all the thought labels.
Thought‘s going to label and tell stories about it. That‘s what it does. It has no clue about
anything. So don‘t bother with the BS it may say. Just notice the ONE scene.

Notice that without the knowing of the scene, it wouldn‘t exist.

Really check this out. This is pretty huge.

Notice that at all ‗times‘, YOU (beingness/isness/hereness) are aware of the ONE scene.
THIS show/dream/life is always on. ALWAYS.
Just for fun, try and find when it‘s not on.

Play with this ‗ONE scene‘ thing for a couple of days.

Then…

Notice that since nothing exists without your knowing (or awareness) of it, that YOU
must be it.

It‘s pretty incredible to SEE that you are this self-aware dream!

Nothing exists without YOU knowing of it.

THIS is it! And YOU are THIS.

Feel free to post your discoveries or questions here throughout the weekend.

Matt B: Thanks. One question involves my challenges alluded to in the OP: I'm either
working or taking care of my twin toddlers almost all day every day; it's hard to make
time for any sustained contemplation. Brief flashes or short, penetrating investigations
are what I might have to rely upon. To manage that in an unexpected free moment, I need
to be ready. So, question: could you help me boil the experiment down to an extremely
compact instruction that I can easily take with me? My version, so far, is:
1) Drop labeling. What is experienced?
2) Can this 'experienced' be separate from 'experiencing'?

Kari: Twin toddlers! Wow!

Matt: ..."it's hard to make time for any sustained contemplation."

Just thought saying that. ^^^^ In fact, thought seems to be saying a lot about 'time' in your
comment. Time is a belief. Only this moment exists, and the word 'moment' even implies
time.
When you look at your direct experience, can you find anything other than NOW? Can
you be busy, or is it just thought saying that Matt is busy?

My version, so far, is:

1) Drop labeling. What is experienced?
2) Can this 'experienced' be separate from 'experiencing'?

1) Who or what can drop anything? Nothing is ever experienced. That implies 'time' and
a person.
2) Can this 'experienced' be separate from 'experiencing'? (See above)

Shorter instruction:
1) Simply notice your experience. No concentration or concerted effort necessary.
2) Everything is experience.

Matt B: Peaceful and simple, looking forward to the "work day"....

Matt B: Noticing there is only present experiencing....

Kari: Yes.
And notice that while tending to the twins, for example, that thoughts are spouting off
about 'not enough time' or 'too much to do.'

In fact, can you see, in DE, that you aren't tending to the twins? Tending to the twins IS.
There is no one doing anything.

Nothing really 'happens' as there is no one here to have/own a happening.

It simply IS. And it's YOU.

All the thoughts showing up, describing 'This', giving a play by play analysis of
experience, are just dancing in This that you are.

The twins show up as experience. YOU!

Experiment:
Look at the twins and see if you can see yourself as them (as experience). See if you can
find someone caring for them. See if you can find any division, (you + twins).

Let me know how it goes.

Matt B: In terms of insight, your post was very impactful. In practice, I got a little too
abstract with it. Backing up and starting over. Here's how I'm breaking it down and
keeping it simple (feedback, please):
1) Notice 'experiencing'.
2) Notice nothing is outside of 'experiencing'.
3) Notice all that appears IS 'experiencing', all the labels, stories, assumptions, objects
and subjects.

Then some implications could come into view:

4) The apparent subject is 'experiencing'. Therefore, in a manner of speaking, 'I' am this.
5) Apparent objects are also 'experiencing', they are this that I am.

Kari: Hey Matt. Is there really someone here who is experiencing? An "Apparent
subject?" Have a look. What do you find?

Matt B: Thanks, that's a good pointer. When I said "The apparent subject is
'experiencing'," I didn't mean to say there's someone doing experiencing, but that the
arising we label 'subject' is nothing other than experiencingness.
Matt B: Looking deeper, the apparent mind-body complex is believed to be an
experiencer-self. Yet, it is an object appearing to experience, as experience.

Kari: Yes. I'm glad you used, "*apparent* mind-body complex" because there really is
no such thing. There is nothing that isn't experience. And that experience is knowing of
itself. And dude, it's YOU. At no time is anything ever believed. Beliefs seem to show
up in This that you are. What you are, isn't living a life in this world, experiencing this
and that, and in a body, no less.

Kari: You are experience knowing of itself; the knowingknown. Known (experience)
cannot exist without the knowing of it. Do you see, then, how you must be it? You must
be experience itself. THIS.

Matt B: Thanks so much. All of this rings true. I know this is an untrue thought, but all
of this is not continuously obvious. So I'm letting it marinate....

Kari: Keep looking at experience. Notice what thought stories come up. Look at
'everyone' and 'everything' as this one experience that it is. And good! You notice that
the, "not continuously obvious" bit, is just a thought. And how could anything be
continuously obvious to a thought? Look for the 'someone' to whom this could be
continuously obvious. I bet you can't find anyone. There is only experience. What is
aware of it?

Matt B: Thanks. Marinating, looking at experience.

Lots of thoughts coming up all the time:
'I get it and feel it.'
'I didn't get it, I don't feel it.'
'I don't have enough focus right now to accomplish this.'
'This is fake spiritual crap.'
'This is the perennial truth.'
'I had a great day, I must be enlightened.'
'The I doesn't exist, dummy, it's a thought.'
'"The I doesn't exist" is a thought, too.'
Mostly stuff like, 'Don't make a mistake, you could lose your job, etc.,'
and 'Quick, feed them before they cry, etc."

Kari: - Yes. Lots of thoughts.

All of them spouting a bunch of nonsense and their content is seen as such when you look
at your direct experience of being.

When This is seen, thoughts still do their thing, but are seen as empty, meaningless
goobers.

Are there 'sticky' thoughts you'd like to look through?

Matt B: Sure, sticky thought: "It will take a lot of focus and time in looking at
experience, for this recognition to click."

Matt B: "There are no new thoughts." (Byron Katie)

Kari: Love that thought, Matt.

Yes! It would take time and focus if there was a person here.

Another good one is, "I have so much conditioning to work through." And BK seems to
make a good living on that premise.
Again, there would have to be someone here to 'get it.'
Can you find a person in DE?

Kari: Oh, and everything is experience, so focus and time (beliefs) are completely
irrelevant.
No effort necessary in order to notice experience.

Matt B: Sensations and their thought-labels are not a person. "Chest" sensations, "eyes"
sensations, "focus" sensations; "agency" thoughts, "past" thoughts and "future"
thoughts—all come and go in experience. Can't be found apart from experience. Nor can
such entities be found as real objects in experience: a "chest" sensation is non-existent in
direct experience. Even the label "sensation" has nothing to stick to. Even the label
"label" has nothing to refer to, except perhaps 'experiencing' itself. Perhaps not even
that....

Kari: And in seeing how thought just labels the heck out of everything, can you also see
that there is no problem?
THIS that you are, cannot reject anything of itself.
It's just impossible.
Do you see that there is simply THIS isness? Life, doing its thing?

Kari: Another belief is that there are, 'others.'

Are there others out there with their own experiences? Wife, kids, neighbors, coworkers?
How does this look to you right now?

Matt B: Thank you. Right now, it is seen there is no problem, no others.

Matt B: 'Sticky' thought: "I am the one who sees problems or no problems, others or no
others." "I am the one who can or can't see no self!" Haha.

Kari: Yes. Thoughts are referring to ‗Matt‘ as if he is a person.

How can a thought know of others or problems?

This, that you are, knows of itself as itself.

What is aware of ‗sticky‘ thoughts?

Matt B: Ha, thoughts pretending to be aware of sticky thoughts... That's bizarre....
...if you think about it.
Yeah, only Knowing can know; and only Knowing can be known.

Matt B: Only a thought seems to say there are thoughts. 'Knowing' doesn't say there are
thoughts. What's aware of sticky thoughts?
'Knowing' isn't aware of sticky thoughts—there are no thoughts for Knowing, only Itself.
Thoughts obviously aren't aware of sticky thoughts.
The only possible answer is 'there are no sticky thoughts'!
No sticking points, no hinderances, no problems, pressures, conflicts, no conditioning,
suffering, separation, trauma, illness, poverty....

Kari: ―Only a thought seems to say there are thoughts.‖ Yep. Thought seems to say,
―It‘s all about thought!‖

'Knowing' doesn't say there are thoughts. What's aware of sticky thoughts?‖ << There is
no ‗knowing‘ without the known. What you are IS knowing of the thoughts (known).
Knowingknown = YOU.

'Knowing' isn't aware of sticky thoughts—there are no thoughts for Knowing, only Itself.
<< YOU are aware of (knowing of) thoughts, but the ‗sticky‘ is thought content.
Completely empty and meaningless.

―Thoughts obviously aren't aware of sticky thoughts. The only possible answer is 'there
are no sticky thoughts'!‖ <<< Dude!! LOL and Yes!

―No sticking points, no hinderances, no problems, pressures, conflicts, no conditioning,

suffering, separation, trauma, illness, poverty....‖ <<< Yes. All thought stories about
THIS self-aware dream, are completely empty of meaning. What a game!

Kari: Here are six statements where beliefs seem to float around. Read through each
and let me know if you are clear on these or have any questions.

1. There is no thinker of thoughts and no doer of doing.

2. People are aware of absolutely nothing.
3. There are no "others"
4. There is nothing other than 'this that is'.
5. Concepts are meaningless/empty abstractions of this.
6. This that is cannot be divided into a "knowing" and a "known".

Matt B: This is what feels clear at the moment, and I'm open to your contributions:
• As beliefs, these are pieces of simplistic, self-contradictory spiritual garbage.
• As soon as such a statement is made and believed, awareness falsely appears to be
limited by thought.
• As paradoxical pointers, rather than landing-places, these might be useful tools for
some. I can't say they've been extremely useful to me, although they remain attractive.
Thought says, 'Maybe I just haven't looked toward what they point to.'
• The language is vague enough to read differing meanings into each. For example, in the
sentence "There are no others," "others" could refer (I would say correctly) to inherently
existing others. If 'conventional appearances of others' is meant, I would guess that
spiritual exaggeration is at play. There can be valid uses for such exaggeration.
• Question: could you elaborate on what you said above, "At no time is anything ever
believed." I'm attracted to this as a paradoxical pointer.

Kari: Hi Matt.

―As soon as such a statement is made and believed, awareness falsely appears to be
limited by thought.‖ <<< Is there a person here, or anywhere, believing anything? You
mentioned, ―believed.‖ That‘s why I ask.

You said, ―…these might be useful tools for some. I can't say they've been extremely
useful to me…‖ <<< Are there others with experiences of their own?

―The language is vague enough to read differing meanings into each. For example, in
"There are no others," "others" could refer (I would say correctly) to inherently existing
others. If conventional appearances of others is meant, spiritual exaggeration is at play.‖
<<< What is ―Spiritual exaggeration‖? Can ‗spiritual‘ be found in Direct Experience?

*There is no thinker of thoughts and no doer of doing.*

Do you author or create your own thoughts? Do you do anything?

*People are aware of absolutely nothing.*

Can you find ‗anyone‘ who is aware of anything? This includes the Matt & Kari
characters.

*There are no "others"*

Can you find anyone other than yourself? Can you find anyone, outside of yourself, with
their own awareness/experience?

*There is nothing other than 'this that is'.*

Is there a force or a puppet master running the show? Is there anything outside of, or
other than, experience?
Matt B: Thanks, I'll try to address these gradually.
I don't know if I understand why you presented the list as "beliefs that seem to float
around", since, according to your explanations, they're not beliefs, but findings.

Kari: True enough.

Matt B: • Is there a person here, or anywhere, believing anything? Not in direct

experience.
• Are there others with experiences of their own? Not in direct experience.
• What is ―spiritual exaggeration‖? Denial of appearances and conventional functionality.
Like saying 'There is no Facebook' as a status update. If there's a status update in the
dream, there's a Facebook in the dream.
• Can ‗spiritual‘ be found in Direct Experience? No, it's dream-thoughts.
Thanks so much. More to come.

Matt B: ―Do you author or create your own thoughts?" The character does not author or
create thoughts; the character is a thought, a thoughts-about-sensations-dream. Does
Knowing create thoughts?

Kari: "Can Knowing create thoughts?"

In DE, I cannot find a Knowing. It doesn't exist. Don't take me at my word. Check this
out in your direct experience of being.

A creator of thoughts, would mean that there are 2.

A creator. And creation. A subject. An object.

Can you find anything other than or outside of experience that creates? Can you find
more than this that is?

Matt B: You equate the terms "knowing" and "experience", right?

Matt B: I do feel I find a knowing/experiencing in direct experience. Direct experience

seems to be found in direct experience.
I would say that thoughts create thoughts. Experience doesn't create anything.

Kari: Matt - You asked: ―You equate the terms "knowing" and "experience", right?‖

If there is no ‗Known,‘ can there be a ‗Knowing‘?

Check this out. Look at an object. The moment you look at it, it is known. There is a
‗knowing‘ of it. Look away from the object. Is there still a knowing of it? Can you see
that ‗knowing‘ can‘t exist without the ‗known‘ (object)?

In other words, if there was no experience, could there be knowing? Take a look at this.
It‘s pretty amazing to see.
You said: ―I would say that thoughts create thoughts. Experience doesn't create
anything.‖
Do you know that thought creates thought?
Or is, ―…thoughts create thoughts‖ just another thought?

Matt B: Thanks, looks like a checkmate....on my way to work.

Matt B: This is a great clarification: experience is indeed inseparable knowing-known.
How long have I been looking for an isolatable "Awareness" (even when I got
intellectually that that would be fruitless)....

Matt B: And somehow I have been looking for an isolatable sense of 'lack of self',
too....
The pointers "Lack of self" and "Awareness" indicate only inseparable knowing-known.
This is it!

Matt B: And all this is clear now, too: "there is no time", "nothing has ever been
believed", "nothing has ever been experienced." The "no"s in all of these are just this
inseparability!

Matt B: Thank you so much and goodnight.

Empty Mirror And you are not in any way separate from, different to, or other than it

Empty Mirror Sorry to interject there, Matt, but I know that Kari is not able to get on FB
at the moment.

Matt B: No problem, Empty Mirror, it's a pleasure to finally understand what you mean
when you say stuff like that.

Matt B: This inseparability-of-knower-and-known is a 'me-less' me. Will let this settle

over the weekend. Thanks and love.

Kari: Over the weekend, look for a 'knower'. I promise you won't find one. Enjoy, Matt

Matt B: Thanks, I had assumed that I had already fully concluded that a knower could
not be isolated or found. But maybe there's more looking to do; it's suddenly sort of
surprising to not find a knower....

Kari: Knower (subject) + known (object) = 2

If there is no knower, what is knowing the known?
And can you find any separation between knowing and known?

Matt B: No knower: there's no separate screen or window or aware space or knowing

divine entity. None of these metaphors refer to an actual knower.
The capacity to know is an apparent object, not a subject.
There is, however 'knowing' in evidence, and no seam or separation is found between
knowing and the apparent known.
Knowing-known is not 2.
Where there is not 2, there can't even be 1! (Greg Goode)

Kari: Yes. You are THIS that IS. Beautiful, Matt.

Matt B: "If there is no knower, what is knowing the known?"
Maybe the answer can't be spoken or thought....
Knowing-known is knowing-known.

Matt B: I'm avoiding the positive assertion that 'I am THIS that IS.' How do you arrive
at seeing that from the recognition of 'no I/subject and no this/object?' At the moment,
positive statements like that seem to me to be faith-based conclusions superimposed upon
unfindability.

Matt B: On the other hand, I guess there's no reason why NOT to call knowing-known
an "I-am-THIS."

Kari: No knower, but you notice a knowing. <<< Wow! Self-aware!

No division between knowing and known.
There is no way to separate THIS that is, (experience) from "knowing" of it.

Therefore, YOU alone, must be this self-aware life, dream, show, game, whatever you
want to call it.

Matt B: I love this and will investigate it.

What seems paradoxical about "self-aware show" is: the show is not aware.

Matt B: This "computer" is not aware, these "fingers" are not aware, "Matt" is not
aware.

Matt B: Ah, okay, inseparable knowing-known IS aware, and IS all there is, and IS the
only 'I' there is.

Matt B: And IS all the apparent "objects" there are?

Kari: Yes! Only YOU are aware. Fingers, computer, sun, job, twins... IS experience.
YOU are experience. The "stuff" (indivisible) in the 'show' is YOU and you're aware of
it. YOU are this everhereness (ISness). << Words just fail.

Matt B: The character Kari: has no awareness that YOU are aware? And yet it's the
character who wrote the words "YOU are aware." How did she do that with no
recognition?

Matt B: ....The "characters" Matt B: and Kari: are not "characters", they are
inseparable knowingknown. Only knowingknown is aware of knowningknown being
aware, and there's no other candidate. And no other recognizing is appearing.

Kari: Hi Matt
The character, Kari, is just a four-letter word on a screen to you. Characters have no idea
of what they do. YOU are pointing yourself to YOU.
So "she" didn't do that. No one does anything. Words show up in this that you are (no
not).
It is or it isn't. Reading is. Changing diapers is (or not).
No one here to do any of it.

I've used this example before, but it really illustrates how a character is clueless.

Example:
The Matrix movie. Neo is the main character. Does Neo have any awareness of what is
going on? Does Neo know Kung Fu? That he is "The One?"

Matt B: The appearance which we might falsely call 'I' is a non-separate appearance of
the I AM (knowingknown)?
I AM the empty illusion too?

Matt B: I didn't see The Matrix, but I think I understand your point. Movie characters
don't realize I AM; they're just pixels.

Matt B: The 'subject' Matt, falsely thought to be who I am, is an inert movie character;
yet the show is I AM...

Kari: Matt.
What!!!? You haven't seen the best movie, ever!!? Dude!

Now that I got that out of the way, I can tackle your question in the first comment.

If you are calling,THIS that is, 'I AM', then no, it cannot be an empty illusion.

There is no denying that YOU are aware of this comment. Call it I AM, or Diet Pepsi, or
simply, THIS. You are that which is knowing of this comment (known).

"The appearance which we might falsely call 'I'..."

The belief that there is a personal self is just an empty idea that shows up in THIS. You
are aware (knowing) of the thought/belief (known) but are completely unaffected by it.

Did this answer your question?

Matt B: Thanks, Kari, "The belief that there is a personal self is just an empty idea that
shows up in THIS. You are aware (knowing) of the thought/belief (known) but are
completely unaffected by it."

Matt B: I'm sure this is inaccurate, and I appreciate your guidance.

While knowingknown is inseparable, there are different aspects in appearance.

The 'knowing' aspect of knowingknown is unaffected by pain.

The 'known' aspect of knowingknown, the character-story, is affected by pain.

Kari: Can the character of the story be affected by anything?

Example: Harry Potter is, in no way, affected by Voldemort, the mean and ugly wizard.

He is just a character in a story. So is Matt, Empty, Kari.

YOU are the story writing itself; the dream, dreaming itself. Can you find anything
affected by anything, much less, pain? And yes, it may seem like there is an appearance
of a character in pain, but can that be found in DE, or is it thought telling a story?

Matt B: Thank you. Yes! The characters in a story have no effect upon each other. And
in DE there is nothing of the sort to be found. But in 'not-DE', an appearance appears. So
what is DE, really?

Kari: DE is a tool used for looking at your present experience of being.

With this tool, it becomes very evident that thought tells a heck of a lot of stories about
experience.
It blows beliefs out of the water because you are looking at your DE, sans all the thought
content.

I uploaded a pdf document, on DE, in HoM.

It has some really nice examples and may be of use to you.

You said: "But in 'not-DE', an appearance appears."

An appearance really doesn't appear. It is. Or not.

You can experiment with this.

In this instance, thought is. Or not. *tweet tweet* is, or not. *ouch* is, or not.

Matt B: Thanks! I'm inspired by the experiences of DE and not-knowing described

there.
I'm not sure what you mean above by "It is. Or not." ...It is, or isn't, depending on
perspective?
"An appearance really doesn't appear." ...There's no process of appearing, and no place to
appear from or in, in DE? Or are you saying 'there are no appearances'?

Kari: I like how you put that. Yes! "There's no process of appearing, and no place to
appear from or in..."
In DE, I find no such process.

Did you read that pdf on DE examples?

Matt B: Yes, thank you for that.

Matt B: DE as a "tool" is great. My mind is so often on the tasks of the day that I'm not
frequently using DE as a "tool" or using the doorway of questions such as "Can I know
this?"

Matt B: And the mind, as a seeker, is looking to use spare time to gain intellectual
spiritual understanding.

Matt B: One thing I've done is convert some of the text in this thread into MP3s with a
voice synthesizer, and play certain things over and over in the background while I'm
working.

Kari: In DE. Can you find a person with a mind. Can you find a mind at all? What
about a seeker? And time? And intellectual? And spiritual? Can you find a doer anywhere
who could obtain an understanding of anything?

Matt B: But I'm sure lots of the most potent moments in this thread are often forgotten,
and also, that I'm repeating myself to you in different ways.

Kari: The mp3 thing is pretty cool.

Matt B: spiritual robot

Kari: Lol

Matt B: like a character in a movie appearing to read...

Matt B: just like 'me'.

Matt B: the voice synth "person" doesn't have a mind.

in direct experience, no mind here or there.

Kari: Yes. No one there. The character can't possibly be a seeker with a mind, hoping to
gain some spiritual understanding, although it may appear that way. What you are doesn't
need to understand anything.

Matt B: In DE, just synthesized understanding for a synthesized character. Just

vibrations without awareness of meaning or intention.

Matt B: The synthesized "lady" has no location. There's no way to find her. The loud
pitch of the thought that Matt has location shouldn't have any effect.

Matt B: In DE, it doesn't have any effect, again, just vibration and not even that. But
when the "tool" of DE is not used, the thought of 'Matt' and his location does seem to
have an effect. A tool comes and goes in ME...
Kari: Yep. No meaning or intention in this, except in thought. Kari and Matt are
completely unaware. There is only this that you are. No needs, desires or wants. Thought
comes up with stories about wants and understandings, but it, too, is completely unaware.
Just a bunch of words that can't be seen or heard. Funny, isn't it?

There is no 'me,' Matt. That is only a thought. Nothing can come and go. That would
mean there is time. Time is another thought appearing in this. A belief that isn't believed.

Matt B: So many paradoxes; a thought of time appears, but "appears" implies time...
(and space and consciousness)

Kari: Paradox is a thought Yes, words can seem to get messy. thought shows up,
appears... All of it is so funny! <<< another thought

Kari: If thought 'tweet tweets' and is completely unrecognizable, would anything be

affected by it?

Matt B: unrecognizable!
thought is unrecognizable? ....
jeepers. tweeters.

Kari: If it tweeted like a bird, no words.

Matt B: raw data. birdseed. not 'nuts', but raw seeds.

Matt B: (the character is not nuts, but there's no need for coherence....) (?......)

Kari: The character is in no need of coherence. You, the one aware of this comment, is
in no need of coherence. If thought just tweeted instead of telling stories about
experience, would experience be any different than it is in this instance?

Matt B: no, it wouldn't be different. that's already how it is. and chirps & tweets are
coherent as chirps & tweets.

Matt B: in the dream-coherence kind of coherence...

Kari: So experience IS, no matter what thoughts say to describe it. They cannot
describe what you are. And what you are, doesn't believe anything thought says.

Matt B: yes.

Matt B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eakKfY5aHmY

Kari: Are thoughts experience, Matt?

Matt B: yeah. thoughts are experience, just like sensations.

Kari: What about the content of thought?

Matt B: As tweets, no content other than tweeting.

Matt B: a thought can't contain stuff, though, so that's not real content.

Kari: By content, I mean the stories they tell. Are the stories experience?

Matt B: stories they tell would have to be additional thoughts, no different than the
original ones. all experience; without experiencing, none are experienced.

Matt B: no connection whatsoever between a thought and its purported story or

message or meaning. The 1's and 0's of data are just 1's and 0's.

Matt B: if there are a thousand 0's after a 1, it doesn't comment on the 1.

Matt B: thanks for your time, today, Kari, signing off.

Kari: Good night, Matt

Matt B: Thoughts are beautiful like a murmuration, when there's just a glance of
appreciation for their emptiness and experiencingness.... How unfathomably creative, to
make all this neutral data of experience into a great flowing cloud of storytelling.

Kari: That ^^^ is gorgeous.

Kari: Hi Matt.

Take a look at your original post; specifically, the second paragraph.

What would you say to yourself now?

Matt B: What a story.

Kari: Matt - I'd like to know your answer to this question.

"My question is, can known knowing really be unshakable, finally ending the search for
itself?"

What is the answer in this instant?

Matt B: The first thing that comes is, it's the wrong question.

Matt B: First of all, "known knowing" is not at all what you meant by knowing-known.

Matt B: But 'Can knowingknown be unshakable, ending the search for itself,' is also
sort of irrelevant.
Matt B: what's going to shake all there is?

Matt B: what's going to search for all there is?

Matt B: thought?

Matt B: thought is inert; questions inert.

Kari: So, Matt - Any questions or concerns about THIS that you are?
Do you see that you are perfectly clear about this that is? No matter what thought says?
Do you see any separation at all?
Does anything feel like it's left undone?

Kari: You are the knowingknown. Would you agree with that statement?

Matt B: I would agree with that statement.

I can see that this is perfectly clear even when thought says otherwise.
Yet, nevertheless, there must be belief in what thought says, because in general I'm
seeing separation, sometimes swept up in afflictions and desires.

Matt B: Kari: 's next move:

'You say you agree with the statement "You are the knowingknown." Only a person can
seem to get swept up in separation, affliction and desire. Can knowingknown do so?'

Matt B: Matt B: 's next attempt to slip out of it:

No, knowingknown cannot get swept up in separation, affliction nor desire, nor thought,
nor belief, nor 'personhood'.
So I, the person, am not This Knowingknown; I cannot agree with the statement. I, the
one answering the question, am a person.

Matt B: Kari: in DE, are you a person? Matt: sh*t.

Kari: LOL'ing SO hard right now!

Kari: Okay. Well, it looks like you have all the answers and that thought is the only
thing that says otherwise.

My next question is, what expectations do you have about 'knowing' that you are this
self-aware, indivisible THIS?
Is there an expectation that this should feel differently? Peaceful, blissful, joyful? Please
tell me what's in your 'heart' and not what you 'think' I want to read.

Matt B: Thank you.

I don't want to read this either. I'm still expecting, as in the OP, "evidence of 'awakening'
in terms of ending the search or pacifying egoic obsession and conflict."
Kari: Chew on this a bit, too.

You said: "I, the one answering the question".

What YOU are, never asks or answers any question or does anything.

Do you really SEE that?

Do the characters in a book, really know what they're saying or doing?

Kari: Do the characters know anything about the book in which they're featured?
Anything about the story?

Matt B: hm. characters in a story don't seek, suffer, obsess, partake of conflict, do, ask,
answer, know, or SEE....

Maybe This is like a movie shining within a self-illuminated movie screen of multiple
dimensions; 'thoughts' being something like digital audio data, and all the 'action' being
video pixels within the borderless crystal-ball-like-'screen'. The data/known is in no way
separate from the knowing/screen

Matt B: space and time also projected 'within' the inseparable screen.

Matt B: self-luminous and self-knowing showscreen.

Kari: Yes!

Kari: Up in this thread, you said: "I'm avoiding the positive assertion that 'I am THIS
that IS.'
At the moment, positive statements like that seem to me to be faith-based conclusions
superimposed upon unfindability."

Does this seem to be a faith-based conclusion?

Matt B: no. but it is pretty logical.

Matt B: no other possibility.

Kari: Is there anything outside or beyond this "self-luminous and self-knowing

showscreen"?

Matt B: nothing outside of experiencing, or rather, self-experiencing.

a little bit of the joy of being in noticing all this.

Kari: So this "self-luminous and self-knowing showscreen," is all there is, yes?
And if it is, it must be you. There is no other possibility.

Do you see that?

Matt B: Yeah.
In the story, the character takes "it must be you" as referring to himself, and so he hems
and haws. But that too is a show of light within the boundless crystal ball of
knowingknown. There can be no other, so I am THIS that IS. Whew.

Matt B: thanks and have a good night, dear Kari.

Kari: good night

Kari: How ya doing, Matt?

Matt B: Thanks, Kari, busy as hell.

Matt B: In the story, totally identified as the doer, wanter, and it's exhausting, painful,
hopeless, etc.

Matt B: (I wrote "in the story" just to be spiritually correct.)

Kari: Lol.
You are the one, the only. There is no other, so identifying is completely impossible.
Exhaustion, frustration, depression, giggles, whatever shows up in this, as experience, is
all you!
The labels mean nothing. It's all thought doing a piss-poor job of describing experience.

In your Direct Experience of being, can you describe, painful, hopelessness or

exhaustion? What does that look like? Can you find anyone in a hopeless, painful,
exhausting situation?

Are thoughts coming around saying, "I'll never get this?"

Matt B: Yes, thoughts like that, too. I know it sounds daft. Silly rabbit, thoughts are for
characters.

Kari: Lol. It appears that particular thought is very popular. But it's a thought like any
other. "I am hungry." Or "I loved that movie!" Can a thought love a movie? Look at them
like that. It's funny stuff. Notice that they comment on everything. AND, they add 'Matt'
in the mix. So, unaware thoughts are referring to an unaware character. What you are
(self-knowing show screen) isn't the least bit affected by anything.

Matt B: Thanks. After a rough few days, I have to get back to DE-noticing. Yet another
story.
I don't know if I'll be around here much in the coming 10 days, but I'm here in my heart,
and gratefully so.

Kari: Write when you can. It's cool if there are days in between. Keep looking at DE.
Look at the 'pesky ' thoughts and ask yourself, "Is this really true?" Much love to you.

Matt B: New thoughts keep showing up. That's why it seems like it takes time to see
through all thoughts and beliefs, once and for all. This is yet another thought. For
example.

Matt B: Thanks for "liking"!

Kari: Matt. Yes. Thoughts say there are new thoughts and it will take time to see
through all beliefs. Silly thoughts. What you are, doesn't believe them. Btw, every
thought is a new thought. Time doesn't exist, so there has never been a past thought. Even
though it seems like there are repeating thoughts, that too, is about time. When thoughts
about 'not getting this' show up, look at DE. See if you can find anyone there who is not
getting it. What you will find, is that you are clear about the experience you are. There is
never a time when you are not clear. Only a person could get or not get something. And
you've acknowledged that there is no person to be found. And here's the question of the
day... Is there anyone who has to see through beliefs? Or do beliefs simply dance around
in this that you are?

Matt B: Yeah. "I need to practice" is a thought about time, me, and doing.
There is clarity that there's nothing to be found but thoughts and sensations.
In bouts of suffering and overwhelm, though, while there's no real difference in that
clarity, yet it's not necessarily noticed.

Kari: Matt - How is it not necessarily noticed? If it wasn't noticed, could you really say
that it isn't necessarily noticed?
What or who is having the bouts of suffering? What is suffering? Please define it. Is
"Overwhelm" a thought?
Can the self-knowing showscreen be overwhelmed?

Please describe 'overwhelm' in direct experience.

Matt B: How could the clarity not be noticed, when the clarity is inseparable from the
thoughts and sensations called overwhelm and suffering.
• Both "suffering" and "overwhelm" are interpretations of strong sensations such as
squeezing, squashing, dullness, inability to change circumstances.
• Squeezing, squashing, inability, dullness, weakness, exhaustion, etc., are themselves
interpretations of the sense perceptions of touch, heat, proprioception, and probably other
modes of sense perception as well.
• Sense perceptions are interpretations of knowing.
• Knowing is an interpretation of inseparable knowingknown that is.
• Suffering and overwhelm are knowingknown, what is.
• Bliss, peace and empowerment are likewise sense data of knowningknown, and
indistinguishable from suffering and overwhelm.

Kari: Beautiful, Matt. Yes. Interpretations/labels = thought

So let's do another experiment.

In the midst of 'overwhelm,' say, out loud, "I AM overwhelm!"
Look at the 'overwhelm' sensation as the experience that YOU are. It is all you!
It doesn't necessarily have to be overwhelm. It can be any seemingly strong sensation.
Just say it out loud, really look at that sensation. Can you find a location? Can you see
that the sensation is you?
Report back any discoveries.

Matt B: Good thanks, good experiment for the coming weekend.

Matt B: to quote MySelf: "Bliss, peace and empowerment are likewise sense data of
knowningknown, and indistinguishable from suffering and overwhelm."
->indistinguishable *in nature*

Matt B: As sensations, the sensations are different

Kari: Are the sensations different?

Matt B: ....or so says thought.

Kari: LOL! Silly thoughts.

Matt B: thoughts are for kids...

Kari: LOL!!!

Matt B: Later

Kari: Your 10 days are up!

How goes it, Matt?
Did you play with the experiment? If so, how'd it go?

Matt B: Can I have another day?

I seem to approach everything through thought. Even the experiment. Even 'there's no
self to do the looking,' 'there's no time,' etc.
Still, one of the "difficult tasks" I had coming wasn't so difficult when it was glimpsed as
Me. It was more like an act of devotion.

Matt B: Btw, I'm overseas for a while, GMT+2.

Kari: Another day? Well, okay. Just for you!
We'll discuss the "approach...through thought" thing when you get back.
Much love...

Matt B: (I'm here for 3 weeks, feel free to write any time if it's convenient for you, and
thanks so much.)

Kari: Here we go.

You said: "I seem to approach everything through thought."

Thought seems to take credit for everything. It even places a 'someone' in there, who can
approach something.

"Still, one of the "difficult tasks" I had coming wasn't so difficult when it was glimpsed
as Me. It was more like an act of devotion."

You capitalized, "Me." So, you're not talking about the Matt character. Is that correct?

What is the direct experience of devotion (without the label)?

It's interesting what thought says about being busy or about tasks being difficult.
It is referring to a someone who doesn't exist.

Doing seems to happen on its own. In a sense, it can 'seem' less difficult, but really, there
is no one doing anything. The thoughts, "difficult" and "less difficult," go out the
window.

You are this dream, dreaming itself. So you can never experience anything, including
'doing'.
All of the 'doing' happens within you, as you. You are experience knowing of itself.

Matt B: "What is the direct experience of devotion (without the label)?"

Raw energy.

Kari: Hi Matt Could you find a doer anywhere?

Matt B: Thought says yes. Direct looking says no.

The character-story is about a man who is deeply committed to 'thought' and thought's
suggestions. No biggie.

Kari: Hello Is there something in this for Matt?

Matt B: Wow, good one, Kari.

Kari: Matt, what you are, isn't trying to 'get it' so life can be better. Heck, you are life,
life'ing itself. No matter what, all is as it is, and it IS you. Thoughts may say, "But when I
really see this, my life will be blissful, easier and peaceful." But, in fact, life lifes itself,
the story stories itself, and YOU, not the Matt character, don't care one bit. You are
completely unaffected by the seeming ups and downs, highs and lows, jobs and toddlers.
Look to see if there is anyone wanting this to be different.

Kari: Hi Matt How's it going?

Matt B: Okay, thanks. I want to look and see if there is anyone wanting life to be
different, and really answer your questions from experience. When it's hectic, I don't
remember to do so.

Matt B: Is there is anyone wanting experience to be different?

The story character does play that role.
And yet he's made entirely of the pixels of thought and sensation.

Kari: The story character doesn't play a role.

The character is nothing more than another appearance in this that you are.
You are not in a body, experiencing anything.
There is nothing in this for the character (or any character).

Do you see that you are this indivisible self-aware dream?

Can you find any borders anywhere?

Matt B: Thanks, Kari.

Matt B: Do I "see...this invisible...?"

I 'see' via the clear logic: as pixel-characters don't really do anything or cause anything,
there is no one here to create suffering or 'wanting', or freedom from suffering and
wanting. Then, as 'human awareness' is inert, there's no chance for division or 'other
awareness'; there's no alternative but indivisible self-aware dream, dreaming itself
indivisibly....

Kari: Do you have any questions, Matt?

Matt B: Is that what you mean by "see"?

Kari: "See" a word for "understand" or "Aware of"

Matt B: What's the difference between 'point-of-view understanding' and 'clarity'?

Kari: Just words, really.

Do you see that you are this dream, dreaming itself?
Do you see that there is no other - that you, alone are this that is?
In one sense, it's a completely ridiculous set of questions because you already know of
everything.

There is nothing that you cannot know.

There is no person to get this or understand this or get clear on this.

It is the ultimate joke.

Matt B: Wow, is this what you're saying? There's no difference between passing points
of view and unshakable knowledge—these are just words! There's no difference between
intellectual understanding and 'real' understanding; just a bunch of inert words. There is
no getting clear, because there is no unclarity. There's no escaping knowing as
knowingknown, because even "ignorance" is a word for knowingknown....

Kari: Matt

You see that what you are, is utterly unaffected by the concepts of "clear" or
"enlightened."
Of "knowledge" and "ignorance."

Words, ideas, thoughts, all completely meaningless to YOU, yet, appear in/as YOU.
Nothing could come close to describing the wonder of YOU.

Laughter, joy, Ah Ha, duh, tears, etc... all absolutely free to show up as the recognition of
what you are, dawns like the most brilliant sunrise!

It's the grandest of jokes that you've played on yourself!

There is no person, anywhere, doing or achieving anything!

That IS freedom!
And even 'freedom' is a ridiculous concept because you have never been bound or
trapped or imprisoned.

Yes! Wow!
Matt B: I love this.

Matt B: The 'negativa' or deconstruction or apophasis is still easier for me to 'see' (e.g.,
such and such is nothing but inert concepts, etc.)
The 'positive' statements are still hard for me to 'see' (e.g., I AM the dream dreaming
itself).

Matt B: What makes a dream "Me", besides a thought?

Matt B: And thank you so much, and sorry this is getting long.
Kari: You're welcome. No apologies, necessary. You're just apologizing to yourself,
anyway. Hehe!

Kari: Heck! You just thanked yourself, too!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. In the looking, the BS of the story becomes very obvious. Thought talking to itself
and unaware that it‘s doing it.

You asked: ―What makes a dream "Me", besides a thought?‖

Good question, Matt.

Without the thought story, see if you can:

- Find a separation between objects/sounds/sensations. Or is it just ONE view...ONE?
- Then, look for a border between the knowing of the ONE view and the ONE view.

THIS is ALL there is.

YOU are THIS.
You must be this knowingknown – perceivingperceived.

Do not take my word for it.

This is something that you can see for yourself.
Both of the following experiments blew my socks clean off. Enjoy!

1st Experiment:
As you go through the day, take a close look at the following.
- You are all that is here.
- Every interaction is an interaction with yourself.
- Look for YOU in ‗everyone‘ you meet.

2nd Experiment: Looking at the ‗knowing‘ from the perspective of the ‗known‘.
- Pick up an object.
- Now, look at the ‗knowing‘ of the object, as if you are the object (which, in fact, you
are).

Please come back and tell yourself (Kari) how it went.

Matt B:

Kari: Matt. I was looking for some knowingknown stuff for a HoM member and found
this gem. It's just an excerpt of a much longer post. It goes directly to your question.

-----------------------------------------------------
As David has pointed out, there is absolutely no way to separate "this" from the
"knowing" of it.

And you can very simply see that since this is UTTERLY indivisible from the "knowing"
of it, this is the "knowing" of itself.

So if this is a "dream" then it is the "knowing" of itself.

And obviously since the dream is the knowing of itself, and there's only one dream, there
can only possibly be one knowing of it.

Empty Mirror (I added the heart)

Matt B: thanks!

Kari: Hi Matt How's it going?

Matt B: Thanks! I've been having lots of fun with Empty's three lines, above. Now,
looking back at the thread, I want to get more into your two latest 'experiments'. All of
this doesn't feel like a rush, which is part of the sweetness.

Matt B: Hi, Kari. Could you instruct me further in the 2 experiments? I realized I'm
trying to do it through imagination, rather than direct seeing. Thanks so much.

Kari: Happy Holidays, Matt.

The first experiment: See if you can find a dividing line between the appearance of
'people' and the knowing of them.

Do you see people as others, with thoughts and agendas and perspectives of their own?
Or do you see that YOU are this knowingknown? That everyone you encounter, is an
appearance in/AS you?

The second experiment: First, look at an object and see if you can find any separation
between the object and the knowing of it. Can you see that it is an appearance in/as you?
If so, flip it on its head, and look at the knowing of it from the perspective of the known.
Can you find a division, there? Can you see any difference between these perspectives? Is
there a difference, or is it just one view?

Both of these blew my socks off, but no biggy if this doesn't jive with you. These are
simply experiments, pointing to the indivisibility of this, that you are.

Matt B: Thanks so much, I'm sure it is socks-blowing; I guess I'm somehow still on the
first half of the first experiment....
Matt B: ...I know the other parts of the instruction aren't really complicated, but the
extremely simple, one-step blasts are as much as the brain can absorb right now.
Peace,

Kari: Matt. You, alone, are this self-aware knowingknown. You, alone. There can be
no other. Experience is broken down into parts (other), by the stories thought tells. But
can you find any division between the knowing of experience and experience itself?

Matt B: I find no border dividing knowing of experience and experience itself. But
when you asked earlier that I see knowing from the perspective of an object, I didn't
sense that an object in the movie could have a perspective or a knowing of any kind. If
so, there's a difference between knowing and known: the known isn't participating in
knowing.

Matt B: So right now it seems a miraculous paradox: knowingknown cannot be

separated, and yet they're not the same.

Kari: Hi Matt.
That was a funky experiment.
Perhaps it knocked my socks off because it's a little dyslexic.

-------------------------------------------------
So, yes, the kk cannot be separate.

Separation is nothing but a thought. As you have seen, there is no division between the
knowing of experience and the experience.

Can you see that knowingknown is experience?

Can you see that you are, in fact, this knowingknown?
That you are this self aware experience?
That if there is no separation, there can only be ONE?
And if you're aware of it, you must be it.

Matt B: Ah, the knowing IS the known experience; the known experience IS knowing.
So the movie characters and movie objects don't themselves have to know anything in
order to be knowing—they already are Knowing in the moment of being known.
Can't you just say 'all is Knowing'? Why append it with '-known'? Insofar as the so-called
'known' is identical with knowing, an additional term, 'known', is not even warranted?

Matt B: (i'll try to answer your 5 questions after you address that. thanks so much.)

Kari: Matt

You said: "Can't you just say 'all is Knowing'? Why append it with '-known'? Insofar as
the so-called 'known' is identical with knowing, an additional term, 'known', is not even
warranted?"
Let's look at this.

Can knowing exist without a known?

Could anything exist without you knowing of it?

If it's known, there has to be a knowing of it.

If there was no experience, there couldn't possibly be a knowing of it.

You wouldn't exist.

Gulp.

Matt B: Geez, I'm back to square one again...

If knowing and known are One and the Same, it's a self-knowing movie, right? But how
can a movie know itself? That's like a thought being aware, no?

If knowing and known are in essence inseparable, yet are two aspects of life, then one can
depend upon another. The great Duality, or a Whole made up of parts.

But if they're one and the same because there is only Knowing, it seems these illogical
consequences are avoided. This sentence is the one act of knowing, without an actual
sentence adding a 'second' or a 'dependent' to that oneness....

Matt B: (sorry about my inability to answer your pointing questions)

Kari: "Geez, I'm back to square one again..."

^^^ Says thought. Notice how thought stories are complicating the simple?

"If knowing and known are One and the Same, it's a self-knowing movie, right? But how
can a movie know itself? That's like a thought being aware, no?"

Thought IS experience. The stories it tells are BS. Thought is not self aware. And it's
super easy to notice this. Look at direct experience.

"If knowing and known are in essence inseparable, yet are two aspects of life, then one
can depend upon another. The great Duality."

There is no such thing as knowing and no such thing as known. They do not exist
independently. These are concepts. They are pointers, here, and are discarded once this is
seen. Thorn removing a thorn.
There is only this knowingknown. Take an object, for example. If there is no object, there
couldn't possibly be a knowing if it. No knowingknown. If there is no experience, then it
couldn't be known. There would be no knowing of it. No knowingknown. No you.

"This sentence is the one act of knowing, without an actual sentence adding a second to
that oneness...."

What second, Matt? Knowing of this sentence (known), is one. It is knowingknown. One.
PerceivingPerceived. Seeingseen. Can you find two? You, yourself, said that you cannot
find division there.

This is the movie knowing itself, AS itself. No director. No producer.

THiS is. There is knowing of it. YOU are THIS. You are the knowing of itself/yourself.
You exist, yes? You are knowing of, what is called, existing/existence (known). Self
aware.

Matt B: • Can you see that knowingknown is experience?

Yes, obviously there can be no other experience. Without the experienced 'computer',
there is no knowing of 'computer'.

• Can you see that you are, in fact, this knowingknown?

Yes, there can be no other I or you. There is clearly no 'I' apart from knowing, no
knowing without the known; therefore I am inseparable knowingknown only. I am not a
knower (that would actually be a known), I am not a known (that would be an object, not
a subject.) The only possibility is I am this comprehensive verb, knowingknowning.

• That you are this self aware experience?

Yes, without this single, seamless experience/dream, there is no being aware. Without
being aware, there is no dreaming. Therefore I am this lucidly dreamingdream. Without
being aware, there is no Identity, without Identity there is no being aware. As there Is
being aware, and as there is dreaming, and as there is Identity, all this has to be a non-
independent Me, self-awaring dreaming.

• That if there is no separation, there can only be ONE?

There can only be not-two. Not-two accepts the label 'One', knowing that there can't even
be One.
• Can knowing exist without a known? No, there is no independently existing knowing.
Knowing is knowing-of.

• Could anything exist without you knowing of it?

No there can be no proof (knowing) of something outside of knowing-of, something
waiting in the wings to be known. Known means there is knowing NOW. Knowing
means 'I'.

Kari: So, it doesn't appear that you are back to square one.
Matt B: (whatever that meant)

Kari: Like all thought stories, it meant, diddly squat.

Matt B: (my middle name is Diddly Squatz!)

Kari: I knew it!!!

Matt B: LOL!

Matt B: Maybe this answer is still evidence of identifying as a movie character (starting
as the character and working toward knowingknown):

• Can you see that you are, in fact, this knowingknown?

Yes, there can be no other I or you. There is clearly no 'I' apart from knowing, no
knowing without the known; therefore I am inseparable knowingknown only. I am not a
knower (that would actually be a known), I am not a known (that would be an object, not
a subject.) The only possibility is I am this comprehensive verb, knowingknowning.

Matt B: (Okay, so what. It's evidence of thought. Thought is already knowningknown,

as well as its emptiness.)

Kari: "(Okay, so what. It's evidence of thought. Thought is already knowningknown, as

well as its emptiness.)" Eff'ing-a! Yes!

And identification shows up in this.

The 'me' thoughts keep on coming. The goobers.

And since what you are, doesn't care about them, they freely do their thing. Story telling.
YOU are aware of it - not affected by it. No matter what thought says, its stories will
never be accurate.
Stories about sensations, people, living, dying, the world... All inaccurate.
And even if they were, you wouldn't give a rat's pattutti about it.

This that IS = You.

No separate others... All you!

Do you see what a relief that is?

Experience = You. Holy crap! It's amazing!

Kari: YOU know of this sentence (as experience).

There is a knowing of this sentence (experience).
You know of this knowing.
You are THIS knowing of itself.
Empty Mirror...

Kari: Really look into this, Matt.

Matt B: • I am experiencing letters.

• The 'I am' referred to here can't be personal; that would be another experienced, and
could not be an experiencer.
• In fact, any 'experiencer' would be experienced, not experiencer.
• Without an experiencer, what's left is experiencing and experienced. The experienced is
obviously one with experiencing.
• The letters are experiencingexperience. The only 'I' left would be impersonal
experiencingexperience. The letters are none other than 'I'. No separation.

Kari: * ―I am experiencing letters.‖ – Nope. Subject/object = 2

• ―The 'I am' referred to here can't be personal; that would be another experienced, not an
experiencer. ― Nothing personal. I don‘t understand what you mean when you say, ―that
would be another experienced.‖

• ―In fact, any 'experiencer' would be experienced, not experiencer.‖

There is no experiencer. There is no experienced.

• ―Without an experiencer, what's left is experiencing and experienced. The experienced

is obviously one with experiencing.‖
What's left is experience. And you are that!

• ―The letters are experiencing, the only 'I' would be experiencing. The letters are none
other than 'I'.‖
Letters are experiencing? Who or what is experiencing?

Maybe I‘m not clear on what you‘re conveying here, Matt.

KnowingKnown

Notice that there is no experiencer, here.

No subject/Object
Nothing has ever been experienced.

Kari: And, Hello! Happy New Year!

Matt B: "Maybe I‘m not clear on what you‘re conveying here, Matt.

KnowingKnown

Notice that there is no experiencer, here.

No subject/Object
Nothing has ever been experienced."

Yes, that's what I meant to convey. Just breaking it down, step by step. The presumed
subject is really a would-be object. Would-be objects are really knowingknown.

Kari: In breaking it down step by step:

* words on a screen (known)

* there is a knowing of the words on a screen

So what this is, is a knowing of the known, sans the division, because you've seen for
yourself that there is no dividing line.

Since THIS is all that is known, and you are knowing of it, you must be this
knowingknown; THIS, aware of itself, AS itself.

There is no other (witness or experiencer, or creator, etc...).

You must be This.

Matt B: Maybe I don't know exactly what you mean by "You are knowing of it".
Knowing "of"?

Matt B: and "it" is the one dream, right?

Kari: There is only this, so yes. And YOU are this dream, dreaming itself. You are
aware (knowing) of it AS yourself.

Matt B: okay, me thinks me got it.

Matt B: See you on Sunday, if you're here. Peace

Matt B: I wanted to insert this gem from your thread with Jackson:

{"Unowned experience." Yes. Because, YOU are experience knowing of itself.}

Amazing: So, why is experience ownerless? Because You don't own You, there is no
two, no interaction, no owner or owned, just This.

Kari: Yes! Soooooooo Simple. Just This.

Matt B: And why call it "YOU"? Because Being IS, and although it's impersonal, it's
absolutely "intimate" (and too intimate for the word intimate; it's Identical)....
"Being" would seem to refer to an object, as would "Clarity", "Light", etc. Only "YOU",
in an impersonal sense, can indicate the Identical.

YOU are not a someone, nor a subject, nor an object.

Kari: Yes. YOU, is not a someone. You could call This, cheesecake. This self aware
cheesecake is baking itself, as itself. It doesn't matter. Too intimate for words. Closer
than close. THIS.

Kari: "YOU are not a someone, nor a subject, nor an object." So Matt, what are you?

Matt B: ?! ....

Kari: Do you exist, Matt?

Matt B: Existence exists; the Matt Show breaks down into showless pixels in DE.

Matt B: "'YOU are not a someone, nor a subject, nor an object.' So Matt, what are
you?"

No answer is possible; answers break down into answerless pixels in DE

Kari: You are all that is here.

If you don't exist, nothing exists.

The sun and the moon couldn't exist without you, not (Matt).
This entire thread has never been about a person named Matt.

Matt B: I love that irony: "So Matt, what are you?" has never been about a person
named Matt.

Kari: Haha! No irony, actually. I could just say, "Hey You!" Kari and Matt are just
empty characters. They seem to be chatting it up on a thread in the doorway, but neither
one knows of it. Only you know of it.

Matt B: So there has never been an actual identification as Matt? It's just thought
patterns saying there's an impenetrable Matt prison here. But it's also futile and
unnecessary to change thought patterns? If we discuss and affirm the way reality Is long
enough, there will be an insight that shows there's no identification as Matt, and thoughts
can't create the experience of a prison?

Kari: Hey You!

―So there has never been an actual identification as Matt?‖

Identification seems to show up in this that you are.
You (not Matt) have never been identified with anything.
―Thought patterns‖
In DE, do thought patterns exist, or is it just a thought about thought patterns?
If you‘re not the thinker/controller of thoughts AND what you are, is unaffected by
thoughts, what needs to change?
It‘s like thought says, ―I don‘t like myself/my life. I had better do something to change
it.‖
See how thought talks about itself? It may seem like it‘s referring to the life and times of
a character named Matt, but is it?
Today, look at thoughts as if they are only referring to themselves, and not about Matt.

―If we discuss and affirm the way reality Is long enough, there will be an insight that
shows there's no identification as Matt, and thoughts can't create the experience of a
prison?‖

Thoughts of a thought-created prison, is just a thought taking credit for creating

experience.
No ―insight‖ necessary for this. Look at direct experience. Can you find evidence of a
thought-created prison? If you can‘t, then it doesn‘t exist.
Can you find, ―insight‖ in DE?

This really doesn‘t have to be seen.

>You already are all that is here.<
The ‗seeing‘ of it is just a part of the dream; the dream dreaming itself as a seeker.

Questions: Check out DE to find the answers.

What is in this for Matt?
Is there an expectation or hope of an escape from something?
Is there thought saying that something, some experience, is unwanted?

Matt B: thanks so much

Kari: Looking forward to what you find out.

Matt B: I wish I could put aside some time right now for careful investigation in DE.
Those were some fabulous questions you asked.

Kari: When you can.

Kari: Hey you!

In DE, can you find:

-Anything other than THIS that is?
-Others having their own experiences?
-A creator or watcher or witness?
-Anything outside of THIS?
Matt B: 1) "In DE, do thought patterns exist, or is it just a thought about thought
patterns?"
In DE, even the thought about thought patterns is negligible.

Matt B: 2) Can you find evidence of a thought-created prison?

No, these thoughts are so amorphous and empty; can't really find them.

Matt B: 3) Can you find, ―insight‖ in DE?

Insight is just another negligible, amorphous, empty thought....and so is this....

Matt B: 5) What is in this for Matt?

Nothing, or, the end of the Matt drama.

Matt B: 6) Is there an expectation or hope of an escape from something?

7) Is there thought saying that something, some experience, is unwanted?

Empty thought-bubbles popping.

Kari: Hey You!

So you see that thoughts are just empty.
But are you (This that IS)?
Can you see that the "Matt drama" never existed in the first place?

Matt B: "In DE, can you find:

-Anything other than THIS that is?"
[No; I have never found anything "that isn't"! Even though maybe thought says "sure I
have; I find all kinds of suffering and grief, elation and ecstasy, which don't really exist."
Yet thoughts don't find. Thoughts don't see in DE or otherwise. In DE there is only This
that Is. Including thoughts.]

"-Others having their own experiences?" No. Knowingthoughts.

"-A creator or watcher or witness?" No witness apart from witnessed; no "Creator" apart
from "Creation"; just knowingknown.
"-Anything outside of THIS?" Impossible as this is all, including the thought 'outside'.

"So you see that thoughts are just empty.

But are you (This that IS)?" Yes, empty-knowingknown-I-Is.

"Can you see that the "Matt drama" never existed in the first place?" There's no room in
inseparable knowingknown for drama to occur, for time to occur, for Matt to appear.

Kari: Hey you!

"No; I have never found anything "that isn't"!"..."In DE there is only This that Is.
Including thoughts." Nice!
"No. Knowingthoughts." Nice!

"No witness apart from witnessed; no "Creator" apart from "Creation"; just
knowingknown."
Yes. No witness or witnessed. No creator or creation. Just knowingknown.

"Impossible as this is all, including the thought 'outside'." Nice!

"Yes, empty-knowingknown-I-Is." What does emptiness refer to in DE?

"There's no room in inseparable knowingknown for drama to occur, for time to occur, for
Matt to appear."
Does it have room for the story of Matt, to appear?

Matt B: In DE, the Matt stories vanish into thoughts, which self-reveal as
knowingknown.
But maybe, in a sense, there's "room" for any appearance. Appearance itself is
paradoxical....

Kari: Is that true or just a thought? In DE, what is paradoxical?

Matt is an appearance in/as this that you are.
There's room for anything to show up in THIS.

Matt B: So there's room for THIS to show up as stories?

Kari: Do you know of stories?

Matt B: If it can be said I know of this sentence, then I know of a story?

Kari: Are you aware of the story of Matt? The story of the twin toddlers?
Matt B: Yes and no...

Kari: Doesn‘t all show up in this indivisible dream?

Matt B: Stories, dreams, vanish in DE.

Matt B: There is nothing but DE?

Kari: Yes. There is nothing but experience! What is experience?

Matt B: Experience is no-experience in DE?

Kari: Are you saying, then, that there is nothing?

Matt B: There is nothing but DE knowing Itself through Its own self-appearances
which disappear upon appearing....?
Kari: What disappears up appearing? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're getting
at, here.

Matt B: The self-appearances of THIS/DE vanish upon appearing.

Kari: Can this that is, vanish upon appearing? Where does it go?

Matt B: <stunned silence>

Matt B: Matt is going back to work, thanks so much!

Kari: THIS that IS = Experience

YOU are knowing of it.

It is known to YOU, alone. <<< knowingknown

YOU are all that is here.

There is ONLY this one - without other.

So, THIS that is, MUST be what you are!

Stories and all!

Matt B: Oh! I see. Yeah, that's much simpler! <chuckle>

Kari: LOL!!!

Kari: This is SO simple. Really.

Matt B: Ha. I thought there would be a monster at the end of the book, but it's just I,
lovable Grover...

Kari: Haha!

Matt B: THANK YOU

Kari: You're thanking yourself.

Matt B: wow

Kari: Yes! Wow!

Matt B: THIS that is, MUST be what I AM! Stories and all! Beautiful! Stories and
all.... Wow.
Matt B: So much gratitude and love.

Matt B: Yeah, " " says it all. nothing else to say. except what a fun surprise. "Stories
and all." Unbelievable.

Kari: Hehe! Yes! The punchline of the joke, it seems, is that you were looking for you.

Kari: And you did a fine job, too!

Matt B: that's hilarious! yes, oy vey, such a fine job...! ha!

Lisa B: Yay!!! What a beautiful thread this is. Matt Kari

Vivi: Hi Matt!!! beautiful

Matt B: I can't stop laughing!

Lisa B: Hee hee!

Empty Mirror: Yeeehaaaaaa!!

Empty Mirror: Awesome thread

David F: Haha Excellent

Empty Mirror Lol

Yup, the 'cosmic joke' makes me laugh every time I'm reminded of it, too

Tach P: Thanks love this thread.....

Rita S: Thanks Matt

SC: Matt! Kari! Beautiful! I cried when I read this:

"Ha. I thought there would be a monster at the end of the book, but it's just I, lovable
Grover..." (had that book as a kid, and oh boy to see that line now :')
Stephanie M:
I have a big question I don't know if anyone can answer even theoretically, here it
is; if all things aren't inherently existent in themselves, which they aren't, and the
builder of this house of cards and glass is all of us, I am you, you are me, we hold
together in separate bodies to store info is all I can wrap my head around, who or
what is responsible for this guided omniscient delivery? It would, in my experience,
be something we would never guess! Or is all of this self perpetuating? Everything g
in nature has its . Purpose, what is the purpose of the right brain? It seems we are
an imagination of ourselves. Sorry about the double post. Is there an answer to this
question? I haven't found one, and really don't know why I am being g nagged by
this

Stephanie M: I feel like leela in the futurama episode where fry finds God, and brings
the people of earth to it, even though it feels great to be with God, leela fights it for fear
of losing her identity, but then the robots blow it. My thoughts are like bender. They blow
it. ( God was an organism that mated with your skull in the episode for those who are
interested

Kari: Hi Stephanie
Do you have a particular guide in mind for your inquiry?

Stephanie M: If your willing Kara I'd love to work with you

Stephanie M: Kari: sorry lol I suck

Kari: LOL! "I suck." If I had a penny for every time that thought came up...
I'd be honored to show you the rabbit hole!

The first questions I have for you are...

Do you create your own thoughts? Can you stop and start them at will? Really take a look
at that.
You can close your eyes and say, "I wonder what the next thought is going to say." See
what happens.

Stephanie M: Definitely don't create the thoughts, they seem to stem from habits,
emotional situations. A lot of them at habit, certain feelings provoke certain repetitive
thoughts

Stephanie M: Down the rabbit hole I like that lol kinda what this feels like, wonderland

Stephanie M: When I try to stop my thoughts it gets worse

Kari: Stephanie, you said: "...they seem to stem from habits..." Yes. SEEM to, but do
they?
Habits = Time. Time is a belief.
In Direct Experience (experience without the thought stories), can you find "repetitive
thoughts"? << Also a 'time' belief.
Can you find a past or future or is there just thought about a past or future?

Stephanie M: Oh, cool I didn't even think about that, right time is a social construct. Ha
ha the time belief! So what of habits!? Lol they also loose their substance this way!

Stephanie M: There is no past or future, in fact I don't have a present. There is only
experiencing the present, and who am I? I am not existent

Stephanie M: Plus no, repetitive in nature, to memories of the past, but memories aren't
valid.

Stephanie M: If there is no past there is only the experience of it have being thought

Stephanie M: Am I fooling myself here? This is part of the endless loop

Kari: Do you know of this comment? If you do, how can you not exist?

Kari: Girl! You need slow down on your comments. I can't keep up. Let's tackle one
thing at a time.

Stephanie M: Lol sorry

Stephanie M: I guess because it is known there is an I that exists, just not the me I
thought I was

Kari: Yes! Stephanie is an appearance in YOU.

So, you are not the thinker of thoughts.
You see that 'time' is a belief.
Are you in a body? Are you the body? Do you operate from a body?
Take a close look at this. See if you can locate yourself.

Stephanie M: Nope nowhere, not the thoughts not the body not the synapses, if I bad to
point to anything I'd say that the only where I can be found is a construct, but the feeling
of being can't be found anywhere accept in emotion, which is just experienced, it's like a
self perpetuating system

Stephanie M: I feel being in my heart area, a heaviness a weight a presence of being

alive,

Kari: Okay. Emotion. This is also, something that shows up in what you are. Thought
labels it, sadness, joy, depression, happiness...
It is a sensation that shows up. When a sensation shows up, look to see if you can pin-
point its location.
Thought comes in and says stuff about location. Where is the sensation without the
stories that thought tells?

Stephanie M: Good point, the pain disapates without a label!

Stephanie M: I'm gonna take a few to really investigate this cool?

Stephanie M: Thanks Kari Schratz!

Stephanie M: If I were to say I am being thought, does that make sense?

Stephanie M: I don't know why but when Byron Katie said this it struck a chord, when
what I considered the spirit of life awoke in me, this is what it told me , I dismissed
myself as nuts. It wasn't said in word , but it's presence was everywhere

Stephanie M: I just knew it wow we are one, then the matrix came tumbling down, and
for three days I radiated love, was one with everything ! ( this came after prayer for all
people, after metta, I swear on my kid) could find no rational explanation. I read some
buddhism before, but it's like there was a bank of peace I could withdraw from at will,
this is the most embarrassing thing to me, but in my experience this is what happened

Kari: For the purposes of this inquiry, let's leave teachings and teachers/gurus alone.
When you see beliefs crumble, you just may notice that most teachings are bogus.
Besides, you're the only one here. And what you are, doesn't care about any of this.

That is what the inquiry is about. Seeing what you really are. The entire house of beliefs,
comes crashing down. Then, it's realized that there never was a house of beliefs.

"If I were to say I am being thought, does that make sense?"

Thought taking credit for who you are. So typical of thought. It's just a story that
thoughts tell.

Look at the story of a newborn. Is a newborn being its thoughts?

Is what you are, 'being' anything?

Stephanie M: No, it's just experiencing this.... It's so simple it sounds wrong but it's
what it is

Stephanie M: If there is only me I'm pretty angry at myself for this shiity world building

Stephanie M: Physics, an idea I should drop? I'm clenching on to it with all I've got. But
physics isn't experiencing this, I am

Stephanie M: Thank you for your help Kari: I fear there is going to be a lot if circling
here, in my digging I built a lot of concepts, especially when I had no rational explanation
if what was happening to me, I've never believed in anything that other people couldn't
verify

Stephanie M: A newborn is an organism so this part eludes me, though I've seen
because I had one, that they are like molders clay, thier minds anyway,

Stephanie M: This is nothing I'm going to be able to reason away ( who after all is
doing all of this thinking !) in going to stop getting off track and just answer your
questions straight up without trying to apply thought to it! Sorry for the derailment!

Kari: You're commenting too much for me to keep up. Maybe it would be a good idea to
write or type everything out on a document. Get it out of your system, so to speak.
Date it and then leave it. It may be fun to re-read it once this inquiry wraps up.

I'm going to slow things down here. It's all over the place.

Please take a good look at the following.

We are going to slowly cover each of these, one by one.

- There is no thinker of thoughts and no doer of doing.

- People (and thoughts) are aware of absolutely nothing.
- There are no "others"
- There is nothing other than 'this that is'.
- Concepts are meaningless/empty abstractions of this.
- This that is, cannot be divided into a "knowing" and a "known".

It may be a good idea to read some of the threads in the Doorway. You'll see where this
inquiry is going.

Stephanie M: Ok cool sorry I'm doing to you what I do to myself lol! I will totally look
at this regarding every thought, and see what's left!

Stephanie M: Reading through some of this filled in the gaps, so let me spill out all of
this insanity into one doc as recommended;
There is fear that everything around me can't be trusted

There is the nagging thought, you know this already!

Turns out what my thoughts say I know, I don't know.

When something is known, it is known, there is no duality. We just know it, from
experience

There can't be a known without the experience

If all this is illusory then not only am I not a person, no one is at all! This feels true, and
untrue
Actually no, it feels unfair, not right or wrong
This is what the thoughts say

From direct experience, things can't be known without experiencing them

I'm afraid I will find that all of the time I've been pouring over other peoples thoughts in
books, if what I know to be true is true, I wasted a lot of experience

Oh anger! Frustration!

There are periods where this insight sits like, oh, wow! And then ha ha lost in thought it's
forgotten

When I see it, the world view changes. Things become static moving , fluid
Animate
Everything is a label, existence can't be thought without labeling

So thoughts are all just labels, I don't have to believe them. They don't affect my
experience when I give them no credit, except maybe relaxation

I am afraid if I stop thinking, like Matt Brown, my kid will go I taken care of

Thoughts: the seeking is what is blinding me.

Known: what experience I have now will never be the same as another

If there are no others, who is my child? Boyfriend? I am am them and they are me, why
do we not see the same thing?

I see now, what I thought I knew goes way down the rabbit hole

In my direct experience, even when things go to hell, it always seems to work out the best
way, and there are no coincidences

I only know things exist outside of myself because of outside sources, and because every
time I try to meditate or be aware my kid has this intuitive sense to interrupt me. I've also
noticed in deep looking when I subconsciously become aware of her she pops up.
Boyfriend too, and circumstances. But I held, or am holding on to the idea that this is
pure coincidence, and that it's my thoughts making me so nervous that I mess it up.

All if this may prove futile, but it's 100% honest.

I'm going to go look at life with these statements and see what can be done. Thank you
kari
Stephanie M: Okay, here we go: there are sensations, and when a sensation is perceived
a thought follows it and labels it. It's like a character has been built around the senses.
Body ego image sight screen all sense perception. Then thought comes in and labels it. In
my experience when thoughts are believed they are perceived as real. In common thought
and de,
It's like there is an imagination of ourselves into form but I still don't see how my cup is
me, unless I take it to bare experience. Seeing the cup and touching the cup make the cup.
Virtual reality tells me that the cup doesn't have to be there for me to think it is. Our
sense perceptions fool us.
What are sense perceptions without thoughts to label them?
Seems I can only be fully aware of one sensation at a time. Can't feel walking and cold
hands simultaneously.
So there are sensations, but without the thoughts to label what they are or where they
come from the feel so acute that the feeling disapates, and leaves nothing.

I can't deny this anymore; there is something then there is nothing. We are an organic
imagination of ourselves

Kari: Stephanie-

I took most of your comments, pasted them into a doc.

Here are the responses. Please look in DE when answering. Post only one comment and
then wait for my response before posting.

You said: "No, it's just experiencing this...." When I asked you if you're in a body.
No one or thing is experiencing. That would mean there are more than one. One who is
experiencing and the experience. = Separation. And this that is, is whole.

You said: "If there is only me I'm pretty angry at myself for this shiity world building."
This one sentence has several beliefs.
That there is someone here, who is creating (building) something.
Separation = builder + something.
That there is someone who can control anything.

You said: "Physics, an idea I should drop? I'm clenching on to it with all I've got. But
physics isn't experiencing this, I am."
You are not a person, so you can't drop anything. You can't clench anything. You're not
experiencing anything.

Looking in direct experience, are you a person?

If so, what makes you a person?
Can you find an instance where you are clenching, or is that a thought about it?
You said:
"I fear there is going to be a lot if circling here, in my digging I built a lot of concepts,
especially when I had no rational explanation if what was happening to me..."
There are some thoughts telling more stories. Are you a person? Do you have any
control? Please look carefully before responding.

Stephanie M: No your right kari, I did some direct looking and I noticed it's all thoughts
telling stories, stories upon stories. Other than being present everything is just thoughting.
There's no person to be present, just the experiece of what is now. There will be no
logically way to rationalize this, it's just more thinking, and more buying into that
thinking. The only way I will get through this without falling into depression is by
staying present without buying into ideas and labels. But to that effect the seeking
liberation is pointless. Nature compels this body, not me, and the me that I can't find is
the presence. And the presence isn't in this body, the body is in the presence, the body
seems an emanation of the experience.

Stephanie M: Vivi did a little work with me this morning and it cleared up a lot of
misconceptions I had, so that helped, but using your methods above today helped me see
the circling for what it was, and I really thank you for that.

Stephanie M: Thanks for your continued support everyone and to Otter Rivers for
checking in on me. Makes this process less lonely. Over here on the east coast people are
a little vicious when they don't understand you

Kari: You said: "There will be no logically way to rationalize this, it's just more
thinking, and more buying into that thinking. The only way I will get through this without
falling into depression is by staying present without buying into ideas and labels."

There is a belief in a person, here. - That there is thinking or buying into thoughts.
That there is someone who can fall into depression or who can stay present.

This is the first belief that has to go. The rest seem to fall quickly.
The second part of your comment was ok, but I'm not buying it.

What you are, cannot be harmed, fall into a depression, or get trapped in thinking.
That is what this inquiry is about. Seeing what you are.

Who is Stephanie? Please describe Stephanie. You'll need to look at direct experience
(without thought stories).

Stephanie M: This is very new to me. Stephanie is a character, a construct, how I know
this is from direct looking. I couldn't find a definitive her anywhere. Stephanie was built
due to experience and stories based on this experience. The character, through a lot of
perceived suffering built a victim mentality, and let the thoughts of that character define
her world The character slips in and out of these stories. I'm not trying to convince myself
of anything, or anyone else, that would be self defeating. Who I am or who we are being
or a natural state is that me.
I attempted the sensation experiment which showed there are only sensations, and the
sensations aren't what they seem. They go when one becomes acutely aware of them.
And though there is no Stephanie Stephanie's perceived habits die hard. When I'm
engaged in present moment, everything else is non existent. This is evident in movie
watching. Mind body complex goes. That second part of my comment was an after affect
of mindfulness without attaching labels. I find that there is mind, and the sensations,
emotions, seeing and feeling are distorted when thoughts of Stephanie are arising. I for
sure do not control my actions or thoughts because there is is no Stephanie to control it.
I've had my body move without my will during meditationMy thoughts aren't necessary
to tasks , and I have seen that they are a biproduct of acts not the other way around, from
d. E
So who is Stephanie? Stephanie is a name, with labels attatched to adopted personality.
It's a little hard to describe. But after this afternoon I've found any idea or situation that
labels get ascribed to are abstract. My world hasn't fallen into two dimensions like some
people have stated, but I see that I am not my body, my body lies inside of what I am. It
is an emanation of thoughts about her. Anything beyond that I can't see. If I don't have
any control this process seems to be doing itself. Is this a valid statement to your
question?

Kari: Nearly all of the above, is thought story. I'm going to tag you in HoM. It's a thread
on direct experience and has some really good examples.

Stephanie M: Thanks I feel very lost

Stephanie M: Thank you for clearing up that misconception of de Kari Schratz. I think
I may have mistook a logical grasp of this and visual crumbling of permanence as
knowing it.

So in de (sitting with eyes closed in a chair)

Do I know I am sitting in a chair?
No there is just a sensation of hardness
I feel my feet on the floor
Do I know my feet are on a floor?
No, there is just a sensation of pressure
I hear the sound of my inflatable reindeer
Do I know it? No
There is a sound of buzzing
Do I know it's being heard through my ears? No
There is only the sound
Do I know it's a sound?
No it is inconsistent each fragment

I really don't want to fool myself here ( in a common mans consciousness, believing there
to be a person there that can fool themselves is not as broken as I thought)
I really appreciate your honesty Kari thank you, am I on the right track here?
Kari: Once you've read the thread, look again, and describe Stephanie. See if you can
find anything that created/built or moves/lives 'her'. Don't answer what you 'think' I want
to read.
You're the only one here. Write the DE of Stephanie without the thought stories.

Kari: Nice! Stephanie! Now, what is the DE of Kari.

Stephanie M: Would you mind elaborating a little on how I find the direct experience of
you or I?

Kari: You look at experience without the thought story.

What is the experience of Kari without the thought story?

Stephanie M: Communicating

Stephanie M: Mind passing ideas back and forth

Kari: What if you're the only one here? Who or what is communicating?

Can you find Kari anywhere? If so, what is the experience of Kari?

Stephanie M: Kari for me is thoughts

Stephanie M: Stephanie is also thoughts

Kari: Good. And what else? What is showing up on the screen in front of you?

Stephanie M: Just for clarification do you mean computer screen or visual screen?

Stephanie M: Words on phone, hand holding phone peripheral kitchen

Kari: Computer.

Stephanie M: Words images

Stephanie M: Letters, symbols without memory they are just curvy lines

Stephanie M: All light, like a hologram

Kari: Yes. Kari is just words in this moment. When away from the computer/ipad, does
Kari exist?

Stephanie M: In direct experience no

Stephanie M: Without a memory of Stephanie I don't exist either there is only the
sensation of being
Kari: Yes. Kari doesn't exist except in thought. The 4-letter word that may show up on
the screen (or not).
A thought about Kari, may show up (or not).

Memory is also, just a thought – a thought about the past. And as you've said, the past
doesn't exist.

YOU, however, exist. Stephanie is an appearance in you. Stephanie is an unaware

character in this that you are.

What is the DE of people?

Stephanie M: Ok I'm going to try to do de with my daughter

I think I see her and she exists in her own right
If I were blind she would only be sound and touch sensations
But there is also a feel of another entity, like when the tv goes on I can hear it's pitch, she
has a presence or pitch like a sound that one could feel

Stephanie M: Without the memory of it to relate to, it would just feel electric or static

Stephanie M: When others aren't in my view there is only thoughts of them

Kari: ―I think I see her and she exists in her own right‖

Thoughts say that someone exists in their own right. Thought says that it ‗thinks‘ it sees
her.

―But there is also a feel of another entity…‖

What does another entity feel like in DE?

Stephanie M: Like how I feel, that staticky presence, I can't say alive because tv and
radio share it, to a different degree, it's hard to describe in words

Kari:
Does she exist outside of thought?
Is there an instance where she doesn't exist?

Stephanie M: Without thought there is no way to know of she exists, the only way I
perceive her is recognition of the sense, without a label, when she isn't in the vicinity, her
presence only exists in thought and memory

Stephanie M: Sorry let me rephrase this: in de when she's there and not making any
noise, there is a feeling of mikayla, a recognition of the presence I feel in me: when she's
not around , in de, she doesn't exist to me,except in thought or memory , which aren't de
Kari: "...when she's not around, in de, she doesn't exist to me, except in thought or
memory , which aren't de."

Thought actually exists in Direct Experience. You know of it.

What isn't DE, is the stories thought tells.
So, yes, when she is not around, she doesn't exist.

Do other people exist?

What is the DE of others?

Stephanie M: So in the same respect when I'm not in her world, I also don't exist

I can't say they don't exist, because they exist in Interaction

I have to say I'm confused

Stephanie M: In direct experience without outside influence there are no others

Stephanie M: Nope I'm not getting this

Stephanie M: Okay let me try this again: in de there is sensations of presence , touch or
pressure, sounds and color
Then a thought arises and labels it
There is no way for me to know if the others exp what I exp
There is no way for me to know that they are other

Stephanie M: The recognition of their presence is the same recognition of my presence

It's sensation, heard, felt ( without touching) and seen (but I don't trust what I see
anymore)

Kari: You said: ―So in the same respect when I'm not in her world, I also don't exist.‖
Here‘s the thing that is being pointed out.
YOU are the ONLY one here.
That means that there is no ‗her world‘.

―Then a thought arises and labels it‖ – Yes.

―There is no way for me to know if the others exp what I exp‖
If it isn‘t found in DE, it doesn‘t exist. You are all that is.
There is nothing outside of direct experience.

Did you see where thought said that you were confused and not getting it?
When you look at DE, it blows those thought stories out of the water.

If there is not a ‗me‘ – no aware person called Stephanie, is it possible that people have a
‗me‘?
Stephanie M: No lol

Stephanie M: Ha ha ha no! People do not exist!

Stephanie M: So would it be correct to say that the sensations exist, thought exists, and
those two combinations form the illusion of a person and separation?

Stephanie M: The only things I can find in direct experience ( but the sensations have
an illusion of continuity that in my de there isn't

Kari: Can't find them anywhere. Only thought says that they exist. Interactions with
characters seems to exist, but none are aware of anything. There is no one, out there or up
there, pulling the strings or making anything happen. No one is creating anything.

Stephanie M: Wow deep this rabbit hole is! He he

Stephanie M: Thanks Kari: I'm excited to explore wonderland more!

Kari: You asked: "So would it be correct to say that the sensations exist, thought exists,
and those two combinations form the illusion of a person and separation?"

It would seem so. Thoughts are talking all the time. They aren't doing anything but
randomly chatting about experience. And they NEVER get it. Completely clueless.

What you are, has never fallen for the idea of a separate, 'me'.

Stephanie M: Where do these thoughts come from? Anywhere?

Stephanie M: I used to think they were dependent upon causation, but clearly that's not
the case

Stephanie M: A baby can't narrate itself as we seem to do, the narration stems from
learning to relate self and other. Are thoughts illusory as well? In the same sense that
sensation is?

Stephanie M: Never mind I'll just let you ask the questions I'm conceptualizing again

Kari: Let‘s take this back to Stephanie comments and then Kari comments – one at time.

Where do thoughts come from? << I have no idea.

And yes, they are not dependent on anything.

The baby is an un-aware character, or just a thought about a baby.

It may seem as though it is learning, but can that be verified in DE? If there are no others
with their own experiences, can a baby have its own experiences? Or is thought telling a
story about it?
Stephanie M: Ha ha exactly why I stopped myself! there are no others, all of the above
I just asked just more thought story:)

Kari: Nice!
To recap:
You are not the thinker or creator of thoughts.
You are not in control.
You are not in a body.
There is no one else having their own experience.

All of this is very clear when looking at experience without the thought stories.

Any questions before going on?

Stephanie M: Nope! Mind is clear of questions master Yoda lol!

Kari: Alright. Now that we‘ve uncovered what you‘re not, let‘s look at what you are.

You are the one knowing of this comment.

Can you find a border between this comment and the knowing of it.

Really take a look at this.

It may be easier to pick up an object and hold it.

See if you can find a dividing line between the knowing of it and the object.

Stephanie M: Hmm nope can't find a border

When I see it, it appears to exist from it's own side, when I pick it up and hold it with
eyes closed there is only a sensation, one finger at a time, of pressure. The only border is
that there is no feeling of anything existing inside the object, the way it appears to exist in
the fingers holding it
As for the comment, I can find no border

Stephanie M: I noticed something else creepy, without regard to rehearsal, when

engaged in conversation, I'm not the one speaking, it's like the speaking happens and then
the I thought regards it

Stephanie M: Sorry Kari Schratz, so I am the universe emanating In side itself, you are
also the universe emanating inside itself and the itself is the the You, that you are
referring to, so my awareness can go anywhere at anytime which would be why I
would've had an out of body experience directly is this correct? Or am I completely crazy
now.

Stephanie M: This feels correct, known

Kari: "I noticed something else creepy, without regard to rehearsal, when engaged in
conversation, I'm not the one speaking, it's like the speaking happens and then the I
thought regards it."

The Stephanie character seems to be speaking, but is not aware of it. Thought could be
regarding the character, or itself. In either case, both the character and the thought are not
aware of it. Can anyone be engaged in conversation? Would that imply that there's a
doer? If so, who is doing the doing?

"...so I am the universe emanating In side itself, you are also the universe emanating
inside itself and the itself is the the You, that you are referring to, so my awareness can
go anywhere at anytime which would be why I would've had an out of body experience
directly is this correct?"

-I'm not sure what you're saying, here. What is, "my awareness"? How does it go
anywhere at anytime?
What do you mean by, "Universe" or "Universe emanating In side itself"?

"This feels correct, known."

Known doesn't exist. We will touch on that a bit later.

Stephanie M: Well I had a direct realization into non control, like watching Stephanie
outside of herself, like in a movie. So I guess I just realized beyond doubt the non control
and non doer. Then surprised by it, thought story followed. Sorry

Kari: Lol! You notice that "sorry" is sprinkled throughout this thread? I LOL, because
you're all that is here.

Stephanie M:

Stephanie M: In conventional terms, Kari is still sitting at a computer talking to

Stephanie right?

Kari: It appears so. Neither one knows of it.

Stephanie M: Thank you Kari! Your patience with my misunderstanding of this is so

kind, and these methods really do work!

Stephanie M: I'm ready for more whenever you are

Kari: Hi Stephanie.
Can you find a 'mind' anywhere?

Stephanie M: Nope just thoughts that I have been told come from mind, but I can't find
a mind
Kari: I may be offline for much of the day. So, I give you this experiment, as
homework.
Really take a close look at this.

Stand in the place where you are. Just stand. Notice the scene in front of you. Thought
will label things to separate, but just notice the one, seamless scene.

That, is the ENTIRE universe. Just that scene.

See if you can find any separation between 'objects'. See if you notice where sound,
sensations, colors and shapes blend into each other. Notice if the body is in that scene.
See if you can locate yourself in this scene.
Play with this today.
Report back (in one comment please).

Stephanie M: Cool got it will do!

Stephanie M: I tried this and failed. All I notice is color that protrudes from the original
object and expands into space, then seems to have an ends or a pixelation to it, the entire
Scene has pixels everywhere, like watching a static tv screen in three dimensions

Kari: Failed? Hehe! You'd have to be a person in order to have failed. And there is no
such thing.

Kari: Can you find a person? Can you find, Stephanie?

Stephanie M: I'm sorry I don't know what you mean by that, I can see the body...

Stephanie M: Stephanie can't be found, no

Kari: Does Stephanie exist other than in thought? In DE, can you find her? What is the
experience of a body?

Stephanie M: Stephanie only exists in thought. In De she doesn't exist. Sensory input
interprets body. I. The scene, the bodies nose was very in the way! The energy is felt in a
touch or emotion sense, so I feel the body with pressure and emotion, and its part of the
seeing scene, so just a bunch of sensory inputs.

Kari: Do you notice that the body isn't there for much of the day?

Stephanie M: Yeah definitely times where I'm unaware of my body unless I think of it,
or look down, or catch a glimpse of my nose

Kari: Can you think about it? Is it your body?

Stephanie M: No, just for the purpose of composing a sentence, the I and my was put in
Stephanie M: But yeah when I'm damaged in activity, like watching tv, mind body
complex disappears

Kari: Yes. Notice that unless thought says something about it, it doesn't exist?

Stephanie M: Seems to be so, but what of thought that are unheard or felt? I call them
subconscious, others call it will or intention? Don't have to think to act or sense or see
right? The thought always follows it

Stephanie M: I definitely do disassociate during movies however

Kari: You don't ever disassociate. That is just another thought about a person.

Kari: "I call them subconscious, others call it will or intention? Don't have to think to
act or sense or see right? The thought always follows it." Do you find a person to act or
sense or see? What about a will or intention? Wouldn't that also mean that there is a
person, here? All thoughts talking about something of which they know nothing about.

Stephanie M: Oh. So even though I see a human being there, there is no actual organic
animal there? instead of the idea that a human being is walking around empty of an
independent soul?

Kari: More thought stories about experience. What is a soul? What is independent?
What is a human being? They all have something in common. All labels, brought to you,
by thought. Can you find a soul in experience?

Stephanie M: I think I see where this is going

Stephanie M: It makes consciousness an element of sorts, correct? Everything projected

from one source , and I use these words because there is no accurate way I can describe it

Stephanie M: I traveled out of this body once, so there was definitely an awareness of
something with consciousness that fell out of what this body is, or if I am everything
around me and there is no empty space that again, would be s good answer

Kari: Nothing is projected. <<< Thought. In looking at direct experience, can you find a
source? Can you find consciousness? If so, please describe it.

Stephanie M: Consciousness would be the ability to be aware of one's e experience,

surroundings,.

Stephanie M: Out of body exp the thoughts were still there even in absence of a body,

Kari: Who has this, "ability" to be aware? Can you find anyone or is that a thought?
Look at DE.
Stephanie M: So how is this being of experience aware of this experience? Let's go
back to some exercises if you have time. My head in in loops now

Kari: You are experience, itself. There is nothing but experience. No beyond, nothing
other than this. Can you find any separation between an object and the knowing of it? If it
helps to hold something, go for it. Hold an object. Look at it. See if you can find division
between the knowing of the the known (object).

Stephanie M: Thank you again Kari Schratz, there has definitely been a great perception
shift here!

Stephanie M: This theory here, that you guys have somehow developed ways of looking
into this with personal proof, ( reminiscent of what happens to one during insight
meditation, or descriptions of) is fundamentally what quantum physics states; things do
not exist unless they are observed. This is beyond my wildest dreams.

Stephanie M: So to answer ha ha , no, I could find no division. I have to admit this

revelation scared me half to death, so much so that I almost threw out every book I
owned regarding, deleted my FB account and thought about living forgetting all of this,
but it's impossible. And frankly ridiculous. Just unfolding now, like a massage for the
brain

Kari: I wondered if you were coming back. So, please say what scared you half to death
(btw: what you are isn't scared).

Stephanie M: I for an instant, and like a second literally that fast, saw a hole in my
screen. I don't know how else to describe it

Stephanie M: My mind labeled it worm hole, but that's not possible, but it didn't feel
safe or hallucinatory, too slow to be peripheral vision, to slow to be passed off as nothing
it had a weighty significance

Stephanie M: Or maybe there was dirt in my eye lol

Kari: 'Fear' showed up. What did thoughts say about the fear?

Stephanie M: Stay away from this or you will be enveloped into a hell you will never
get out of, and "you are going insane, here is the proof, normal people don't hallucinate"

Kari: LOL!
A couple of those actually sound very familiar!

All of those are thoughts. It just goes to show you, that they have NO idea of what they
say. They have NO idea about you.

- Good thing is, there are no people, normal or otherwise.

- If you can't find hell, it doesn't exist, literally or otherwise!
- Seeing what you are, could be the most sane thing, ever.

The question is, do you want to continue with the investigation?

Stephanie M: Definitely, I've been to hell. It doesn't require death

Stephanie M: So yes to inquiry!

Stephanie M: Abandon all hope all ye who enter here is more than just words

Kari: Good. And there is no Hell. Only thought says there is. Only thought says, "I'm in
the 13th circle of Hell." <<< a favorite, here.

It's easy enough to see that suffering doesn't exist. You only have to look at DE.
It's just a word. Thought makes a big deal out of a sensation.
Whatever sensation shows up, it's cool. It's what you are. There is nothing that isn't you,
except the stories that thought spews. And that's because thought has no clue.

See if you can find, suffering, Hell, bliss or enlightenment. I dare you!

Stephanie M: ThAnkfully I've investigated this, and find them to be states, in fact I was
in one today. There is a heart gripping terror of hopelessness and powerlessness, to me
that is hell. But ultimately without labels, they all seem to be, at a feeling level,
contraction, or expansion.

Kari: How are you ever in a state? What is the direct experience of a state?

We'll get into hopelessness, terror and powerlessness in a bit.

Stephanie M: Well in conventional terms I suppose, but in direct experience it is

tightening , contortion, inability to "see" with clarity

Kari: You're ALWAYs clear. You are clear about tightening, contortion. You're clear
about experience, whatever that is.

Kari: A state suggests something temporary. What belief falls under, temporary or come
and go?

Stephanie M: Ok, so the confusion is part of that too? Is it the fighting it that makes it
worse?

Stephanie M: Aren't all things temporary?

Kari: There is no confusion or fighting it. Look at Direct Experience. Do you see
confusion, fighting it, temporary or states? Can you find anything making anything
worse? Please look.

Stephanie M: Oh yeah, there is no control, well listening to my thoughts sure seems to

make things worse

Stephanie M: I have to pm you there might be something more than meets the eye

Kari: Okay. I have 5 more mins of my lunch break and then it's back to work.

And I was pointing to the belief in 'Time"

Stephanie M: Oh right ha hA

Stephanie M: Never mind my problem was just relieved

Kari: Thought says you have a problem. Or had one. Can you find a problem anywhere?

Stephanie M: Nope! Ha ha now I see why everyone is so happy! Darn that time!

Stephanie M: There is quite a vice grip on my heart though, stress

Kari: I can't find, an "everyone" or a "So happy" Can you?

Can you find stress in DE or just a thought about it?

Stephanie M: In de, stress is a label then there is sensory perception of being constricted
to death ( I added the to death part for drama lol) but in conventionality that is the
description I'd give

Stephanie M: Kari Schratz, I just had another fleeting insight, and it's funny because
you've been telling me all along : how could I have messed this up so bad. There is no
thinker, there is only thoughts. I was reading a stanza and it just all came together. Phew.
Duh!

Stephanie M: Fleeting again some of that insight vaguely washed away

Kari: Yes, no thinker. You, not Stephanie, know of thoughts, but are unaffected by
them or the stories that they tell. "How could I have messed this up so bad?" Well, it's
impossible. Look for Stephanie. See if you can find her. Only thought says that insights
are fleeting. That is a time belief and a belief in a 'person' who has control. You don't
believe them, though. Can you find anyone who has control over anything? Or, does
thought say that "I can get this, if I can just hold on and focus"? It is very simple.
Thought seems to complicate it, but gets its butt kicked when you look at DE.
Stephanie M: This is so awesome, so to put it in a way that a lay person could
understand, what I we no words for are, if this were a video game without a programmer,
would be the line if code that experiences the scene. It's so damn simple it gets over
looked and even this is just a bad analogy I can't describe this feeling if elation wow

Kari: Good! So the line of code doesn't experience the scene. It is the scene, aware of
itself. The self-aware scene. The programmer-less code, coding itself. The
knowingknown. Indivisible. YOU. Yes. So simple.

Stephanie M: It's amazing kari wow!!!!!!

Stephanie M: Thank you!!!!!

Stephanie M: I have no words to describe what I want to say! Wooohoooo!

Kari: Awesome! And that doesn't even cut it.

Stephanie M: Wow thank you Kari! Everything makes sense and is bs all at the same
time! Ha ha ha ha

Stephanie M: Thank you to Empty Mirror too!

Kari: LOLOLOL!!! Yes. It's the best joke ever told... By no one! And it keeps getting
funnier.

Empty Mirror: Yeeeehaaaaaaaaa!

Stephanie M: Lol! I loved re-reading this, it was dead in my face, and I love the part
about thoughts not being aware of themselves! And then reading the posts where Empty
Mirror was talking about the dream, it just all clicked!

Stephanie M: I can't stop laughing!!!

Empty Mirror: So simple that it seems to be overlooked

But even that is just a story

Stephanie M: Ha ha it's all bull! Lol!

Stephanie M: I'm freer than I've ever been in my life, like a soaring eagle or some shit
ha ha! I love this! I can't thank you enough!

Empty Mirror: Free beyond the concept of freedom

Stephanie M: Without words! Have a good night everybody! I'm smiling from ear to
ear!
Otter: remember steph. it's never not true. this simple happiness flows naturally from
honest looking. you ARE free.

Otter ( kari, empty, vivi!!! )

Stephanie M: Otter Rivers!!! I wish I could fly to you and hug you!!!! I forgot you were
in this group!!!!!!!

Stephanie M: I love all you guys thank you so much Vivi!! Kari !! Empty Mirror!! And
of course Otter!! Other people out of this group I want to thank now! I was so elated I
spaced!

Stephanie M: Thank you everyone!!!!!!!

Stephanie M: Hannah!!

Lisa B: Stephanie Sweetness.

Stephanie M: Lisa.

Otter: she is sweet, lisa. so are you.

Otter: Stephanie, have you spoken with Hannah? I know she was wanting to speak to
you about some of the things you mentioned in our 'FB gate conversation'. hanna's one of
the best! she's so wise.

Otter: so is lisa. ....so is kari... so is vivi... so is.... damn there's too many. it's a good
problem to have. HAHA HA HA!

Stephanie M: No I'd love to speak with Hannah Bailey-Thomas though!

Kari: How goes it, Stephanie?

Stephanie M: Hey Kari, hanging in ! You?

Kari: Haven't seen much of you today. Is this settling a bit for you?

Stephanie M: Yep just doing some noticing, not taking stuff too personally

Kari: Sweet. There's nothing personal in this, anyway.