It has taken a while indeed to do the exercises a few times and find words. Not easy to find fitting words!
Where is this “I” that “knows of cloths or chair”? If thought appeared giving a new name like ‘zimilphat’...to the body, does that name arise from the body? Would you know what it was referring to?
There is no I that knows. The sentence would be more accurately like this: “It’s actually just the sensation of something known as concept of cloths or chair.” It’s information by thought story. No, such name wouldn’t come from the body. One wouldn’t know what it’s referring to.
The 2nd way feels truer. It’s more like the actual experience, just the action or sensation. Without labels there is just random thinking taking place between experiencing sensations, less structured, whereas the labelling structures thought.Now compare the two ways to label experience- is one truer than the other? If so, which one? What is here without labels? Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?
What happened in the body when labelling with “I” happened and without the “I”?
So it seems that labelling affects the experience especially in the first exercise. By repeating the ‘I’ that does this or that one implies that there is an ‘I’ acting. It’s supporting the conventional assumption that there is a persona who does something. It feels tighter in the body also.
Whereas labelling the action taking place without ‘I’ is according to experience. It feels looser in the body also, less tight.
Yes.1. Close the eyes and hold up one hand. Pay attention only to the felt sensation ‘of the hand’.
2. Open the eyes, and now observe the hand by looking only.
3. While looking at the hand, pay attention to the felt sensations.
Repeat 1 to 3 as many times as needed and investigate…
Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ (colour) and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?
Yes they appear beside each other, on their own.Do they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?
No there isn’t a link between sensation and sight. And thought labels colour as hand. Indeed it’s mental construct which links them.Is there any link between the sensation and the sight ie colour? In other words is the sensation actually ‘coming from’ the sight (colour labelled as ‘hand’), or only thought and mental constructs link them?
It’s not possible to draw a dividing line. It’s the same. By sensing knowing takes place. If this doesn’t happen instantaneously then it’s a confusing and unsettling situation.Where does sensation end and the knowing of it begin?
It refers to the thought story about a body.Please redo the exercise and then answer the following questions INDIVIDUALLY.
What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
The actual experience is a sensation here or there.What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
There is no experiencer to be found. It’s not possible to locate that. There is no belief that there’s an experiencer either. This was just referring to the conventional label of body, how it’s used in ordinary life.Yes, exactly. So where is this something that is feeling, sensing? I want you to find that which is doing that and describe it to me in precise detail and where it is located. Please don’t come back with an answer of ‘why should there be an experiencer of experience’ when you believe there is. I want you to LOOK and tell me where this experiencer is and where it can be found.
It's not known as sequential or ordered. It’s thought story triggered by whatever and which is taking place. Maybe connected with another thought story about some issue. Maybe just a simple shopping list appearing in mind. But rather random and not ordered.Thought is not an entity that can plan anything. How is that known...that thought are plans and are sequential and ordered?
No, thought doesn’t have a voice or image but the content of the story can have that. Or invoke a mental image. It’s not possible to describe a thought as such.There is no such thing as separation. How can separation occur as “soon as a thought gets in”?
Have you ever looked at thought? Really looked at it? Does thought have a voice? Does thought have sound? Does thought have an image? Does thought have a sensation? Does thought have a taste? Does thought have a smell? Can you describe a thought?
What was meant was, that once a thought story starts about an experience then it’s no longer the actual experience but a different one of thought story. In that sense separation but that’s missleading. Probably a better description would be just change from one experience to another one.
Yes, there can be thought and smell and colour present at the same time. Or taste and sensation and sound. It can appear at the same time but the foreground of experience is occupied with just one of them. And the others linger in the background so to say. But maybe that’s not even possible. Maybe it’s changing so quickly that only one is actual present experience. Not sure really.Can you find thought AND smell AND colour AND taste AND sensation AND sound? Where is the dividing line between smell and sensation? Between thought and sound? Between colour and taste?
But no, there don’t seem to be a dividing line between them. Actually there is none. No link and no dividing line. Fascinating.