my intellectual understanding isn't liberation

[bluzulu]

1. Is one truer than the other, and If so, which one?

second one seems and is known to be ‘truer’, but there is a feeling (fear?) about letting go into that. There is some kind of clinging to the first perspective, even tho I’m pretty sure it is dysfunctional. And now there is a feeling of surprise that I’m only “pretty sure”. Now there is a fear about that doubt. :-)

2. What is here without labels?

aren’t both types labels? The 2nd has somewhat less feeling of a me doing things. Hmm...there are moments with neither label. maybe those moments have gone unrecognized..? here is a wondering of whether/how to notice those. there is something different about seeing words from seeing (images of?) non-lettered forms. there is a desire to see words without the automatic accompaniment of 'meaning' during times when the meaning is irrelevant.

3. Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?

both kinds of labels affect the experience. The 1st has some comfort of familiarity though the 2nd kind feels wiser and more accurate even though there seems to be some kind of weird reluctance about it.

4. Did you notice any differences in the body?

not sure about body differences. but there is much more awareness of the body in the 2nd.

Thank you!

[Anastacia42]

Wow. that was a lot of thinking.

The second is truer without "I."

Labels have no effect in experience.

There are a couple of follow up pointers to help.

First

Here is how to distinguish truth from lies.


We often lie every day & don't realize it.

For example, the grocery clerk asks, "How are you?" You reply, "I'm fine." While, yes. there is a sense in which we are always fine, even in the middle of suffering, at that moment, you were grieving the death of your dog, you had a slight sore throat & you had a headache, but you didn't feel like sharing all of that with the grocery clerk, so you lied, "I'm fine."

Also, it matters none at all how "distant" the remembered lie is. Besides the fact that time itself is fictional, a kind if lie, as we recall the lie it becomes present in this moment, as if it were happening now. This brings the body Sensation that accompanies lying.

Lies can be intentional or unintentional, conscious or unconscious, even so automatic that we ourselves are fooled.

The story of a separate "self" is a lie.

This is the lie you came here to see through. Therefore, it is helpful to notice the body Sensation of lying as one of the tools for finding the truth of no self.

You want to be in touch with body Sensations & able to clearly express them in words. This will help.

Lies are usually felt in the heart or solar plexus as a contraction that we may label as tight, heavy or tense.

In contrast, truth is usually expansive. We may call it loose, light or relaxed.

First, can you remember a time when you lied to someone you loved?

Here we count anything, lies we think of as "big" or "small" that "matter" or don't "matter."

How are you? I'm fine. No, your knee hurts, but you don't feel like discussing it with the grocery clerk.

It's a lie. A seemingly "bigger" one will work better for this exercise.

Find the lie. I don't need the whole story, just a few key words to refer to it.

Then scan your body for any Sensation (DE or Direct Experience), particularly in the gut or maybe the heart. Check very closely.

What is found?

If you think the memory you used wasn't clear enough, find another one or lie to yourself right now, make something up.

1 + 1 = 14 is a lie.

I love eating worms is (probably) a lie.

Or call up a video of a lying politician & notice what Sensations arise as you listen.

I will give you a clue: it is not that peaceful Sensation you felt before when you omitted "I." (refers to an exercise I gave before this one)

Please report back with what body Sensations (not interpretations) you feel. Bodies can feel hot or cold, heavy or light, contraction or expansion, etc.

"Peaceful" is an interpretation of a body Sensation, not the Sensation itself, for example.

Do you see that?

Loving,

[bluzulu]

I had said that my experience of the labelling was that both kinds of labels affect the experience. The 1st has some comfort of familiarity though the 2nd kind feels wiser and more accurate even though there seems to be some kind of weird reluctance about it.

and you said

Labels have no effect in experience

.

maybe you can help me resolve that.

This lie exercise is proving difficult for me. Please allow me another day.

[Anastacia42]

I was going to wait until you finished with the truth/lie pointer before moving to labels. but here, you can work on both of them.


Label-Reality Correlation

There is a belief that labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’. But there isn’t. Just like it is a generally accepted belief that labels like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inherent characteristics of ‘things’. But actually, they are not.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN' , what is the actual experience?

Is the color red ‘experienced’, or is the color green ‘experienced’ as the label suggests?

Does the label ‘GREEN’ have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’? Or does the label suggest something else other than what is here now (red colour)?

Is 'green' associated in any way with the experience of the colour red; or is green just a label that overlays the actual experience of red?

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’ , is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no affect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

Let me know what is SEEN.

Loving,

[bluzulu]

haha, i was talking about the labels of "I did" vs "this happening" as in the exercise a couple posts ago.

no, labels don't affect colors. in fact, as you probably know, different colors apply those lsame abels to different wavelengths.

but saying "I am doing this" vs "simply _____" did result in a different experience (for me) of what was happening in direct experience.

[Anastacia42]

saying "I am doing this" vs "simply _____" did result in a different experience (for me) of what was happening in direct experience.

Which is why I gave you the truth/lie pointer.

Let me know how it goes.

Loving

[bluzulu]

I'm having some difficulty with the truth/lie exercise. recalling different lies, each has a pretty different feel.
will keep on, maybe can find some commonalities.

[bluzulu]

I am and will continue to also practice seeing how things just happen, like typing, vs 'me' doing them. That has been very helpful, but so far mostly unsustained :-)

as for lying, there are so many kinds of untruths, from subtle reflexive unintentional facial expressions or self-image defense to intentional selfish deception.

I'll keep trying things like 1+1=14, but it seems like I'd have to say that, or some other intentional untruty, to someone else for it to feel like a lie.

I'll see if i can catch reflexive well-meaning but untruthful facial or verbal expressions,

meanwhile, can you give further guidance on the topic?

[Anastacia42]

Some people are a bit disconnected from their bodies, often too busy with thinking - "intellectualunderstanding. ". Just keep noticing your gut feel. That's enough for now.

This may be challenging for you, but give it a try.

Actual/Direct Experience - Apple

Have a look at an apple (or any fruit you like.) If you have a ‘real’ apple, you can use it for this exercise. Google for a picture of an apple.



When looking at an apple, there's color; a thought saying ‘apple’; and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."

What is known for sure? Color is known and thoughts are known.

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?

Actual experience does not refer to thoughts ABOUT something…because that is only just more thought.

Actual experience is sound, thought, color, smell, taste, sensation and the fact of thought arising, but not its content.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only color and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?

Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in actual experience.

This is what is meant by "looking in actual experience." What you know for sure, and, is always here.

Taste labeled ‘apple’ is known
Color labeled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labeled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labeled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known

However, is an apple actually known?

Have fun and let me know what you find out.

Loving

[bluzulu]

Hi Stacy,
I looked back at my previous posts can see why you thought I might not be in touch with my body. I actually am quite in touch 😊

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?

Abstract constructs. Sometimes helpful, but frequently unrecognized as simply constructs, and SNS activation greatly facilitates and amplifies the believability of the judging, fearful, and angry ones.

Actual experience does not refer to thoughts ABOUT something…because that is only just more thought.

From a previous post: "except for thoughts, none of those ever-changing sensory experiences are about something else, they are just the actual present moment happening. thoughts about them, or about past or future, are mostly irrelevant brain activity that sure can attract a lot of attention."

However, is an apple actually known?

Not even at the microscopic level 😊

[Anastacia42]

You arrived at this by *thinking* didn't you?

Looking sounds very different when reported.

Have you read Gateless Crashers? Those examples may help you to see the difference.

Loving,

[bluzulu]

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?

Just ideas, abstractions about what I expect to happen on biting into an apple.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only color and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?
Nope, no apple in front of me at the moment, just the thought.

Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

Only texture, color, shape, taste, smell.

[Anastacia42]

Even with what we would call a "real" apple in front of you there's still only a label and thinking. Can you see that?

Maybe this will help.

Sports Exercise

Please note that you will have to check the link when using this exercise, to make sure it is still viable, as sometimes they are removed from Youtube.

The following link is a 7 minute clip of a soccer game. If you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5pL-myDzw

1. Watch one minute with the sound turned OFF, watching ‘people’ messing about with a round thing on a field, up and down, up and down. Let it sink in, the whole experience.

2. Once the first minute is completed, now watch another whole minute with the commentary turned ON.

Notice the differences.

Notice how the commentator (thought) offers lots of know-how, even advice. It seems to feel as though they can influence, somehow, what is going on, as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome. The commentary may seem to heighten any supporter feelings which are there, and call for an identification with one team or other, and with the importance of the game itself.

3. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary, the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Again notice all the differences in what is appearing as experience.

4. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know thought is talking about, and just notice it as sound.

What did you find when doing this exercise? Is the commentary on the soccer game a necessity for the play to happen?

And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

As always, relax & have fun!

Loving,

[bluzulu]

The video is still viable. Looks like it was a good game :-)

What did you find when doing this exercise?

Without the commentary, it was easier to see what was actually happening.
The commentary, and the replays from different angles, did add a different, and in it's own way satisfying, understanding.

Is the commentary on the soccer game a necessity for the play to happen?

No.

And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

The inner commentator often distracts from what is actually happening.

[Anastacia42]

And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?
The inner commentator often distracts from what is actually happening.

I would venture to say, "always."

So, again, I say, "Just LOOK."

Keep reporting here.

Loving,