Breaking the illusion of a separate self

[Alexw]

Hi Nino,

Very well done! I am impressed :-)

I can't notice how thoughts are interfering, suggesting "my hand", "my feet" etc. If I keep trying hard, the only thing I notice that is not bare sensation, is a sort of mental ...fog (damn, it's so difficult to describe it!).

Maybe its not so much mental fog but rather a "feeling of recognition", a certain feeling of remembering, of knowing that this kind of sensation has been around for some time and thus you meet it again like meeting an old friend... When you listen to some music, maybe a song that you really liked and heard many times when you were young... does it trigger a similar feeling? See if these "known" sensations are limited to physical sensations only or if they appear in a very similar fashion also in seeing (look at an old photo of family etc), hearing (music?) and even smell or taste...
Does it require a I/self to have this sensation/feeling or does it simply show up?

There is the experience, made by the totality of sensations, a multitude of sensations. They are countless, I can't hold onto them, all I can do is a brief acknowledgment and let them go. One goes, another comes in. As I look for a sense of me, I can't find any, it seems I am located nowhere. It seems also as if it doesn't matter where I am

Yes, very well seen!
If it wouldn't matter "where I am"... does that make fear arise? What feelings are present when you contemplate that?

Keeping out thoughts causes a sort of mental dullness

You don't have to exclude thought. Thought is part of this experience just as much as sound - just see it for what it is - a useful tool to describe life conceptually, but not more than that...

I tried to sum it up, but it looks like everytime I do it it's always slightly different.

Exactly! Everything changes all the time, its never the same... There is no permanence in any of it, is there?
What about this separate I/self? Don't the beliefs and stories about this conceptual entity also change from moment to moment? Is there something like a permanent, separate I/self at anytime? Was there ever?

Alex

[nippur]

Alex, I wasnt able to read your message today, so I need one more day, will write tomorrow.

The only thing I want to mention is, this morning while shaving my skin suddenly I had an insight "who is doing it? just thoughts???" but alas it didnt last. More on that tomorrow.

[nippur]

Hi Alex,

I'm back again, yesterday was a busy day and I had no chance of reading and integrating your message. Sadly, that day-off has been quite detrimental because I lost my pace and today I was unable to focus and look at the subtle things of the mind. I wonder, how one is supposed to look for this no-self thing when one is involved in the "daily life" ? Even remembering of looking is difficult!

Anyway: in my last message I mentioned that when I was shaving my skin I had a flash "where is the 'I' that is shaving my skin??" and for a brief moment I realized that such "I" was nothing else the a bunch of thoughts, a collection of remembrances, nothing else. But still it wasn't satisfactory. There was a slight sense of delusion, like I've been self tricking me for the whole time, for all my life. Nonetheless, it lasted so short that I wasn't able to grasp it or retain it. It simply faded away and normal functioning resumed soon after.

What has changed (assumed it's not a sort of mental trick or placebo), is that I feel I'm more acquainted at looking at the "feeling of me" and seeing it as a thought-presence. As I mentioned before, I see it as a sort of "fog" (for lack of a better description).

Now back to your message:

Maybe its not so much mental fog but rather a "feeling of recognition", a certain feeling of remembering, of knowing that this kind of sensation has been around for some time and thus you meet it again like meeting an old friend... When you listen to some music, maybe a song that you really liked and heard many times when you were young... does it trigger a similar feeling? See if these "known" sensations are limited to physical sensations only or if they appear in a very similar fashion also in seeing (look at an old photo of family etc), hearing (music?) and even smell or taste...

Uhm... I tried to look that way, but honestly I can't find the "feeling of recognition" that you described. I know what a feeling of recognition is (old songs etc)... simply it's not the case with my "feeling of me".

Does it require a I/self to have this sensation/feeling or does it simply show up?

Interesting question since this sensation seems to be the "I/self" itself! Well, by direct experience, this feeling of me shows without needing an I... it's just there... with no reasons, so the answer is no, it doesn't require an "I" to show up.

If it wouldn't matter "where I am"... does that make fear arise? What feelings are present when you contemplate that?

The "doesn't matter where I am" turns on the idea of "dissolution of me" and there are a lot of feelings associated. There is sense of loss, of meaningless of life, of total waste of time in our life. Of complete loneliness, of being alone in an alien life.

What about this separate I/self? Don't the beliefs and stories about this conceptual entity also change from moment to moment? Is there something like a permanent, separate I/self at anytime? Was there ever?

by direct examination yes that's true, the thoughts that make a "me" are always changing, if I observe the "feeling of me" it isn't static, but it changes where-ever you put focus to. Conceptually I've grasped the idea, I see the pattern, but unfortunately it remains only as a concept.

When reading your: "Is there something like a permanent, separate I/self at anytime? Was there ever?" there is a sense of rebellion and repulsion of the simple idea.... "it can't be it can't be!"

Thank you Alex,
Nino

[Alexw]

Hi Nino,

I will write back tomorrow - too busy this Sunday.
Have a great weekend!

Alex

[Alexw]

Hi Nino,

I had a flash "where is the 'I' that is shaving my skin??" and for a brief moment I realized that such "I" was nothing else the a bunch of thoughts, a collection of remembrances, nothing else. But still it wasn't satisfactory.

What made it not "satisfactory"? A few thoughts popping up saying that this experience was too short, not the real thing..? That I-thoughts appeared again and the shaving-experience was only available as a dim memory?
Dont worry about that!
Every experience is like that - happening right now and then its gone. No matter how profound it might be, it will not remain. All that remains is thought about it - and you know thought is not the real thing. The best thing you can do is to forget about it. Not in a way that you don't learn anything form it, but in a way that you don't hang on to it. An old experience is stale and dead - there is this experience, right now. That is what counts.

Interesting question since this sensation seems to be the "I/self" itself! Well, by direct experience, this feeling of me shows without needing an I... it's just there... with no reasons, so the answer is no, it doesn't require an "I" to show up.

OK... great. Can you in any way control it? Or is it simply "attached" to the focus of attention? When you read this text, the focus is on the visual perception as well as the meaning making - which is thought. And there might be a certain sensation, a tingling or pressure, between your eyes... Is this physical sensation really "you"? Or is it simply a physical sensation, labelled by thought as something special?

The "doesn't matter where I am" turns on the idea of "dissolution of me" and there are a lot of feelings associated. There is sense of loss, of meaningless of life, of total waste of time in our life. Of complete loneliness, of being alone in an alien life.

Being alone and alienated stems from a belief in separation. From there being a separate I/self that can be separate from life. What if this is not the case? What if the "dissolution of me" is simply accomplished by seeing through this belief? What remains if there is no one there separate from this experience? Life itself?
Sit down. Simply "be". Let the focus of attention flow, don't focus on anything particular, let thought flow and try not to get to involved in analysing what happens. Just sit, relax - don't hold on to anything. Are "you" looking, hearing, feeling? Or is there simply looking, hearing and feeling happening? Is there anything to hold on to? Where is your permanent foothold? Where is this permanent I/self that seems to be the subject looking at objects?
If you find there is only life flowing, does it require a meaning to flow? Is there some"one" separate from the flow?

by direct examination yes that's true, the thoughts that make a "me" are always changing, if I observe the "feeling of me" it isn't static, but it changes where-ever you put focus to. Conceptually I've grasped the idea, I see the pattern, but unfortunately it remains only as a concept.

Great looking!
Why would it just be a concept? You just looked and found this fact, didn't you? What is conceptual about that?
Sure, in daily life you are mostly not aware of this, but this is not important. You simply act as the personality that you are - with the slight difference that when you are looking you find that this ever changing flow of life is still there. Not defined or confined by a you, but rather expressing itself as conceptual I's, me's, you's and other's...

Alex

[nippur]

Hi Alex,

What made it not "satisfactory"?

in the sense that it was not resolutive, seeing it's an illusion once for all. I still expect there will be a threshold event, an "ah!" moment as some say. But ok, that was just an experience, I won't cling on it.

OK... great. Can you in any way control it? Or is it simply "attached" to the focus of attention? When you read this text, the focus is on the visual perception as well as the meaning making - which is thought. And there might be a certain sensation, a tingling or pressure, between your eyes... Is this physical sensation really "you"? Or is it simply a physical sensation, labelled by thought as something special?

there's a mix of answers. I can't control it, but it feels like I can. It's attached to the focus, but also seems to be part of the focus, seems to be the focus itself. And now that your are mentioning it, I have to report that recently the "feeling of me" sensation has moved from the chest/shoulders up in the head between the eyes. Don't know what that means. But now that it's there, it seems more "me" than before! A description could be "the real mental me". Sometimes when I think to your question "...what would be if there is no self ..." this focus between the eyes rebels to the idea of someone pretending it doesn't exist.

Simply "be". Let the focus of attention flow, don't focus on anything particular, let thought flow and try not to get to involved in analysing what happens. Just sit, relax - don't hold on to anything. Are "you" looking, hearing, feeling? Or is there simply looking, hearing and feeling happening? Is there anything to hold on to? Where is your permanent foothold? Where is this permanent I/self that seems to be the subject looking at objects?
If you find there is only life flowing, does it require a meaning to flow? Is there some"one" separate from the flow?

Today it's more difficult to see "there is no doer" than it was previously. So I used what you suggested last week (3rd March message) "If there would be no thoughts 'This is my hand, my feet, my head... I am feeling my body!', but just the pure sensation"... because it puts me in the zone so to speak.

There is simply hearing, feeling, and a vague distant feeling of a perceiver in the distant background (coming from the back I would say). This is so as long as I force to keep out thoughts, once I stop my "trick" thoughts break in again and with them the "me" at the center perceiving things.

Why would it just be a concept? You just looked and found this fact, didn't you? What is conceptual about that? Sure, in daily life you are mostly not aware of this, but this is not important. You simply act as the personality that you are - with the slight difference that when you are looking you find that this ever changing flow of life is still there. Not defined or confined by a you, but rather expressing itself as conceptual I's, me's, you's and other's...

yes, found it to be a fact, but why do I have to look at it every time?! Why I have to rediscover it each time?

Well, I'm a bit stressed I think, last night I dreamed that I was doing the exercise of looking at the "feeling of me", when I stared into a big mirror in front of me, discovering there was another person, vaguely resembling me but it was not me! Then it became me, and I realized I had not recognized myself! I woke up in terror! :-)

Nino

[Alexw]

Hi Nino,

Well, I'm a bit stressed I think, last night I dreamed that I was doing the exercise of looking at the "feeling of me", when I stared into a big mirror in front of me, discovering there was another person, vaguely resembling me but it was not me! Then it became me, and I realized I had not recognized myself! I woke up in terror! :-)

Thats funny... I had a very similar dream where I was looking at myself in the mirror and found myself to be an Indian man... In the dream it felt perfectly fine as it seemed there was only the looking and the perceived image in the mirror could have been anyone...

in the sense that it was not resolutive, seeing it's an illusion once for all. I still expect there will be a threshold event, an "ah!" moment as some say. But ok, that was just an experience, I won't cling on it.

There might be many more "Aha" moments to come - still don't stick to any. Let them happen and let them leave.

Sometimes when I think to your question "...what would be if there is no self ..." this focus between the eyes rebels to the idea of someone pretending it doesn't exist.

Sit down and close your eyes. Put your hand on the desk in front of you. Focus on the sensations in your hand.
When you focus on your hand, is the sensation between the eyes still there? Now that the focus is on your hand, can this focus on the hand "rebel to the idea of someone pretending it doesn't exist"? Now, look at these sensations, and welcome them. Accept them as they are right now. Don't "pretend" that they don't exist, as they obviously do, but look for the owner of these sensations... Look for the feeler of these sensations. Don't reject the sensation itself - it is perfectly fine to be as it is... Are there any other sensations arising? Maybe again this pressure between the eyes... Accept it and welcome it as well. Feel it. Does it matter what thought says about it? Can thought define it? When thought says "I feel a tingling between the eyes." Is that really true? What is really there? Look only at the sensation and please note what is there and what is just story. Which part of "I feel a tingling between the eyes." is true and which parts (words) are thought- story? Be perfectly honest and discard all thought story, what remains?

There is simply hearing, feeling, and a vague distant feeling of a perceiver in the distant background (coming from the back I would say). This is so as long as I force to keep out thoughts, once I stop my "trick" thoughts break in again and with them the "me" at the center perceiving things.

Ok, simply hearing, feeling...
Lets look at this "perceiver in the distant background"... you mentioned it might be coming from the back... are you sitting in a chair when doing this exercise? Maybe try it again standing up or lying down, see if the same thing happens... if not, maybe it was just a normal physical sensation of pressure from "chair against back" that was mistaken for something more..? Maybe thought does this with whatever sensation is available at the time and then increasing its importance from "normal sensation" to "sense of me"..?

yes, found it to be a fact, but why do I have to look at it every time?! Why I have to rediscover it each time?

Many reasons... because every situation is different, because there is no controlling you that once and for all could instruct thought to think the right thoughts, because life is doing what it does no matter what "you" want, etc etc etc...
Thats the beauty of it - its utterly unpredictable and its utterly meaningless - it simply moves on no matter if "you" fight against it or move with the flow :-)

Alex

[nippur]

Alex, as I went to write my reply the LU site was down/unreachable from here, so I'll write you tomorrow.

I will use this extra time to repeat the "exercise".

Nino

[nippur]

Hi Alex,

here I am back again.

There might be many more "Aha" moments to come - still don't stick to any. Let them happen and let them leave.

indeed there was another minor "aha", I was searching for the "I that controls" and got the answer "it's just ...
thoughts??? a bunch of thoughts!", but as usual it lasted just a small moment.

I might think that these are sign of progress, but I'm not sure there is progress at all... you know, some days I'm more able to focus within and "look", but some others I'm dull as a rock. It's very variable.

Now back the exercise of your last message:

Sit down and close your eyes. Put your hand on the desk in front of you. Focus on the sensations in your hand.When you focus on your hand, is the sensation between the eyes still there?

When the focus in on the hands, the "sensation between the eyes" it's not there, but it's not always so. Sometimes the sensation between the eyes is in the background, like a presence, like if I am aware of both at the same time. Some others the focus switches back and forth between the two very quickly and it's not easy to track it with the mind.

Now that the focus is on your hand, can this focus on the hand "rebel to the idea of someone pretending it doesn't exist"?

no, it can't, it doesn't make sense.

Now, look at these sensations, and welcome them. Accept them as they are right now. Don't "pretend" that they don't exist, as they obviously do, but look for the owner of these sensations... Look for the feeler of these sensations. Don't reject the sensation itself - it is perfectly fine to be as it is...

"look for the owner of these sensations..." was a turning point: after doing it for a while, it was evident to me that there is no owner, the sensations are just there. They do not belong to anyone. It was like there was "knowing" of the sensations but not a "knower". BUT ... this insight is evident only if I put the focus on the sensation itself. If the focus turns back on the "feeling of me" (aka the sensation between the eyes) then it becomes again "it's my sensation, it's mine". In other words:
- move the focus on the sensation and there is only sensation
- move the focus back on "me" and "it's my sensation".

Maybe again this pressure between the eyes... Accept it and welcome it as well. Feel it. Does it matter what thought says about it?

no, what thoughts say doesn't matter, it seem they are on a different level, they don't have any business with the "pressure".

Can thought define it?

no, again thoughts seem to be belong to another domain.

When thought says "I feel a tingling between the eyes." Is that really true?

Eh!, this is more tricky: when I think "is it true?" it seems true! It seems so true that even asking it is inappropriate.

What is really there? Look only at the sensation and please note what is there and what is just story. Which part of "I feel a tingling between the eyes." is true and which parts (words) are thought- story? Be perfectly honest and discard all thought story, what remains?

This was the most difficult part. I look at the sensation, it's there, indefinite borders like a cloud of gas in front of my field of vision (eyes closed). It's not still... it moves slowly, sometimes a little bit down in the mouth, sometimes upper in the head. Sometimes there is just the sensation in its totality, some other times there is a witness, an observer that is observing it from a small distance. If I concentrate on the feeling, the question "I feel a tingling between the eyes, is it true?" seems unimportant, not false and not true, just a question. It's a mere thought in the background asking something. But, if I concentrate on the thought itself, looking for a real answer, the feeling between the eyes disappear and I get my reply: "yes, that's true, that's so evident".

Lets look at this "perceiver in the distant background"... you mentioned it might be coming from the back... are you sitting in a chair when doing this exercise? Maybe try it again standing up or lying down, see if the same thing happens... if not, maybe it was just a normal physical sensation of pressure from "chair against back" that was mistaken for something more..? Maybe thought does this with whatever sensation is available at the time and then increasing its importance from "normal sensation" to "sense of me"..?

with "coming from the back" I meant the back of the head, from behind, not the back/spine. This background is hard to investigate, it seem to be a mix of thoughts and sensations, but thoughts on the most part.

In closing this message there is something I would ask you: there are two different things that I can say they are "me":
1) the feeling between the eyes, it feels so "me" that I can be absorbed into it excluding all else, like going into trance
2) ther "feeling of existence" that I can trigger when I focus outside but to nothing in particular, but still focused on the direct experiece. There is a sense of existence, of "I exist", of "I am alive here and now".

My question is: are they two different things? are they related? what's most important to seek/investigate?

Thank you for your kind help,
- Nino

[Alexw]

Hi Nino,

there was another minor "aha", I was searching for the "I that controls" and got the answer "it's just ...
thoughts??? a bunch of thoughts!", but as usual it lasted just a small moment.

OK, great! Doesn't everything only last "a small moment"? Tell me one thing that lasts.

"look for the owner of these sensations..." was a turning point: after doing it for a while, it was evident to me that there is no owner, the sensations are just there. They do not belong to anyone. It was like there was "knowing" of the sensations but not a "knower"

Yes, well seen!

BUT ... this insight is evident only if I put the focus on the sensation itself. If the focus turns back on the "feeling of me" (aka the sensation between the eyes) then it becomes again "it's my sensation, it's mine".

Does the sensation, the tingling, itself say "Its mine!" or this again a thought? How could a sensation/feeling itself be able to state anything about "me" or "mine"?

If I concentrate on the feeling, the question "I feel a tingling between the eyes, is it true?" seems unimportant, not false and not true, just a question.

This might have been a slight misunderstanding... when I was asking:
Which part of "I feel a tingling between the eyes." is true and which parts (words) are thought- story? Be perfectly honest and discard all thought story, what remains?
I really wanted you to look at this sentence, at the words it contains. Which words in this sentence do you find in the direct experience itself?
Sit down a relax. Feel this sensation... Now inquire into the statement "I feel a tingling between my eyes". Look at this current experience - which word do you find in this experience and which words are a conceptual overlay, an add on to the pure perception?

My question is: are they two different things? are they related? what's most important to seek/investigate?

Investigate the here/now, this moment, and see what it contains. Its the only thing you really can investigate - everything else is fiction. Its the only "thing" you can be 100% sure of that its not a thought story, not a concept.
Then look at your concepts and beliefs about this experience, look at everything that contains ideas of me, other, good, bad etc... see if you can find any of these conceptual properties in this moment, in the next moment, any moment... as long as you think that this pure experience contains anything that thought can grasp and truly define investigate more :-)

Alex

[nippur]

Hi Alex,

I really wanted you to look at this sentence, at the words it contains. Which words in this sentence do you find in the direct experience itself?
Sit down a relax. Feel this sensation... Now inquire into the statement "I feel a tingling between my eyes". Look at this current experience - which word do you find in this experience and which words are a conceptual overlay, an add on to the pure perception?

uhm, I'm not sure I did it the right way. If I look at the phrase as in looking at the direct experience, the phrase itself is just a sentence, bearing with it not truth or falsity, it's just something there in the mind before the "focus". Also it doesn't seem to be related to the direct experience, I mean to the realm of the senses, it's only a thought talking about other thoughts. It's "dry" so to speak.

But the same dry phrase, if I stop looking at it, turns into something else, it becomes a feeling of truth, it merges back in the mind where I can't see it as phrase, now it's a "knowledge".

as long as you think that this pure experience contains anything that thought can grasp and truly define investigate more :-)

so thoughts and direct experience are separate? do they never "touch" ? If so, why are there thoughts at all?

I'm trying to increase the time I dedicate at "looking", but it's difficult during the normal daily life.

Nino

[Alexw]

so thoughts and direct experience are separate? do they never "touch" ? If so, why are there thoughts at all?

No, thought is a part of direct experience. You experience thought, don't you?
The specific issue with thought is that it seems to provide a meaning to the experience. No other "part" of experience does that - seeing doesn't provide any meaning or label or judgement about what is seen, nor does hearing about what is being heard, right?
So, direct experience and thought don't touch each other - they are one and the same - just as hearing and direct experience are not different. Its only about the content, the concepts that thoughts convey and that are being believed in. These concepts and the direct experience, they "never touch" - they are like a map and the territory. The map is completely separate from the territory, it describes it, but it is not it. Do you see?

If I look at the phrase as in looking at the direct experience, the phrase itself is just a sentence, bearing with it not truth or falsity, it's just something there in the mind before the "focus". Also it doesn't seem to be related to the direct experience, I mean to the realm of the senses, it's only a thought talking about other thoughts. It's "dry" so to speak.

Yes, sure, its just a thought - part of the map, not the real thing. But some parts of the map are more accurate than other parts... Lets look again at the statement "I feel a tingling between my eyes".
Sit down, close your eyes and feel this sensation. Now lets look at each single word of the sentence:
"I": Is there a separate "I" to be found in this sensation? Forget what thought might say about this I, only look at the sensation and see if it contains any information about a separate I/self...
"I feel": Is there an I to be found that does something we label "feeling"? Is there someone in control of a process that we call "feeling"?
"tingling": Is there a sensation at all? Is there something experienced? Is there something called "tingling" happing? Yes, tingling is just a label for what is happening, but something is happening, right? We might call it "tingling" as we don't have a better word, but you do feel this tingling, don't you? Does this tingling say anything about an I, about an I feeling something, about eyes or about a location?
"between": Does the sensation have a location at all? Does the sensation itself state "I am between the eyes".
"eyes": Does the sensation state anything about eyes being present? Or is this again a conceptual overlay to the pure sensation?

If you find it hard to do, choose any other sentence, e.g. "I hear birds chirping in the tree!"... and again look at each word and see if it is contained in the direct experience of hearing...

Alex

[nippur]

Alex,

Now lets look at each single word of the sentence:

ok now I understand what you mean and how it has to be done. But I need more time for it, I'll write you back tomorrow.

Nino

[nippur]

Hi Alex,

No, thought is a part of direct experience. You experience thought, don't you?

yes, ok :-)

The specific issue with thought is that it seems to provide a meaning to the experience. No other "part" of experience does that - seeing doesn't provide any meaning or label or judgement about what is seen, nor does hearing about what is being heard, right?

ok, perfect, the "raw" sensations do not have any label attached, what I don't get is when/how labels get created and attached. Is it possible to investigate that, or labeling happens just out of nowhere?

Now back to the "I feel a tingling between my eyes" exercise:

"I": looking at the sensation reveals no traces of an "I", or anything else. Just the sensation.

"feel", "I feel": there is no notion of "feeling" or what is "to feel", the only known thing is the feeling itself. "I feel" appears only when the focus moves back onto thoughts.

"tingling": (this is more mind-boggling!) the sensation is acknowledged, but it doesn't say it's a "tingling", it does not say it's a perception, or even that it's "there". It's something beyond words, but its presence is certain.

"between": no location, location appears only when thinking about it.

"eyes": as before, the sensation carries only the information about itself, nothing else can be said. "Between eyes" is something added later when thoughts thinks about the phrase.

So it seems that direct experience is made only of "raw" unprocessed information, to which thoughts add a meaning. I guess it's how the brain draws a map of the territory.

Alex, as "looking into direct experience" without getting into thoughts seems quit difficult (at least not natural) I wonder what makes one good at it, and if it's possible to learn/improve it as any other skill. Does that make sense? Or looking at direct experience do require no training, no effort, because it's just there?

- Nino

[Alexw]

Hi Nino,

Great - well done!

what I don't get is when/how labels get created and attached. Is it possible to investigate that, or labeling happens just out of nowhere?

A label is something that has been learned, like when a child learns that the the thing in its hand is called apple. This thought structure is built mostly in childhood, but is still ongoing. Its not a bad thing, it is a great tool for communication, but besides identifying labels also other things are built, beliefs. Some of them again beneficial for daily life, some not so much. What we are doing here is questioning beliefs that have not been questioned so far.
The only way to honestly do this is to step out of the realm of belief and investigate from this neutral position. The only neutral position is direct experience - all other positions are thought based and thus biased and built on certain beliefs.
So how does labelling happen... when you look at an object a thought may pop up (or not) saying "Tree". Where did it come from? From anywhere specific? Who was deciding to think the thought? Anyone?

"tingling": (this is more mind-boggling!) the sensation is acknowledged, but it doesn't say it's a "tingling", it does not say it's a perception, or even that it's "there". It's something beyond words, but its presence is certain.

Yes, well seen! The label "tingling" is also just something we have learned to stick onto certain parts of experience, but when really experiencing the tingling it is quite funny as the label or word tinging and this pulsating aliveness, this presence, that the label points to are obviously not the same. Its a very basic abstraction of something living.

So it seems that direct experience is made only of "raw" unprocessed information, to which thoughts add a meaning. I guess it's how the brain draws a map of the territory.

Yes, true.

Alex, as "looking into direct experience" without getting into thoughts seems quit difficult (at least not natural) I wonder what makes one good at it, and if it's possible to learn/improve it as any other skill. Does that make sense? Or looking at direct experience do require no training, no effort, because it's just there?

Well... direct experience is always happening, no matter if one is caught in thought story or not. It is just not knowingly so. There seems to be a natural drive to simply be this natural presence and not the small little separate I that the thought story contains. It might take some time to recognise this presence more and more and at the same time thought story land will become less attractive and thus the time spent as the separate self will diminish... it doesn't take practice it is simply a natural happening once it is seen that the separate self is no more than an unquestioned belief.

What beliefs do you have left that need questioning?
What about this separate I/self? What do you believe and what is realised from direct experience?

Alex