Confusion to Clarity

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

The BELIEF in the self seems as strong as ever and in some ways has been replaced by another BELIEF- 'there is no self'- despite all the exercises and finding no seer, thinker, doer, controller etc and even seeing how the 'sense of me' is created. So now there are seemingly two clashing beliefs despite our work.

How do you see what would be different if the belief in the self wouldn’t be there anymore?

This is a difficult one. If the belief in the self wasn't there it just wouldn't arise and therefore the constant mental to and from between self and no self beliefs would cease or at least ease off. I know the aim is not to extinguish the 'sense of me' but rather to see it as an illusion. This illusion is seen through very occasionally and only briefly before a belief in self arises and competes with the belief in no self.

How would you recognise if the belief in the self would have fallen away?

I don't really know and the question leads me to veer into expectation about what seeing through he belief would 'look like' or 'feel like'. I know expectations get in the way but they do arise. There is certainly an expectation that it would be recognised- however it manifests- maybe as a sense of peace or relief or rather just a final recognition of no self.

What is a belief?

A thought or series of thoughts.

How do you recognise a belief?

As an arising thought that says "I am this or that".

You’re saying that there are two clashing beliefs there. Please describe me as precisely as you can that what is the difference between the belief in the self (I exist), and the belief “I don’t exist”?

In some ways they are identical even though the contents are different. Both are contained in or made of arising thoughts. I suppose the difference arises when checked against AE. When we go looking the thinker, doer, controller etc can't be found but this doesn't seem to be quite enough to make the belief in "I exist" lessen its grip. I can see this as long held conditioning but it still doesn't seem to loosen the grip on "self". Conversely, the "i don't exist" belief is challenged (albeit by thoughts) almost continuously and I find it hard to get beyond this.

You say that you’ve seen it several times that there is no self. So what is the difference between SEEING that there is no ‘I’ or self, and the BELIEF of “I don’t exist”?
One- seeing- is rooted in AE and the other- belief- is taken on faith alone.

How do you know that the statement “I don’t exist” is a belief?

Because I'm taking it on faith despite getting glimpses of 'no self'. Its like I'm telling myself "I don't exist" in order to convince myself of the fact.

What makes it to a belief?

Because I don't feel as if I've seen through 'no self' completely yet.

BTW FWIW these answers were very difficult for me for some reason and may seem to you to be complete drivel. It's thr best I can do for now.

Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

This is a difficult one. If the belief in the self wasn't there it just wouldn't arise and therefore the constant mental to and from between self and no self beliefs would cease or at least ease off. I know the aim is not to extinguish the 'sense of me' but rather to see it as an illusion. This illusion is seen through very occasionally and only briefly before a belief in self arises and competes with the belief in no self.

Ohh, so there is an expectation the BELIEF in the self will never arise again?
That there wouldn’t be a shift back and forth between believing in the self (taking it real), and then ‘waking up’ and seeing that there is nothing there?

Even after the self is seen as an illusion, the illusion still can be taken as a reality (probably more often than one would expect), and the self could seem to be very real. But when it looked at closely, it’s clear that there is nothing there.

Yes, but falling for the illusion can happen much more often than one might expect. It can last for even hours several times during the day. And why? It’s because every time an emotion is triggered (by some circumstances or because of certain thoughts coming up), the self is activated. So whenever there is frustration, wanting or not wanting something, expecting something, having anger, resentment, feeling hurt, disliking something / somebody, etc. the self is there immediately. Since all these emotions are on behalf of the self. And after seeing no-self, all these conditioned issues need to be worked through, otherwise whenever these emotions arise the self comes with them. Humans are very often triggered (many-many times a day) and those triggering reactions can last from minutes to hours or even day or longer, meaning that the self is there and believed to be real for minutes, hours or days while those triggered reactions are functioning.

Taking the self as real, is also a conditioned habit of thinking. It’s a habit of the ‘mind’. It’s the result of a life-long conditioning. But upon each looking it gets a little bit weaker and weaker.

V: What makes it to a belief?

G: Because I don't feel as if I've seen through 'no self' completely yet.

How would you FEEL it if the self has seen through?
What sensations or emotions would be present or absent if the self has been see through?

Do the presence or the absence of certain sensations or emotions / states are really necessary or the proof of seeing through the self?

There is certainly an expectation that it would be recognised- however it manifests- maybe as a sense of peace or relief or rather just a final recognition of no self.

The presence of peace or relief has nothing to do with seeing through the self.

Peace is a state, and no states are permanent, they are all subject to change. Seeing through the separate individual is not about not having any ‘bad’ or uncomfortable feelings any more. Rather it’s about encompassing all emotions, accepting WHATEVER is arising in this moment (even the so called negative emotions).

Many seekers believe that seeing through the separate individual is a completely different state that they are currently having, with some special qualities (happiness, bliss, constant peace or whatever). However, this is not the case. Seeing through the illusion that there is a separate entity (self) is not a state.

Many seekers have the impression that seeing there is no self is a state to ‘abide in’. It's not.

or rather just a final recognition of no self.

And what would that final recognition be like?
No more believing in the self again? Always seeing it only as an illusion, 24/7?

When we go looking the thinker, doer, controller etc can't be found but this doesn't seem to be quite enough to make the belief in "I exist" lessen its grip. I can see this as long held conditioning but it still doesn't seem to loosen the grip on "self". Conversely, the "i don't exist" belief is challenged (albeit by thoughts) almost continuously and I find it hard to get beyond this.

What do you mean exactly by “the “I don’t exist” belief is challenged by thoughts almost continuously?

Is there a desire to somehow feel that “I don’t exist”?
Or to experience that “I don’t exist” in some way?

There has never ever been a self there. So when it’s SEEN that there is no self there, how could the felt/sensed experience change?

It’s not like there was a self before, and now it’s gone and its vacant place can be sensed or perceived or felt in any way. It’s never been there, so there is no felt-vacancy there. It’s ONLY SEEN that is nothing there, but on the level of feelings/sensations/sense nothing changes. Can you see this?

That’s why we are saying that it’s not a different state. It’s not that there is a certain state before seeing the illusion, and another state (somehow different) after seeing through the illusion. The only thing that changes is just the SEEING of it. That there is nothing there. It’s a change only in PERCEPTION, but NOT the felt level. Can you see this?

And by the way, can the absence of something be experienced at all?

Let’s say that in one moment, there are thought + sensation + sounds.
In the next moment, there is only thought + sound.
Can the absence of the sensation be experienced?
If yes, how so?

Because I'm taking it on faith despite getting glimpses of 'no self'. Its like I'm telling myself "I don't exist" in order to convince myself of the fact.

So do you just say/think that “I don’t exist” or rather you LOOK / SEARCH for the self that is seeming there?

It’s not that “I don’t exist”. Rather seeing that the self is just an illusion. We are not making the conclusion that “I don’t exist”, because that could be another belief, as you noticed. But rather we constantly LOOK for the self that is seemingly there to see that it’s not there. Can you see the difference?

Vivien

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

Ohh, so there is an expectation the BELIEF in the self will never arise again?
That there wouldn’t be a shift back and forth between believing in the self (taking it real), and then ‘waking up’ and seeing that there is nothing there?

Silly me! Of course there may be a back and forth between the illusion of self and 'waking up'. The belief will arise again and again and 'I' will look at it and see it for what it is- a figment of imagination, a thought created 'me or 'mine' that has no leg to stand on when seen for what it is.

Even after the self is seen as an illusion, the illusion still can be taken as a reality (probably more often than one would expect), and the self could seem to be very real. But when it looked at closely, it’s clear that there is nothing there.

I see this now.

Yes, but falling for the illusion can happen much more often than one might expect. It can last for even hours several times during the day. And why? It’s because every time an emotion is triggered (by some circumstances or because of certain thoughts coming up), the self is activated. So whenever there is frustration, wanting or not wanting something, expecting something, having anger, resentment, feeling hurt, disliking something / somebody, etc. the self is there immediately. Since all these emotions are on behalf of the self. And after seeing no-self, all these conditioned issues need to be worked through, otherwise whenever these emotions arise the self comes with them. Humans are very often triggered (many-many times a day) and those triggering reactions can last from minutes to hours or even day or longer, meaning that the self is there and believed to be real for minutes, hours or days while those triggered reactions are functioning.

I understand. And when frustration, wanting/not wanting, expecting, anger etc arise they just arise- to no-one.

Taking the self as real, is also a conditioned habit of thinking. It’s a habit of the ‘mind’. It’s the result of a life-long conditioning. But upon each looking it gets a little bit weaker and weaker.

I see this so clearly now.

How would you FEEL it if the self has seen through?
What sensations or emotions would be present or absent if the self has been see through?

'I' feel exactly the same but without the illusion of 'I' attached. There is no 'I'- just sensations with thought attaching 'I' to them. The sensations and emotions remain as they are but without an imaginary 'me' attached to them making them 'mine'.

Do the presence or the absence of certain sensations or emotions / states are really necessary or the proof of seeing through the self?

No- I see this now.

What do you mean exactly by “the “I don’t exist” belief is challenged by thoughts almost continuously?

What I meant was that the 'illusion of self' is challenged by arising thought that says 'no no no, there is an 'I', 'you' exist, the 'illusion of self' is itself an illusion, how is this possible? etc etc. But I see now this is thought conditioning arising to no-one and that conditioning tries to appropriate an 'I' onto all experience. It's like a protective defence mechanism- trying to protect an 'I' that does not exist.

The presence of peace or relief has nothing to do with seeing through the self.
Peace is a state, and no states are permanent, they are all subject to change. Seeing through the separate individual is not about not having any ‘bad’ or uncomfortable feelings any more. Rather it’s about encompassing all emotions, accepting WHATEVER is arising in this moment (even the so called negative emotions).

Yes, of course.

And what would that final recognition be like?
No more believing in the self again? Always seeing it only as an illusion, 24/7?

No- the 'illusion of self' has been recognised and it just is, well, a relief of sorts. That is not to say that believing in the self will not arise again and again and again- but when it does, I must be vigilant and go back to looking for the 'I'- always finding it does not exist.

What do you mean exactly by “the “I don’t exist” belief is challenged by thoughts almost continuously?

Answered above

Is there a desire to somehow feel that “I don’t exist”?
Or to experience that “I don’t exist” in some way?

Yes- which I can see as an expectation that gets in the way. There is no feeling 'I don't exist' because a feeling is just sensation+thought. The finding of no 'I' is not felt but rather seen in direct experience.

There has never ever been a self there. So when it’s SEEN that there is no self there, how could the felt/sensed experience change?

It wouldn't. Feelings/sensations go on as before- but without a 'me' or 'mine' attached to them creating a fictitious 'I'.

It’s not like there was a self before, and now it’s gone and its vacant place can be sensed or perceived or felt in any way. It’s never been there, so there is no felt-vacancy there. It’s ONLY SEEN that is nothing there, but on the level of feelings/sensations/sense nothing changes. Can you see this?

Completely. There was never an 'I' there so seeing through the 'I' relieves sensations/feelings/senses of their personal quality of 'me' or 'mine' which creates the 'story of me' that 'I am feeling, sensing'.

And by the way, can the absence of something be experienced at all?

No, because what is experienced is present now. The absence of something can only be 'experienced' as a thought or image which is not real.

Let’s say that in one moment, there are thought + sensation + sounds.
In the next moment, there is only thought + sound.
Can the absence of the sensation be experienced?
If yes, how so?

No- only as a thought ABOUT a sensation which is not the sensation itself.

So do you just say/think that “I don’t exist” or rather you LOOK / SEARCH for the self that is seeming there?

I think I got caught in a trap tying to ''fake it till I make it' rather than actually LOOKING. I must always come back to looking!

It’s not that “I don’t exist”. Rather seeing that the self is just an illusion. We are not making the conclusion that “I don’t exist”, because that could be another belief, as you noticed. But rather we constantly LOOK for the self that is seemingly there to see that it’s not there. Can you see the difference?

Yes- one is a conclusion based on a belief or statement- the other is found in fact by looking.

Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

V: How would you FEEL it if the self has seen through?
What sensations or emotions would be present or absent if the self has been see through?

G: 'I' feel exactly the same but without the illusion of 'I' attached. There is no 'I'- just sensations with thought attaching 'I' to them. The sensations and emotions remain as they are but without an imaginary 'me' attached to them making them 'mine'.

Wanting that thoughts of ‘I’ will stop appearing is a HUGE expectation. The thought of “I am” and “I do” definitely won’t stop appearing at all. Expecting this just would lead to big disappointment. We are not after a special state where there are no more thoughts about me, and everything seems to flow autopilot. This might happen to some for a period of time, but this state will definitely end, and this is not the aim of this investigation. These states are valued a lot by some, but actually they don’t matter to much. Since states come and go.

The appearance of the thought labels ‘I’ and ‘mine’ are not problematic by themselves. The don’t have to stop appearing. It’s enough to SEE that there isn’t a real me/self behind those thoughts. Those are just innocent, empty thoughts. Nothing more. Not pointing to anything real.

Yes- which I can see as an expectation that gets in the way. There is no feeling 'I don't exist' because a feeling is just sensation+thought. The finding of no 'I' is not felt but rather seen in direct experience.

Exactly!

V: There has never ever been a self there. So when it’s SEEN that there is no self there, how could the felt/sensed experience change?

R: It wouldn't. Feelings/sensations go on as before- but without a 'me' or 'mine' attached to them creating a fictitious 'I'.

This is the same expectation as above. The word labels ‘I, me, mine, my’ WON’T stop appearing.
Whose problem is that if the words ‘I, me, mine, my’ are there?

There was never an 'I' there so seeing through the 'I' relieves sensations/feelings/senses of their personal quality of 'me' or 'mine' which creates the 'story of me' that 'I am feeling, sensing'.

Again, after seeing through the self, the sensations are STILL can be labelled as ‘mine, my, I’.

The presence of the thought label isn’t a problem in itself.
It’s enough to see that these are just labels on the sensations, and nothing more.
The labels don’t have to go away! And probably they will be there most of the time (if not always).

I think I got caught in a trap tying to ''fake it till I make it' rather than actually LOOKING. I must always come back to looking!

Yes, looking is essential. Just replacing the thought “I exist” with another thought “I don’t exist” will NEVER work. Since it’s just one thought arguing with another thought. It’s still on the level of thinking/concepts, which created in the illusion in the first place. So you have to step out from this conceptual overlay, and look ‘under’ it, to see what is REALLY going on.

Let’s try a new experiment. We are going to look at the raw experience labelled as sound and ignoring the thought ABOUT what the sound is as described by thought.

For this experiment you will need to sit yourself near a clock that has an audible second hand. If you don’t have a ticking clock, then here is a link to a clock on Youtube. Do this experiment several times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al3Xt8YnGE0

Take in a couple of deep breaths and close your eyes.

Listen to the sound. “Tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock”

Focus on the tick tock. Attune to the sound itself. IGNORE all thoughts and mental images about what seems to be creating the sound.

Try to find the clock.

Going just by the tick tock sound, do you find a clock present?
Is there any direct/actual experience of a clock in the sound?
Does the sound come self-labelled as originating from the clock?
Do you find a clock hidden in the sound?
Do you find a clock beyond the sound?
In your direct/actual experience of the sound, do you find any evidence that the sound is caused by a clock?
What do you find?

Allow your eyes to open.

Were you able to establish that in your direct/actual experience of the tick tock sound, that there was a clock?

Vivien

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

G: 'I' feel exactly the same but without the illusion of 'I' attached. There is no 'I'- just sensations with thought attaching 'I' to them. The sensations and emotions remain as they are but without an imaginary 'me' attached to them making them 'mine'.

V: Wanting that thoughts of ‘I’ will stop appearing is a HUGE expectation. The thought of “I am” and “I do” definitely won’t stop appearing at all. Expecting this just would lead to big disappointment. We are not after a special state where there are no more thoughts about me, and everything seems to flow autopilot. The appearance of the thought labels ‘I’ and ‘mine’ are not problematic by themselves. The don’t have to stop appearing. It’s enough to SEE that there isn’t a real me/self behind those thoughts. Those are just innocent, empty thoughts. Nothing more. Not pointing to anything real.

On re-reading, I should have chosen my words a little more carefully in the response you highlighted. What I wrote- "without the illusion of 'I' attached" and "without an imaginary 'me' attached"- was phrased really badly. What I meant to say was exactly how you put it- the 'I' thought will still keep appearing but it must be seen for what it is- nothing real. I don't expect thoughts of 'I' or 'mine' will cease to appear and can see there isn't a real me/self behind those those thoughts.

V: There has never ever been a self there. So when it’s SEEN that there is no self there, how could the felt/sensed experience change?

R: It wouldn't. Feelings/sensations go on as before- but without a 'me' or 'mine' attached to them creating a fictitious 'I'.

This is the same expectation as above. The word labels ‘I, me, mine, my’ WON’T stop appearing.
Whose problem is that if the words ‘I, me, mine, my’ are there?

Again, really badly phrased :(
Words will still appear but it is seen they point to nothing in reality.

Again, after seeing through the self, the sensations are STILL can be labelled as ‘mine, my, I’.
The presence of the thought label isn’t a problem in itself.
It’s enough to see that these are just labels on the sensations, and nothing more.
The labels don’t have to go away! And probably they will be there most of the time (if not always).

Understood.

Going just by the tick tock sound, do you find a clock present?

No- just the sound.

Is there any direct/actual experience of a clock in the sound?

No

Does the sound come self-labelled as originating from the clock?

No

Do you find a clock hidden in the sound?

No

Do you find a clock beyond the sound?

No

In your direct/actual experience of the sound, do you find any evidence that the sound is caused by a clock?

No

What do you find?

There is only the AE of a sound. Thought LABELs this sound 'tick tock' and 'clock' and an IMAGE of 'clock' arises but labels are just labels and images are not a clock. Even without the label 'tick tock' there is an EXPECTATION, arising as thought, that the sound labelled 'tick' will be a different pitch to that labelled 'tock'. (I actually experience each as different but the expectation arises nonetheless!)

Were you able to establish that in your direct/actual experience of the tick tock sound, that there was a clock

No

Best,
Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

What I meant to say was exactly how you put it- the 'I' thought will still keep appearing but it must be seen for what it is- nothing real. I don't expect thoughts of 'I' or 'mine' will cease to appear and can see there isn't a real me/self behind those those thoughts.

Yes, but as we talked about it before, this clear seeing won’t be there 24/7.

There is only the AE of a sound. Thought LABELs this sound 'tick tock' and 'clock' and an IMAGE of 'clock' arises but labels are just labels and images are not a clock.

Yes.

What is known is label + colour + sound + thoughts ABOUT the clock, but the thoughts about the clock are pointing to further thought, because a clock is not known.
Is this totally clear?

Let’s continue with the clock and try to find a hearer...if sound is actually heard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al3Xt8YnGE0

Sit quietly and take in a few deep breaths to let the dust settle and then focus on the experience of the tick tock sound. Set aside ALL thoughts, images, ideas throughout this experiment and just focus on the sound itself.

In 'hearing' can anything be found other than tick tock – AE of sound?
Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only sound?
Is there a dividing line between ‘hearer’ AND sound? Can a ‘hearer’ be directly experienced?
What do you find?

Can a 'hearer' be found in 'what is being heard’? In other words, in your direct (actual) experience is there a hearer AND sound, or is there only AE of sound?

Can an INHERENT HEARER be found, or it is only thought that suggests that there is a hearer AND sound?

Are you ever aware of two experiences or more at 'any given time'? When sound shows up, is there a 'sound experience' and a 'knowing of sound' experience? If not, then how can the sound be known through hearing?

Also, try to locate the sensation that is seemingly being the one (the hearer) who is doing the hearing (the sense of a hearer). And investigate the sensation itself if it is really the hearer. Let me know what you find.

Vivien

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

What is known is label + colour + sound + thoughts ABOUT the clock, but the thoughts about the clock are pointing to further thought, because a clock is not known.
Is this totally clear?

Yes

In 'hearing' can anything be found other than tick tock – AE of sound?

No

Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only sound?

There is only sound

Is there a dividing line between ‘hearer’ AND sound? Can a ‘hearer’ be directly experienced?

No

What do you find?

There is just sound and the hearing of it with no separation between hearing and what is heard.

Can a 'hearer' be found in 'what is being heard’? In other words, in your direct (actual) experience is there a hearer AND sound, or is there only AE of sound?

There is only AE of sound

Can an INHERENT HEARER be found, or it is only thought that suggests that there is a hearer AND sound?

No- an inherent hearer cannot be found. Thought suggests that "I am hearing the sound" but this is just a thought.

Are you ever aware of two experiences or more at 'any given time'? When sound shows up, is there a 'sound experience' and a 'knowing of sound' experience? If not, then how can the sound be known through hearing?

No- 'sound experience' and 'knowing of sound' are united. Any separation between the two is created by a 'me' thought. The sound is just 'soundaware-d'.

Also, try to locate the sensation that is seemingly being the one (the hearer) who is doing the hearing (the sense of a hearer). And investigate the sensation itself if it is really the hearer. Let me know what you find.

The sensation is just a sensation and a sensation cannot hear. There is no hearer, just hearing happening.

Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

Nice looking.
Now let’s starting investigating the visual perception.

Certain thoughts POINT TO actual experience, like the labels ‘sensation, image/colour, sound, smell, taste, thought’.
But most thoughts do NOT POINT DIRECTLY to AE, but rather they point to THOUGHTS ABOUT AE.

Like the thought label apple.

Have a look at an apple. If you have a ‘real’ apple, you can use it for this exercise (or any other fruit will do).



When looking at an apple, there's colour; a thought saying ‘apple’; and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."
What is known for sure? Colour 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, colour, smell, taste, sensation.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour 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 labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known

However, is an apple actually known?

Vivien

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?
Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

No there is no 'apple' in AE. There is an image which thought labels 'red' and 'apple' but these thought labels are the AE of thought labels and only point to 'apple' and are not the 'apple' itself. If I were to reach out and touch what we label 'apple' there would be a sensation (what we label touch). If I were to take a bite of the apple what we label taste would be experienced.

However, is an apple actually known?

No- a sensation is known, a thought about 'apple' is known, a taste is known, a smell is known.

Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,


Notice that when you go by direct visual experience alone, the way the tree is distinguished from the sky is by colour only. The ‘border’ or the ‘dividing line’ between the tree and the sky is just a sudden change in colour.

Normally we believe that shadow implied depth. But shadow is just a darker shade of colour.
When going alone with seeing only, there is nothing else in the image about shadow than the difference in colour from the surrounding areas.

And what about light? Light is the same as shadow. Just a change in colour, nothing else.

Look at the tree. There are some changes in colour labelled ‘darker’ or ‘lighter’, which thought implies as differences in depth, closer and far. But actually they are just some changes in colour.

Can depth actually be experienced?
Is there really a 3 dimension or only 2?

Look at the white colour labelled ‘clouds’. Are those far or further away from the tree?
And is the tree closer?

Can ‘closer’ and ‘far’ be experienced at all?
Is there a foreground or a background?

Is there an experience of ‘tree’ apart from colour?

We normally believe that colour is coming from the independent object (tree).
But is there really an object hiding somewhere behind the colour, or an object which is ‘emitting’ the colour?
Is there the experience of a physical object (tree) behind the colour, or independent of colour?

When going along with seeing only, is there anything else directly experienced about the tree other than colour?

Is there an objectively existing tree or sky or clouds or grass at all?

Are there separate objects present?

Vivien

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

Can depth actually be experienced?
Is there really a 3 dimension or only 2?

Depth is only inferred in thought by light, shade, differences in colour, size- the picture has only 2 dimensions (depth being a 3rd dimension)

Look at the white colour labelled ‘clouds’. Are those far or further away from the tree?
And is the tree closer?

No- the clouds are on the same 'plane' as the tree. Depth is only inferred as above.

Can ‘closer’ and ‘far’ be experienced at all?

Is there a foreground or a background?
No- 'closer' and 'far' are added by thought. nothing in the picture is closer or further away than anything else.

Is there an experience of ‘tree’ apart from colour?

Shape- but only as a thought label conforming to the label 'tree' and size- but only in relation to other colours.

We normally believe that colour is coming from the independent object (tree).
But is there really an object hiding somewhere behind the colour, or an object which is ‘emitting’ the colour?
Is there the experience of a physical object (tree) behind the colour, or independent of colour?

No- it's just a colour (labelled 'green') with no physical object behind or independent of colour.

When going along with seeing only, is there anything else directly experienced about the tree other than colour?

Shape and size (relative to other colours)

Is there an objectively existing tree or sky or clouds or grass at all?

No- just different colours.

Are there separate objects present?

No- just different colours labelled 'clouds', 'grass' etc

Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

Depth is only inferred in thought by light, shade, differences in colour, size-

What is the AE of light?
What is the AE of shade?
What is the AE of size?

You did the previous exercise looking at a picture on the screen. But what if the image wasn’t just on a screen? What if it was a ‘real’ tree with ‘real’ sky and grass and clouds?

Please look out of your window, or even better go outside and investigate the same. I give you the same exercise. Maybe you want to print this out, or keep with you on your phone. As you walk outside investigate the same things. If there are no grass or trees, then use other objects instead.

Notice that when you go by direct visual experience alone, the way the tree is distinguished from the sky is by colour only. The ‘border’ or the ‘dividing line’ between the tree and the sky is just a sudden change in colour.

Normally we believe that shadow implied depth. But shadow is just a darker shade of colour.

When going alone with seeing only, there is nothing else in the image about shadow than the difference in colour from the surrounding areas.

And what about light? Light is the same as shadow. Just a change in colour, nothing else.

Look at the tree. There are some changes in colour labelled ‘darker’ or ‘lighter’, which thought implies as differences in depth, closer and far. But actually they are just some changes in colour.

Can depth actually be experienced?
Is there really a 3 dimension or only 2?

Look at the white colour labelled ‘clouds’. Are those far or further away from the tree?
And is the tree closer?

Can ‘closer’ and ‘far’ be experienced at all?
Is there a foreground or a background?

Is there an experience of ‘tree’ apart from colour?

We normally believe that colour is coming from the independent object (tree).

But is there really an object hiding somewhere behind the colour, or an object which is ‘emitting’ the colour?
Is there the experience of a physical object (tree) behind the colour, or independent of colour?

When going along with seeing only, is there anything else directly experienced about the tree other than colour?
Is there an objectively existing tree or sky or clouds or grass at all?
Are there separate objects present?

Please let me know what you find, when you are looking at ‘real’ objects in the ‘real’ world.

Vivien

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

I’ll reply to this tomorrow.
Graham

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

What is the AE of light? What is the AE of shade? What is the AE of size?

The AE of all 3 is colour.

Can depth actually be experienced?
Is there really a 3 dimension or only 2?

No- there is just changes in colour with only 2 dimensions

Look at the white colour labelled ‘clouds’. Are those far or further away from the tree?
And is the tree closer?

No, not in AE

Can ‘closer’ and ‘far’ be experienced at all?
Is there a foreground or a background?

'Closer' and 'far' can only be inferred by thought.

Is there an experience of ‘tree’ apart from colour?

No

We normally believe that colour is coming from the independent object (tree).

But is there really an object hiding somewhere behind the colour, or an object which is ‘emitting’ the colour?
Is there the experience of a physical object (tree) behind the colour, or independent of colour?

No- there is just colour with no object being experienced.

When going along with seeing only, is there anything else directly experienced about the tree other than colour?
Is there an objectively existing tree or sky or clouds or grass at all?
Are there separate objects present?

No- there are no objects experienced at all- just colour.

Please let me know what you find, when you are looking at ‘real’ objects in the ‘real’ world.

These exercises were a little hard to grasp at first. So, if we go by direct experience alone, nothing seems to exist in a sense. Take the tree outside my window- in AE the tree is seen as colour and as such no 'tree' exists outside of that. If I was to go and touch the tree, there would be a sensation that would be labelled 'hard' or 'rough' but outside of those labels there is just a sensation. The same would apply to smell and taste- just sensations.

Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

Great looking.

So, if we go by direct experience alone, nothing seems to exist in a sense. Take the tree outside my window- in AE the tree is seen as colour and as such no 'tree' exists outside of that.

And what about the one who/what looked out the window?
Is there a looker or seer?

Sit in a chair somewhere quiet and take in a couple of deep breaths and start to notice just the ‘body’, the chair, floor, rugs, furniture and walls. Without thought, all there is, is colour which thought then labels as clothes, or body, chair, wall etc (we are only looking at colour for this exercise).

Now look carefully.

1. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found?

2. Is there a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘chair’ and the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’?

3. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’ and colour labelled ‘furniture’ be found?
Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’ and the ‘furniture’ or is there just simply colour?

4. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug and furniture’ and the colour labelled ‘wall’ be found?
Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’, ‘furniture’ and the ‘wall’ or is there just simply colour?
What do you find?

Is there an actual dividing line between any of these “colourS” or are they just simply seamless colour which thought divides into ‘things’ and further divides in into many different colourS and labels them as pink, black, yellow, green etc?

Is there such a thing as “space” or “distance”?

Is there an actual body/you sitting in a chair, or all there is, is colour?

Is there an appearance appearing, or is there simply AE of colour?

And is there a seeing AND colour or are they one and the same?

Look at this picture bellow. Is this true?



Vivien