Let’s get this over with

[Daveop]

And what is the actual experience of “feeling of pressure”?

It's just sensation with a thought saying it's pressure.

Can you actually locate the sensations? Do they have a particular location?

No, the sensation is just hanging out in space. What happens is there is a thought-image/map of the body and a thought-image of the sensation happening in an area of the body map.

Can you find anything within the sensations at all, including a body or any specific parts of a body?

No, just thought saying it's a body part.
An interesting discovery here was the assumption that all sensations are supposed to be coming from the body, so no "other"/non-labeled sensations are allowed.

Can you find a ‘me’ within the sensations at all?

No.

Are the sensations actually solid?

No, I'm not sure what they heck they are.

As you observed the sensations what did you notice?

It's like a sky with clouds. There's not really any objects or edges. Just blurs. The more you look at them the less cohesive they become, like sound is just everywhere.

Some sensations seem to be more dense, but can you find 'denseness' in the actual experience of the sensations?

No... Actually I was wrong in the metaphor above. Clouds are too object-like, these are more like passing ideas. No density.

Looking at this picture and just working with the colours, thought says that the yellow, peach and green areas are particular parts of a body and that the body is an object called 'me'. Thought also says that the other colours are something else. Is there a division between the body and not-body, or is that division imagined? And seeing that divisions are only ever imagined, could a body ever really be present at all?

I can see what you're getting at, but man, the conviction that it's a body is hard to shake. I had trouble with the different color(s) exercise too, and this is basically the same thing. Can you give me some more help? I will keep trying here.

Thought also says that the blue and tan colour is called a ‘door’, and that there is something behind the door.
How is it known that there is something behind the door?

Much easier. It's just thought.

[forgetmenot]

Hey Dave,

How’s the LOOKING these days? Is it easier to LOOK now and is LOOKING becoming like second nature?

Can you actually locate the sensations? Do they have a particular location?

No, the sensation is just hanging out in space. What happens is there is a thought-image/map of the body and a thought-image of the sensation happening in an area of the body map.

Yep….quite a cool illusion!

And is what you are calling ‘space’….really space?

The usual belief that 'I am this body' is usually tied in with the belief that the body, as a separate item is responsible for 'DOING' the senses - 'I see', 'I hear', 'I feel' etc.

Sit quietly somewhere where you won't be disturbed.
Take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and then close your eyes.

When closing the eyes, notice there is the experience of 'blackness'. There may a bright light, a red glow, sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics. We are just noticing ‘blackness’.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is simply AE of colour labelled ‘black’?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than seeing ‘black’?
3) Can what is seeing ‘black’ found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?
What do you find?

Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘black’? Or ‘black’ just is?

Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found or is it a mental construct? In other words is there a boundary between what is known (ie colour} and the knowing of it? Or is there simply knowingknown – ie no dividing line, no boundary?

Can a 'see-er' be found at all in 'what is being seen' ie AE colour?

If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?


Okay….then open the eyes and look around.

Is there a difference between the ‘black’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open, or are they both simply the appearance of colour?

Is there anything that is witnessing/awaring colour?

Is the ‘see-er’ actually separate from the seen, or is it all a singular experience ie see-ersee/seeingcolour?

Can you find anything within the sensations at all, including a body or any specific parts of a body?

No, just thought saying it's a body part.
An interesting discovery here was the assumption that all sensations are supposed to be coming from the body, so no "other"/non-labeled sensations are allowed.

Can you tell me what you mean when you say “so no "other"/non-labeled sensations are allowed”. I am not getting what you are saying here.

So as there is no ‘real’ body, are sensations actually felt, or are they simply known as they are appearing in your field of knowing?

Are the sensations actually solid?

No, I'm not sure what they heck they are.

LOL exactly….and doesn’t the mind almost go round the bend trying to work out what the heck they are!

As you observed the sensations what did you notice?

It's like a sky with clouds. There's not really any objects or edges. Just blurs. The more you look at them the less cohesive they become, like sound is just everywhere.

What I love, is seeing that they are not be found anywhere and yet they are known.

Looking at this picture and just working with the colours, thought says that the yellow, peach and green areas are particular parts of a body and that the body is an object called 'me'. Thought also says that the other colours are something else. Is there a division between the body and not-body, or is that division imagined? And seeing that divisions are only ever imagined, could a body ever really be present at all?

I can see what you're getting at, but man, the conviction that it's a body is hard to shake. I had trouble with the different color(s) exercise too, and this is basically the same thing. Can you give me some more help? I will keep trying here.

You won’t shake the idea of there being a body. The body is part of the dream and is a necessary part of the dream. The body is what actually tells you what is going on…more so than the mind. The mind can tell you that you aren’t feeling something…but if you check in with the body…you soon get to see which one is telling the truth and which one is trying to avoid the truth ie avoid feeling! But seeing through the idea of ‘you’ being a body, and that there is a ‘you’ residing in the body does take work. And even then…the idea that you are walking around in the body doesn’t disappear.

Let’s try the following exercise and see how you go.

Thought labels ‘colours’, ‘sensations’ (cold/hot/pressure etc) etc as a body - but no actual body is present. Thought does this with everything that seems to exist and to create the 'person in the world' illusion.



Notice what is actually present in this image. Thought says it's a cartoon character called Bart Simpson, but all that's actually there is yellow, red, blue, white, black. There is no Bart present in the image at all. The AE of Bart is thought.

Can you see that Bart is 100% just a story? The body is a story in the same way.

Also notice that the thing which thought claims is your body doesn't even have a head.

Close the eyes and put a tip of a finger to the top of the head. Now, ignore all thoughts and images about a ‘fingertip’ and ‘head’ and what is the actual experience?
Can you find an actual head?

Thought also says that the blue and tan colour is called a ‘door’, and that there is something behind the door.
How is it known that there is something behind the door?

Much easier. It's just thought.

And it’s just thought that says the colours labelled as ‘body’ is your body. And it is just another thought that says…”but there is more conviction to the idea that the colours are actually me and my body”!

Kay

[Daveop]

How’s the LOOKING these days? Is it easier to LOOK now and is LOOKING becoming like second nature?

Yes, I think so. I don't remember much from the beginning of this.

And is what you are calling ‘space’….really space?

Since the color is black, I have been superimposing the sensation somewhere in the black. The idea of space is just an idea, a thought.
Anything I try to assign a location in experience will be experience.
It looks like experience takes up as much space as it needs to take up, to be experience. Like elastic.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is simply AE of colour labelled ‘black’?

Yes (if we ignore sensation, sound, thought)

2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than seeing ‘black’?

No, no attention, focus, etc. No seeing process, it's just there.

3) Can what is seeing ‘black’ be found?

No.

4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?
What do you find?

Those are thoughts, can't find what they point at in AE.

Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘black’? Or ‘black’ just is?

Black just is.

Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found or is it a mental construct? In other words is there a boundary between what is known (ie colour} and the knowing of it? Or is there simply knowingknown – ie no dividing line, no boundary?

Seeing is a thought, there's just color. The color is known just by existing. No boundary between known/color and the knowing of it, so color is knowingknown.

Can a 'see-er' be found at all in 'what is being seen' ie AE colour?

No, just color.

If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

Well, experience would inherently be the seer if it's knowingknown/seeingseen.

Is there a difference between the ‘black’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open, or are they both simply the appearance of colour?

Same area of color.

Is there anything that is witnessing/awaring colour?

Nothing separate from color witnessing color.

Is the ‘see-er’ actually separate from the seen, or is it all a singular experience ie see-ersee/seeingcolour?

It's just experience.

Can you tell me what you mean when you say “so no "other"/non-labeled sensations are allowed”. I am not getting what you are saying here.

The flip side of the realization that thought labels sensations as body parts, is: there's an expectation that IF any sensation happens, it MUST be coming from the body. So thoughts label it that way. False, circular reasoning.

So as there is no ‘real’ body, are sensations actually felt, or are they simply known as they are appearing in your field of knowing?

Nothing feeling the sensations, just knowingknown.

Can you see that Bart is 100% just a story? The body is a story in the same way.

Yes, AE is color + thoughts about Bart.
So you're telling me it's okay to still think it's Bart, and still think he's yellow? As long as I see the story too?

Close the eyes and put a tip of a finger to the top of the head. Now, ignore all thoughts and images about a ‘fingertip’ and ‘head’ and what is the actual experience?
Can you find an actual head?

Sensation an thoughts about a head. No AE of a head.

[forgetmenot]

Hi Dave,

If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

Well, experience would inherently be the seer if it's knowingknown/seeingseen.

Yes, experience (THIS or whatever you call it) is appearing as ‘seeing’; however seeing and colour are one and the same thing.



How is it known that the eyes see?
Can you actually see the back of the eyes where images come from?
Can a someone or something be found behind the eyes, witnessing them actually seeing...can you find anything behind the eyes that are seeing?

It appears as if words are seen through looking with the eyes, so eyes would be needed, right? What is actually known right now about eyes, except thought about them?

Look at whatever is in front of you. Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes), or is it like a windscreen view? Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen? Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

Is there an actual distance/space between colour labelled ‘body’ and colour labelled ‘computer screen’?

Can you tell me what you mean when you say “so no "other"/non-labeled sensations are allowed”. I am not getting what you are saying here.

The flip side of the realization that thought labels sensations as body parts, is: there's an expectation that IF any sensation happens, it MUST be coming from the body. So thoughts label it that way. False, circular reasoning.

Yes! So when a sensation arises…explore it to see what it actually is, and if you can find a body that is supposedly feeling it! Do this as often as possible.

Can you see that Bart is 100% just a story? The body is a story in the same way.

Yes, AE is color + thoughts about Bart.
So you're telling me it's okay to still think it's Bart, and still think he's yellow? As long as I see the story too?

Yes! Do you have a choice in that? Are you the author of thought? If you were, you would be able to change whatever story appears, or even stop thoughts from appearing. Can you do this?

For practicality purposes of the dream….seeing Bart as Bart and yellow as yellow is needed, however it is seeing that both the idea of Bart and colour being yellow are a story superimposed by thought onto raw experience itself.

Just because the Daveself will be seen through, doesn’t mean that you will no longer recognise yourself as the Daveself…it’s just that you will know that it is all a story, but again...this doesn't happen overnight.

Close the eyes and put a tip of a finger to the top of the head. Now, ignore all thoughts and images about a ‘fingertip’ and ‘head’ and what is the actual experience?
Can you find an actual head?

Sensation an thoughts about a head. No AE of a head.

Yes. So I think I pointed this out before….there is no thinking happening in a head and there is no seeing from eyes that are supposedly located on a face on a head.

Are you aware of the Headless Way by Doug Harding? The following exercise is great to see that the head is a construct.

Point where others see your face.

What do you see? You are now looking inwards – turning the direction of your attention round 180˚ from the objects out there to you the subject, to the place where it seems you are looking out of. Do you see your face? Do you see anything at all there - any colour or shape, any movement?

Kay

[Daveop]

How is it known that the eyes see?

Just the explanation I was taught. In AE there's just seeing going on with no proof it involves eyes.

Can you actually see the back of the eyes where images come from?

No.

Can a someone or something be found behind the eyes, witnessing them actually seeing...can you find anything behind the eyes that are seeing?

No.

It appears as if words are seen through looking with the eyes, so eyes would be needed, right? What is actually known right now about eyes, except thought about them?

Just thought.

Look at whatever is in front of you. Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes), or is it like a windscreen view?

A windscreen.

Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen? Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

Just what's seen. Just experience. A seer is a thought.

Is there an actual distance/space between colour labelled ‘body’ and colour labelled ‘computer screen’?[/color]

No, they appear in the same place.

Can you see that Bart is 100% just a story? The body is a story in the same way.

Yes, AE is color + thoughts about Bart.
So you're telling me it's okay to still think it's Bart, and still think he's yellow? As long as I see the story too?

Yes! Do you have a choice in that? Are you the author of thought? If you were, you would be able to change whatever story appears, or even stop thoughts from appearing. Can you do this?

No, the story just appears. Thoughts just appear.

Point where others see your face.

What do you see? You are now looking inwards – turning the direction of your attention round 180˚ from the objects out there to you the subject, to the place where it seems you are looking out of. Do you see your face? Do you see anything at all there - any colour or shape, any movement?

No. There's nothing back there, just a thought that there is a back there.
I did feel something shifting around doing this exercise. Will keep looking.

[Daveop]

Shift in perception, doing all of these questions, I meant.

[forgetmenot]

Hi Dave,

Is there an actual distance/space between colour labelled ‘body’ and colour labelled ‘computer screen’?

No, they appear in the same place.

You have already done the following exercise…but a refresher is always good!

Sit in a chair somewhere quiet and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust.

Start to notice just the ‘body’, the chair, floor, rugs, furniture, objects 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
3. 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?

Shift in perception, doing all of these questions, I meant.

Wonderful! Can you tell me about it?

Kay

[Daveop]

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

No, only according to thought.

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

No division.

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

No line, no space, just color

3. 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?

No line, it's just flat

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?

No dividing line. Thought adds the idea of objects and colors.

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

No, it's all flat, a picture of a world.

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

No, it's all color.

I can see how you're pointing at consciousness dressing up as a world and thought makes it seem real. The body is part of the illusion too.

Wonderful! Can you tell me about it?

Well, with the Doug Harding exercise, the only thing there to point at is the pointing finger. So it's pointing at the picture/area/field of consciousness/appearances itself.

I did some questioning into the thoughts about a witness back there watching, and something changed. Reality feels less separate. I still don't feel "one with everything" or like I'm the "knowingknown" (as I figure must be the goal), but the "watcher behind the eyes" idea feels much fainter. It's actually difficult to describe since nothing really changed from what was happening to begin with.

[forgetmenot]

Hello Dave,

Wonderful! Can you tell me about it?

Well, with the Doug Harding exercise, the only thing there to point at is the pointing finger. So it's pointing at the picture/area/field of consciousness/appearances itself.

I don’t know what you mean when you say “So it's pointing at the picture/area/field of consciousness/appearances itself”. The finger is pointing to absolutely nothing. There is nothing there to be seen. The point of the exercise was to get clear that there is no head and the body’s eyes don’t see. It is a wonderful illusion, that it seems the body’s eyes are seeing, when in fact seeing and colour are one and the same ie seeingcolour.

I did some questioning into the thoughts about a witness back there watching, and something changed. Reality feels less separate. I still don't feel "one with everything" or like I'm the "knowingknown" (as I figure must be the goal), but the "watcher behind the eyes" idea feels much fainter. It's actually difficult to describe since nothing really changed from what was happening to begin with.

The goal is not becoming the knowingknown…you are already that. The exploration is seeing how the separate self is seemingly created in order for you to see that you are not a separate independent limited entity which suffers and then dies. It is about undoing/unlearning everything you think you know and believe you are. This isn’t about letting go of one identity only to pick up another. This is about having no set identity whatsoever. And identities includes the idea that you are the sad self, the happy self, the depressed self, the sick self, the fearful self, the healthy self, the angry self, the resisting self, the loving self, the patient self etc. All those are identities. Wanting to identify as Consciousness/Awareness happens often…because the fear of not being able to identify as anything is frightening. Consciousness does not identify as anything…how can it…it is not an object. It doesn’t have qualities.

There is a desire to know what this is, and that you will know when you know – that you will be liberated once you know. This is an expectation and expectations compare what is happening now to an imagined future happening of how we think it will look and feel and should be; and if the current happening doesn’t match the imagined, this is then labelled as ‘liberated’ or ‘not liberated. There will be no knowing. This is not knowable. You can name experiences, but you can't know what they are. They're not knowable. You can know pain, but you don't know what that is--it's just pain or simply sensation + thought…but as you have seen for yourself…to know what a sensation or thought is…is not knowable. Experiences are not an explanation. There isn't an explanation for this. There is nothing unknown to be revealed, there is nothing apart from this current experience.

Okay…continuing on with the body. Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen. Repeat the exercise several times.

Stand in front of a bigger mirror.

(1) First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.

(2) Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?
Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?


(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’?
Or only thoughts suggest it?

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.

Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?
Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colours and shapes?

(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.

Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).

Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

(8) Start to walk slowly.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

(9) Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

Kay

[Daveop]

Hello Kay,
I'd like another day with the mirror exercise.
One "connection" I keep finding is timing. The sensations happen in synchrony with the color movements. For example, breathing has the same rhythm in both color and sensation. I can say this is just a thought, but... it's also color and sensation, so I can't deny it's happening.
Thoughts?

[forgetmenot]

Hey Dave,

By all means, take as long as you need to do the exercise.

One "connection" I keep finding is timing. The sensations happen in synchrony with the color movements. For example, breathing has the same rhythm in both color and sensation. I can say this is just a thought, but... it's also color and sensation, so I can't deny it's happening.
Thoughts?

When you did the sight-sensation exercise...you saw that the sight of the hand (colour) and the sensation appeared simultaneously and that they appeared equally 'beside' each other without hierarchy or link; and any link between the sensation and colour were only a mental construct.

Is what you wrote above any different? Can you find an actual link between them or is it only thought and a mental construct that links them? Let me know how you go.

Here is the exercise so as to refresh your memory of it. You can do the same exercise with breathing or any other 'connections' that seem to be in synchronicity.

Normally we believe that sensation is coming from sight (ie colour) - the object seen. In this example, the object being the ‘hand’ (colour labelled as ‘hand’)

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?

Do they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between 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?

Kay

[Daveop]

Hello Kay. I looked at this for a long time, and chased down a bunch of related questions.

Is what you wrote above any different? Can you find an actual link between them or is it only thought and a mental construct that links them? Let me know how you go.

It's not any different.

The finger is pointing to absolutely nothing. There is nothing there to be seen.

Yes, there's nothing in that direction. I was saying the only direction possible is AE.

(1) First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.
(2) Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?
Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

No connection. It's funny, I was feeling neck pain and didn't instantly know which side of the neck in the mirror had the pain. There was obviously some thought about it.

(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

No.
"But there must be a connection" thought is the admission a connection hasn't been found.

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’?
Or only thoughts suggest it?

Thoughts.
The sensation is sort of everywhere no matter what color is there.

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.

Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?

No, just color + thought.

Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colours and shapes?

Colors/shapes.

(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.

Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

No, just a thought.

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).

Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

Sensations + thoughts about a body.

(8) Start to walk slowly.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

No, only sensations.
There's no walking but thoughts about walking.
No body found - even when I walked by a mirror!
No, walking is just like sitting except the colors move more.

(9) Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

It's like a picture of a room. Hard to explain. It's flat.

I think I've "seen" the no self, but I feel like I don't want to miss out on the next couple of exercises, whatever they bring.

It actually happened a few posts ago and has been sinking in.

[forgetmenot]

Hey Dave,

Lovely LOOKING!

(9) Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

It's like a picture of a room. Hard to explain. It's flat.

Is 3D actual? Let’s have a look!

Have a look at the following picture. Thought says that the door is open and that there is space between the edge of the door that is seen and the wall behind the door. But is there?



Now, go open your front door like it is in this picture and have a look. Is the open door actually taking up ‘space’? And is there ‘space’ between door and the wall behind the door? What is actual experience?

I think I've "seen" the no self, but I feel like I don't want to miss out on the next couple of exercises, whatever they bring.
It actually happened a few posts ago and has been sinking in.

So with this realisation of having seen there is no separate self as it is thought to be…how do you feel?


We are nearly done with the investigation. We haven’t looked at the idea of time yet…so let’s do that now using the body as our introduction to LOOKING.

Look into the mirror throughout the day. Body image appears... notice that all that's really there are some colours, and a thought-story saying 'these colours are my body'

When you return to the mirror each time, consider whether these 'body colours' have ever appeared before.

Has this body image + story ever appeared before - or is this the only time you have ever been aware of these *exact* colours and this exact story about the body?

Can you find any previous appearances of the body? Where are they? If not how can it be known that the body has appeared before?

Is the appearance just appearing 'now' with only a thought-story claiming you've seen this body before?

Do that for today and report back what you find.

Kay

[Daveop]

Now, go open your front door like it is in this picture and have a look. Is the open door actually taking up ‘space’? And is there ‘space’ between door and the wall behind the door? What is actual experience?

No space, it would have to be made of matter to take up space and it's just an appearance. Any idea of what is behind something else is just a thought.

So with this realisation of having seen there is no separate self as it is thought to be…how do you feel?

There was a sense of "density in the center" and the assumption that was me, and now it's just another appearance. There is absolutely no effort, prior to any effort I should say, to just be aware of everything instead of assuming one part is me.

I'm not feeling any bliss or joy or anything. I feel more like a balloon has deflated, no impetus left. I was so driven to make sure I finished this process before I died and now it seems like it doesn't make any difference to me either way. I was troubled by the apathy thinking maybe it was mental resistance, I should push through, but it really does seem like I no longer care. I'm not saying I know I won't be reborn. It's just not an issue anymore. I'm tired of thinking it's worth thinking about.

We are nearly done with the investigation. We haven’t looked at the idea of time yet…so let’s do that now using the body as our introduction to LOOKING.

I figured out time on my own, without really trying. I had been thinking consciousness took place in time but time is an appearance in consciousness (thoughts).

Has this body image + story ever appeared before - or is this the only time you have ever been aware of these *exact* colours and this exact story about the body?

As far as I know the configuration of this moment has only happened once. It's perfectly possible it was invented right this second with nothing leading up to it.

Can you find any previous appearances of the body? Where are they? If not how can it be known that the body has appeared before?

Just in thought, happening now.

Is the appearance just appearing 'now' with only a thought-story claiming you've seen this body before?

Yes, seeing it before or not seeing it before are both stories.

[forgetmenot]

Hi Dave,

So with this realisation of having seen there is no separate self as it is thought to be…how do you feel?

There was a sense of "density in the center" and the assumption that was me, and now it's just another appearance. There is absolutely no effort, prior to any effort I should say, to just be aware of everything instead of assuming one part is me.

I'm not feeling any bliss or joy or anything. I feel more like a balloon has deflated, no impetus left. I was so driven to make sure I finished this process before I died and now it seems like it doesn't make any difference to me either way. I was troubled by the apathy thinking maybe it was mental resistance, I should push through, but it really does seem like I no longer care. I'm not saying I know I won't be reborn. It's just not an issue anymore. I'm tired of thinking it's worth thinking about.

No…there may not be bliss or joy, but there usually a shift of some description…be it a sense of feeling lighter or even a feeling of relief? There is a stark difference between not caring and not minding…which is it for you? When you say the impetus has left, are you saying that the seeking is no longer?


Okay…since you say you have time handled…let’s look at the past and memory.

Past and memory go hand-in-hand as almost everybody believes that a memory thought is referring to something that has happened; that a memory thought is a different thought than a non-memory thought.

Please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it.

What is memory exactly?
What is the memory ‘made of’?

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

WHEN does the memory actually appear?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?

WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about the past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is a difference, how is that difference known exactly?

Kay