Try Again

[FDM]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?

That there is no "I"-core that owns or creates thoughts, sensations, feelings, experience.
That the "me/ego/I/self" is a mental construct. Useful, but not the owner, creator or controller of my experience.
(BUT: I only realize this intellectually.)

What are you looking for at LU?

Truth, reality.
I would like to connect my intellectual understanding of no-self to my lived experience.
I have to mention that this is the second time I try. (My first try can be found under the thread name "Severing".)

There is probably a shortage of guides, but after browsing through some threads on this site, I seem to resonate most with the approaches of "vinceschubert", "Luchana" and "poppyseed". So if they were to become available in the near future, I would be grateful if one of them were willing to take on a risky second-hander.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?

Getting some pointers that might help me to make a start with connecting an intellectual understanding of no-self to my actual experience.
Pointers that relate to concrete experience rather than theoretical discussion. (I have to confess I tend to approach things intellectually and analytically, and I know this is an obstacle for this investigation.)
Moving a step closer towards a more truthful perspective on life, i.e. less clouded or taken in by ego-centric thoughts.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?

30 years of meditation (Theravada, TM, Goenka). 13 years of interest in no-duality (reading non-dual books, attending non-dual retreats). I stopped meditation for a year when I first came in contact with no-dual teachings, temporarily convinced by the position of some teachers that practice was useless. I also briefly tried Ramana Maharshi's form of self-enquiry, but I did not take to it because it seemed I first had to posit an "I" or assume an "I" while I already didn't think there was one. And then I ended up in a relatively thought-free space I could also get to through meditation. I also just ended my first attempt at LU under the thread "severing".

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?

10.

How did you find Liberation Unleashed?

Through Ilona's books "Gateless Gatecrashers" and "Liberation Unleashed".

[poppyseed]

Hi FDM (or should I call you Frank)
My name is Rali, and I’ll be glad to be your guide.
I'm sure you are familiar with the LU method of inquiry, but I'll repeat some of the explanations and questions again (if you don't mind). Anyway you get different answers to the same questions as circumstances change (nothing is permanent, even our answers) :). Every guide has their own style even though it's the same method as we all had different paths. So I appologise in advance if I make you repeat some of the exploring - I honestly see no harm in that, the more it's done the more obvious the illusion/delusion becomes.
Here at LU we assist in the exploration of the idea of the separate self. This is a guiding based on experience that brings a shift in perception and is not a debate. It directly points to what IS through the use of exercises, questions and dialogue. What I expect from you is to LOOK carefully to what is being pointed at. It is this simple LOOKING (not thinking) that brings a shift in perception.

Here, we are LOOKING directly into the experience of the senses, which is actually here and now, with the thinking stripped away. It is also known as Direct Experience (DE) or Actual Experience (AE). In this way, we are aiming to discover what is truly happening without the story we tell ourselves. For this process to work you have to answer with 100% honesty, and not relying on thought, imagination or memory - just reporting your direct experience. That would also mean leaving spiritual teachings, philosophies and science away during the inquiry. If you have a meditation practice, please feel free to continue with it as usual – it might come helpful. Is that OK with you?

Please read through “Liberation Unleashed is not …” in the FAQ’s of LU.
http://liberationunleashed.com/about/faq/#faq-1041

When replying to a question, please use the quote function to highlight the question being answered. Throughout this inquiry, please answer questions individually, not in a bundle.

It is advisable that you copy and paste questions asked into Word, answer them there and then copy and paste them to your thread. It will save you time in the long run, if a glitch in the system wipes out your answer.

For the sake of the intensity of the inquiry let’s try to stick to a daily conversation. Of course, life happens, so if you need more time, please let me know. I will do as well.
What time zone are in?
If you're okay with everything so far, we can start.
Love
Rali

[FDM]

Hi Rali

I'm really grateful that you are willing to guide me.
You can call me Frank.

repeat some of the exploring (...) the more it's done the more obvious the illusion/delusion becomes

Indeed. I welcome the repetition: I still keep repeating some question based on some of the first pointers I got on this site ("Who is really doing this", "Who is upset?", etc.), and Since I'm slow witted and have a rather thick skull, I expect it will take a lot of repetition of the basics to undo the mental habits of a lifetime (50+ years).

Is that OK with you?

Of course.
However, I have been so used to thinking as my "default mode" in approaching life, that I may simply not even notice when I slip from looking into thinking. Let me know.

I read “Liberation Unleashed is not …” in the FAQ’s again.

a daily conversation

That works fine for me.
Unfortunately, next week I will be away for one week (12-19 July) with no access to a computer. Of course, I could still enquire daily, write down my observations on paper and report those daily observations when I get back. I would prefer to start right away, but if you think it's better to wait until I'm back so there won't be a one-week hiatus, that's fine too.

The time zone in Belgium is now UCT+2.

I'm ready to start. And, once again, I really appreciate your willingness to take on an extra enquirer at such short notice.

Cheers
Frank

[poppyseed]

Hey Frank

However, I have been so used to thinking as my "default mode" in approaching life, that I may simply not even notice when I slip from looking into thinking. Let me know.

No worries, I will :)

Unfortunately, next week I will be away for one week (12-19 July) with no access to a computer.

We can start building up, so you have what to do in that week.

The time zone in Belgium is now UCT+2.

Perfect! I’m in South Africa, GMT+2, so not too much of a difference.

First things first, let’s get your expectations out on in the open:

1. What will be different when you realize there’s no separate self?

2. What do you expect to happen as a result of this?

3. What do you want not to happen?

4. What are you hoping for?

5. What is missing?
Love
Rali

[FDM]

Good morning Rali

1. What will be different when you realize there’s no separate self?

Not predictable really, but the main thing for me is truth. (The equivalent of the red pill in the movie "The Matrix": even if reality turns out to be bleak and tasteless, I'd rather have a bleak reality than a pleasant illusion.)

So that's the crucial thing, but I also (logically) expect there to be certain side effects. In addition to a more objective/neutral perspective, I also assume that certain "negative" emotions (like annoyance, hurt, bother, anger, etc.) would hang around less long than they do now. Let me try to explain what I mean with an example:

If somebody loses a precious object, I might sympathise with them if they are sad about it and they are close to me, but I'm not at all bothered by the loss of the object. I might even point out: "it's only an object" or "nothing could be done about it". I would probably have the same attitude towards basically everybody else in the world who loses a precious object (the universality of it shows me it's a more objective perspective).
But to this universal attitude, there's one big exception: me. If I lose something that is precious to me (e.g. a book in which I made many annotations), I'm really bothered by it (while nobody else in the world would be bothered by it). I imagine that for someone who has realised there is no separate self, this bother would still show up, of course, but it would probably not hang around as long as it does for the unrealised me.

2. What do you expect to happen as a result of this?

So I imagine that I would have a more neutral/objective perspective on things and that "negative" emotions (like annoyance, hurt, worry, impatience, etc.) would pass through more quickly and not hang around as long as they still do.
As the things that "narrow" my perspective would decrease, I would expect there to be more openness and a welcoming attitude to whatever shows up.
Me not getting stuck in different places would result in an increased ease of being, or things running more smoothly.

3. What do you want not to happen?

I don't want to be fooled by, taken in by or take on a new belief.
Anything else, if it remains within the realm of truth, can be welcomed.

4. What are you hoping for?

Realisation might be out of my reach, but I certainly hope that this process of enquiring will at least bring me closer to realisation. I hope for a lot closer, but I'm also willing to settle for a little closer.

5. What is missing?

I guess this means what is missing from my experience right now?
This turned out to be the most difficult question.
I have to conclude I'm quite contented. There are of course a thousand and one little wishes, but the absence of their fulfilment is not missing from my experience right now.
This may sound strange, but what is missing is the absence of the feeling that something is missing. (So there's the sense of incompleteness, without knowing exactly what is missing.)
Since reality is so vast, I wish I could take in more of it. I don't mean having more experiences, but to embrace the reality available - whatever it is - more fully and to have a more equanimous attitude towards it.

Cheers
Frank

[poppyseed]

Good morning Frank

It’s a chilli and sunny morning here – a typical SA winter day :)

Thank you for your honesty! It can be challenging to become aware of what we really believe. The questions were a means to seeing what expectations you have, as everyone has some “idea” about awakening. There is so much information out there now with so many people sharing their experiences, and “teachers” preaching how it supposed to look and feel, that to have no expectations is almost impossible.

Your expectations are somewhat reasonable, but ultimately, expectations are a hindrance. They cling to an idea of how it is supposed to go, which is not necessarily correct, and this is why I asked you to read the FAQ’s of what Liberation Unleashed is NOT. When realisation happens, it can be very subtle and if there are expectations of any kind, then it can be missed and the guiding becomes very difficult. I can promise you there will be no fireworks; it is just a subtle shift in perception! The only true expectation, that you can have, is that the seeking will end. If there are any other expectations, it's good to acknowledge them and then set them aside. It is all much simpler and ordinary. Is that OK with you?

Just to clarify…

But to this universal attitude, there's one big exception: me. If I lose something that is precious to me (e.g. a book in which I made many annotations), I'm really bothered by it (while nobody else in the world would be bothered by it). I imagine that for someone who has realised there is no separate self, this bother would still show up, of course, but it would probably not hang around as long as it does for the unrealised me.

Exactly! It’s not that we are destroying a real “I” here – we are just seeing through an illusion. It’s not like it existed and then it didn’t – it just never existed in the first place. Just (just!:)) changing the perception of reality. I hope you’ll be able to see that there was never an entity that was bothered but just an idea (thought) about that.


Now…
If you look for the I, what is there? If I say there’s no doer, thinker, experiencer, decision maker, or a witness, what comes up? Where exactly did you look? What exactly did you find? Please describe in detail what appears – feelings, sensations, thoughts, anything?

Love
Rali

[FDM]

Good evening Rali

About setting aside expectations:

Is that OK with you?

Of course.

If you look for the I, what is there? If I say there’s no doer, thinker, experiencer, decision maker, or a witness, what comes up? Where exactly did you look? What exactly did you find? Please describe in detail what appears – feelings, sensations, thoughts, anything?

This has been the most important investigation for me. About a month ago there was this glimpse/suggestion/logical conclusion that "I/me" is nothing but a thought construct. Yet, this contradicts the "sense of I/me" that persists.

Since then I've been living with this contradiction, trying to find evidence for either the one or the other. (I feel like a detective or a lawyer engaged by both parties in a dispute.) It's really the heart of the matter for me. (This will be the basic issue I return to daily, even when we will focus on other aspects.)

If you look for the I, what is there? (...) What exactly did you find?

A "weak" sense of me shows up in simple perceptions. A "strong" sense of me shows up with strong emotions (worry, annoyance, impatience, hurt, suffering, anger, etc.)

First this weak sense of me. For example, I'm looking outside now (my desk is in front of the window, so this is always the easiest example for me) and I see a lot of clouds, but simultaneously there is already a personal evaluation mixed in.
(I'm happy with the clouds. In recent years we've had more and more heat waves during summer - consecutive days with more than 30°C. I used to love summers, but as I dislike extreme heat, I've started to like the colder seasons more. I was also thinking of that when you mentioned it was winter where you are at. So the clouds are a good omen for me: it won't be too hot. Now I've used a few lines here to explain this, but in looking at the clouds, all that meaning is there immediately - not even explicitly as verbalised thoughts, but as instantaneously implied meaning.)
In this type of "weak" me sense, it's clear that my personal history provided the background me-colouring/flavour.

When I look outside at something more neutral, like the building that's always there, there can also be a me-sense (the sense that it is me looking, not somebody else). Here the me-sense seems to depend on the intensity of the looking or how "close" I am (in terms of concentration) to what is seen. It's like perception is a continuum. When I move closer to the supposed object that is perceived, the supposed subject falls away and perception is not all coloured/flavoured by this sense of me. It's more like a scientific, neutral or objective perspective. But if I don't zoom in on what is perceived, and turn back to sense into who's looking, there seems to be a subjective feel to the perception, it feels as if it is my subjective and unique perception. Even more so than in the previous example, this me-sense is implied rather than explicitly stated (so the me-sense does not explicitly appear as verbalised thoughts, as a personal story, but only as a vague implied sense in the background).

As for this "strong" sense of me, I will have to take something from memory.
Since I'm doing this deliberately now, it's easier to see how collected memories, values and narratives interact with physical phenomena to construct this "me" that is hurt. However, when this happens in real time, this construction is not noticed and it feels as if an "I" is really hurt. It has happened that a perceived snide comment from a colleague hangs around for quite some time. (What happens during that time is thoughts going round and round in a circle, leading to certain sensation being added into the mix, and with every turn this illusory "me" becomes more solid. And while this is happening I can't get out of it. Only later, when the storm dies down a bit, is it there enough awareness to notice what is going on. And later still, with more distance, like now, it can be seen how this sense of me was solidified, why something was perceived as a snide comment because of memories, insecurities, protective mechanisms form the past, etc.

Where exactly did you look?

With the above examples there was not really an exact location of this me-sense. It is vaguely associated with the body as a physical location. I used the word "vaguely", because when I try to lean in or zoom in on it, it disappears. This afternoon the idea "I'm tired" appeared and the I-sense seemed to locate itself between the top of the head and the heart/chest area. Once again I write "seemed" because when I tried to look closer there was nothing there, nothing but some disparate physical sensations (the feeling of the heart, the movement of the chest while breathing, a feeling in the throat because of the breath, an ever so slight pressure in the head, etc.). Of course, looking more closely, the "I" sense flees away like a scared ghost. (And, from experience, I know that when I'm not on guard, it will quietly slip in again and pretend it owns the place.)

If I say there’s no doer, thinker, experiencer, decision maker, or a witness, what comes up?

For the "doer"/"decision maker" aspects, I applied this to several activities today. (I only remembered to do this while I was already doing them, or after, but never before). One typical example: while I was eating an apple, I asked who decided to do that. Then there was the memory of going into the kitchen, taking one of the apples, and before that I'm not sure if it was a little impulse of hunger or a moment of boredom that was the instigator of me getting up and going into the kitchen. Here it was relatively clear that the "doer" or "decision maker" were added to a process that started with a hunger impulse followed by thought suggestions (apple or nectarine, early lunch, another coffee with a biscuit). To ask where the impulse came from I would have to go into biology or perhaps eating habits from the past. In other words: a chain of events where not "me" decided to "do" something.

Because you asked me to look at this, I see this clearly. But the activities yesterday felt more like the result of my decisions and me doing them. And I know this was an illusion.
But when I stop actively looking, it's like amnesia sets in again and I resort back to the default position I've been programmed with.
(It's been said that once somebody points out that Santa Claus doesn't exist, you cannot go back to your previous belief and make the illusion real again. Yet it feels as if that's exactly what is happening to me. I should have added this to the question about my expectations yesterday: I hope that through the guidance and by returning to this sticky issue again and again, at one point my default position will simply switch.)

I can give other examples for the "thinker" and the "experiencer", but the conclusion will be the same.

Not so for the "witness", which is a little different in my experience. The "witness" is more ambiguous for me, more mysterious in its operation.
Although I cannot "capture" this witness within the net of the 5 senses + thought, the five senses and thought are nevertheless always known/witnessed. There is a knowing or noticing or awareness of my experience. I know that this awareness/knowing/noticing is not the source of this sense of me: e.g. when there is pain, hurt or annoyance, the sense of me is closely connected to that pain, hurt or annoyance, but this awareness/knowing is not at all connected to it, as if it doesn't care about "my" hurt or pain. So it doesn't seem connected to the sense of me at all. Yet it is there. As I'm writing this I just tried to verify this again by bringing up a painful memory. And yes, the sense of I is hurt and this is simply known by something neutral (I mean the knowing of it is not hurt).

I'm sorry you had to wade through this thick sea of words. I'll try to be more concise in the future, but since my biggest stumbling block was the topic of your question, I've been more elaborate than usual. (I realise I might have elaborated on things you weren't interested in while not mentioning enough about things you wanted to look at more closely. Let me know.)

Cheers
Frank

[poppyseed]

Good morning Frank

Wow! Thank you for your honest reply! That gives me an idea where to start.
But!!
Before we start let’s just make sure that you understand how to LOOK for no self in the exercises:
There is a BIG difference between knowing that there is nothing and seeing that there is nothing.
Here is an example to illustrate the difference:

If I ask you what colour socks you are wearing right now you have two ways to answer:
1. You can think about it, trying to remember, or guessing what colour they are.
2. You can have a look at your socks and see what colour they ACTUALLY are!
You will agree that only by looking you could be 100% certain, right?

For the purpose of this inquiry, it is crucial that you are clear about this difference in the two ways of answering and stick only to the second way. We are only interested in looking at and seeing what is actually going on. We are only interested in Direct (Actual) Experience (DE/AE)- the experience right now and right here.

Direct or Actual Experience is:

Seeing
Hearing
Sensing (not emotion - emotion is sensation plus thoughts/labels)
Tasting
Smelling
Thoughts Arising (but not their content, what the thought is ABOUT)

Please let me know if you are clear about this or if you would like any further clarification.
Here's an exercise for you to get super clear on what direct experience is. You can use this photo of an apple or a real apple.


Have a look at an apple. When ‘looking at an apple’, there's colour, a thought saying ‘apple,' and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple." What about the content of thoughts, what they describe? While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT cannot be found in direct or actual experience. Direct, actual experience is sound, thought, colour(sight), smell, taste and sensation.

Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour (visual information) 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? (Or is it just a label?) Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’? Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?
Love
Rali

[FDM]

Hi Rali

You will agree that only by looking you could be 100% certain, right?

I agree. Looking directly gives a 100% confirmation.

Please let me know if you are clear about this

I'm clear about the meaning of direct experience (5+1) as opposed to thoughts and ideas.

is 'an apple' actually known? (Or is it just a label?) (...) Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

No, an apple is not actually known in direct experience (I'll use DE for this from now on).
It's a convenient shortcut for a bundle of different sense experiences tied together in thought with the label "apple".

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

No, there's not really an "apple" here but a collection of sense impressions.
There are visual impressions (colour, light and dark, shape: variations of green, relatively round) and when I touch the Granny Smith apple in front of me, there's also the touch sensation (relatively smooth with very tiny bumps, or little spots that are uneven). When I bring the apple closer there's also smell (difficult to describe: "fruity", sweet). The biting will also be touch via lips, teeth and palate before there are taste impressions.

The moment I start using language, I'm already removed from DE.
E.g. even if I use the word "smooth" to describe the surface of the apple, that's already more of a thought than direct experience: all I could actually say is that it has a particular surface that is different from another surface, the more grainy or rough surface of the cutting board it's lying on. (So I already need the mental comparison to make sense of "smooth".)
So, yes, no matter how descriptive, luscious, accurate or precise the words are on a menu card, eating the menu card will still not be a very satisfying experience.

I'm a bit curious about the word "really" in the question. Of course, there must be "something" there, something that "sends out" these sense impressions. But I see that, strictly speaking, even that is an assumption, a logical deduction and not present in DE as such. Touch might ascertain the quality of "solidity" of something, but that quality does not imply "apple".

(I was going to eat the apple, but after these observations I feel more for a nectarine.)

Cheers
Frank

[poppyseed]

Morning Frank

No, an apple is not actually known in direct experience (I'll use DE for this from now on).
It's a convenient shortcut for a bundle of different sense experiences tied together in thought with the label "apple".

Good!

There are visual impressions (colour, light and dark, shape: variations of green, relatively round) and when I touch the Granny Smith apple in front of me, there's also the touch sensation (relatively smooth with very tiny bumps, or little spots that are uneven). When I bring the apple closer there's also smell (difficult to describe: "fruity", sweet). The biting will also be touch via lips, teeth and palate before there are taste impressions.

“Colour”, “light”, “dark”, “green”, “round” are all labels/thought content ABOUT seeing.

Touch might ascertain the quality of "solidity" of something, but that quality does not imply "apple".

“Solidity” is another label for sensing (sensation)

So if you look at the 'I/me' , is it actually known?
Yes, sensation labelled as “I” is known, as are the thoughts ABOUT an “I”, but an “I” isn’t actually known. It is a concept…and concepts aren’t an issue, unless they are believed.

Does the label "I" contain an actual I...does it contain an actual person?
Does the label "I" itself, suggest in any way that it is an I?
Does the label "I" know anything about an I?
What does the label "I" point to? In other words, what does the word/label "I" actually refer to?


Just to ensure that you are crystal clear about DE and labels related to it...here's an exercise that you can try as many times throughout the day as you can. Label daily activities, objects and emotions simply as colour/image, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought as per the apple example.
For example, when having coffee in the morning, become aware of:
Seeing a cup, simply= image/colour (seeing)
Smelling coffee, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste (tasting)
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought (thinking)

Break down daily activities into these categories (which are all Actual/Direct Experience) and report back with lists EXACTLY like the one above. Please write a few examples from your daily life.

Love
Rali

[FDM]

Hi Rali

So if you look at the 'I/me' , is it actually known?

No.
I/me is not known directly except as a thought, derived from (or composed through) a combination of other thoughts and associated sensations.

concepts aren’t an issue, unless they are believed

That's my problem I think: belief in thought, although direct experience and logic shows and tells me differently.

Does the label "I" contain an actual I...does it contain an actual person?

No.
There is no actual "I".
What is referred to with "I", a person, is a composite which appears only in thought as a solid substance, not in actuality.

Does the label "I" itself, suggest in any way that it is an I?

Yes.
That is the magic function of the label: it functions as if there is a direct referent behind it, whereas there isn't really. (Without this suggestive function of language, fiction would not be possible.)

Does the label "I" know anything about an I?

No.
The label is just the label. The label does not know anything.
(Just like a steering wheel in a car does not know it is part of a car or is being driven around, even though it is a functional part in a driving car.)
Knowing something about something else, is also a thought.

But there is also a different kind of knowing, a noticing, an awareness of what appears (a sensation or thought), but that is never from or in a label.

What does the label "I" point to? In other words, what does the word/label "I" actually refer to?

As a label, it is just a thought (connected to many other thoughts).
It has no referent except other thoughts and an assortment of sensations.

Please write a few examples from your daily life.

Example 1: going into the kitchen for a drink
- idea appeared to go into the kitchen for a drink = thought
- getting up: feeling muscles = sensations
- walking into the kitchen:
- walking: feet on the floor = touch
- into the kitchen: sense of location = seeing + thought
- opening the fridge:
- taking the handle, pulling it = touch + sensation
- noticing a light suction noise as the rubber detaches from the metal = hearing
- noticing a particular bottle = seeing + thought
- opening the bottle and pouring = touch + seeing +hearing

Example 2: eating an orange
- noticing the orange in the fruit basket= seeing (colour/shape)
- taking the orange= sensation
- holding the orange= sensation (related to touch)
- peeling the orange= sensations + thought (related to the how, where to put the peel, etc.) + smell (as the orange is being peeled it already gives off a strong smell) + sensation (there is a slight reaction in the mouth in preparation for tasting)
- dividing the orange in different segments= mainly touch (but also: smell)
- eating a segment:
- taking a segment and lifting it= touch + sensation
- when the segment is in my mouth= taste
- enjoying the taste= taste +thought + sensation

Example 3: meeting a friend for coffee at a café
1. waiting for the friend:
- sitting = touch
- waiting = thought + seeing
- impatience = thought + sensation
2. noticing the friend = seeing + sensation
3. talking to a friend:
- looking at the friend: seeing
- interpreting the mood: seeing + thought
- adjusting distance, position: seeing + sensation (+ thought)
- pleased to see her: sensation (+ thought)

This labelling feels a little bit similar to a particular type of vipassana practice.

I noticed that one sense leads to another sense and that sometimes senses are combined. Sometimes there was some difficulty as to deciding which sense dominated. (And all of them seem to combine easily with thought.)

I know that you asked for lists EXACTLY as the one you mentioned, and the example only mentions one sense at a time. But rather than deleting the less dominant senses involved in each aspect, I'm going to keep them to verify if the observation was still ok or if I went wrong somewhere.

Thanks for the step by step approach and the additional explanation

Cheers
Frank

[poppyseed]

Hi Frank

Thank you for doing such wonderful looking! :) It is now to incorporate that looking into your everyday….make it a habit.

Thanks for the step by step approach and the additional explanation

My pleasure! In my observation logical thinking demands a step by step approach of consistent LOOKING. Remember we are changing perceptions here by seeing what is actually here :).

That is the magic function of the label: it functions as if there is a direct referent behind it, whereas there isn't really. (Without this suggestive function of language, fiction would not be possible.)

How does that make you feel?

But there is also a different kind of knowing, a noticing, an awareness of what appears (a sensation or thought), but that is never from or in a label.

Ok, just check… In DE is there an entity Awareness? What is awareness? Is it a container for experiences? Some kind of lone witness? What does it look like – form/color; does it speak etc – how can you describe it using the five senses?
Now let’s LOOK even deeper… where does awareness stop and the thoughts start, is there a visible border? Are there ”solid” thoughts floating around in “awareness”- “arising, appearing and disappearing”? Are the thinker/awareness, thought, and thinking separate? Can there be awareness without objects? Can there be objects (thoughts , tastes…) without awareness? Is awareness ever actually experienced or is it just an idea, an abstraction? Please LOOK, don’t intellectualise, imagine or remember from your previous experience!
Is there awareness or “aware-ing”/knowing/being?
Focus on the feeling of am-ness/being, aliveness.
Can you tell if there is a being or just being?
Is life happening to a being or as being?
Is that “aliveness” any kind of object or subject? Is it even a human?
Is it what you've taken as "you"?

I noticed that one sense leads to another sense and that sometimes senses are combined. Sometimes there was some difficulty as to deciding which sense dominated. (And all of them seem to combine easily with thought.)

Well spotted! Look, are there separate senses without thought describing differences? Thought works with concepts based on seeming differences. It isolates “things” from the whole and creates a story about them by building concept upon concept upon concept, while no concept can be really found in DE (just an illusion)
Remember “thinking”, “sensing”… are also labels for THIS/ whatever is happening. They might be DE labels but they are still labels. There is a belief that labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’, but a thought is never the actual. If they were then you would be able to taste the word 'sweet', hear the word ‘music’ and get wet with the thought 'water'. Some thoughts point to the actual and some point to other thoughts, but the content of every single thought is just a story. So LOOK! Are there really noticing_thinking and noticing_sensing, or noticing_thinking_sensing_seeing_hearing_tasting_smelling?

- taking the handle, pulling it = touch + sensation

What is the difference between “touch” and “sensation”?
In fact let’s start the exploration with “body”…
1. Take something cold from the fridge – like a can of cooldrink. When you touch the can, what does more accurately describe your experience –
a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”? With eyes closed, where does the cold appear? Observe the order in which the details appear
2. Sit comfortably on a chair. Close your eyes and relax. Pay attention only to the feeling of your body. Just notice the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images. Keep your eyes closed and look:
Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair? At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation?
Is it "my" "body", or is it just a "body"?
Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?
What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
Can the 'body' do things?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, walking, lying down, etc) before replying.
Love
Rali

[FDM]

Hi Rali

Your last post had so many interesting questions that I probably should have taken more time to answer them. I feel as if I've barely scratched the surface with some of them. (Let me know if I need to revisit any, I will gladly spend some more time with any of them.)
At the same time, exactly the combination of the different questions also knocked my stubborn sense of self off balance a bit when I first read them. Of course, that sense is always quick to recuperate, but still.

About the powerful function of labels:

How does that make you feel?

Very ambiguous
- On the one hand I am in absolute awe at the power of thoughts. Any kind of culture would not exist without it, and I love literature, philosophy, movies and music.
- On the other hand very wary: it is the number 1 source of human misery and suffering.
It's like the idea (thought) of a "country": one the one hand perhaps a useful way to organise life for a large group of people when it works well, but it can quickly turn to domination, hierarchies and war with others.

In DE is there an entity Awareness? (...) What does it look like – form/color; does it speak etc – how can you describe it using the five senses?

No, I cannot find awareness in DE (meaning I cannot catch it within the net of the 5 senses): it has no form, no colour, and it certainly does not speak - although "it" seems to be mutely witnessing whenever there's something to be witnessed.

What is awareness? Is it a container for experiences?

It is not a container.
My basis for saying so:
1 - when I hear something and my eyes are closed, the sound is not "contained" in me (there is some construction work going on in my neighbourhood and without the mental categories of location and distance, there is just the hearing of sound).
2 - with other senses, too, awareness does has no (fixed) location: when I stub my toe awareness seems to be in my toe but when I breathe in, awareness seems to be in my nose. So it seems to "move" or simply "be" wherever there's a sensation. With thought, the location seems to be more in the head (If you asked me to wait for the next thought to appear, it subjectively feels as if the waiting for it happens in the head. But if at that moment a mosquito would bite my knee, that's where awareness would be.)
So the conclusion is that awareness seems to be wherever the sense presents itself (and it seems impossible to locate anything in DE). So: no container (unless it includes absolutely everything that exists, but then there's no point in calling it a container).

Some kind of lone witness?

Awareness is not a witness - yet, witnessing (noticing, knowing) as an activity is going on: if this body were dead, there would be no noticing no awareness of anything.
(I could say it's connected with being alive, but that would be a logical conclusion rather than a direct experience since I cannot compare with the state of being dead.)

where does awareness stop and the thoughts start, is there a visible border?

A really interesting question, but I didn't experiment with it for too long: I felt it had the potential to give me a headache.
In meditation it is sometimes easy to catch the beginning of a thought. If anything it seems as if thoughts come out of awareness. Well, I could just as well say they come out of nothing, as does awareness. I could never catch a "border" between them. Every time, even when attention is sharp, it's like they're already together before they are separated.
So: no, in my DE there is no visible border.

Are there ”solid” thoughts floating around in “awareness”- “arising, appearing and disappearing”?

No solid thoughts. They are very amorphous, like clouds (at least when I try to zoom in on them - from a distance they might look more solid, but to inspect one you have to freeze-frame it).

Are the thinker/awareness, thought, and thinking separate?

I notice that my thought wants to say yes immediately, but in DE there's only thinking and both a" thinker" and thought" seem to be either deductions or freeze frames of thinking itself.

Can there be awareness without objects? Can there be objects (thoughts , tastes…) without awareness?

Once again, my first reaction says one thing, and then that first reaction is undermined in DE.
In meditation there seems to be an experience of meditation where there is just awareness without object. But there's always a very subtle object.
As for objects without awareness (that a bit like that question whether there's actually a sound of a tree falling in a forest when nobody's around), when it's narrowed down to my 5 senses: no way.

Is awareness ever actually experienced or is it just an idea, an abstraction?

I know that I'm alive, there is an undeniable sense of being here. There is a knowing that there's hearing or tasting or sensing going on.
Yet this knowing is always formulated in thought and I cannot capture it with the 5 senses, so it must be a deduction, an abstraction. (I have a question about this which I put at the very end of this post.)

Is there awareness or “aware-ing”/knowing/being?

Yes, there is aware-ing/knowing/being, but no entity called awareness.

Focus on the feeling of am-ness/being, aliveness.
Can you tell if there is a being or just being?
Is life happening to a being or as being?

Is that “aliveness” any kind of object or subject? Is it even a human?
Just being in which everything is taken up. (If the mind does not intervene with distinctions, it even absurdly seems as if me, the books on my desk, the floorboards and my cup are all in the same boat of life happening as being.) So, yes, even a plastic object showing up in experience has the same being, it doesn't need to be human.

When staying with DE, it's very difficult (perhaps not possible) to make distinctions. I'm using "hearing" again: without thought-based distinctions, there no source and no hearer, there are no limits and hence no distinctions.

Is it what you've taken as "you"?

Yes. This beingness/aliveness seems to be the most important component of what I've taken to be me, flavoured by or with a thick overlay of thoughts (memories, thought pattern, habits, etc.)

Look, are there separate senses without thought describing differences?

I enjoy this kind of question which upsets a habitual or self-evident way of thinking and forces me to look from a perspective I've never looked from.
Common sense distinguished different senses, but common sense is thought-based. Yet I found it very difficult to exclude thought categories. It's almost impossible to perceive without them. But if I do not allow thoughts, I am so far not able to distinguish between different senses. (Any kind of potential difference I looked at - location, incoming or not, information provided by the sense, etc. - is based on distinctions in thought.)

So LOOK! Are there really noticing_thinking and noticing_sensing, or noticing_thinking_sensing_seeing_hearing_tasting_smelling?

I haven't seen this one clearly yet, I need to spend some more time with it. So my answer is preliminary:
Although I feel the pull of the little I know of Buddhist in the direction of the first option, in my DE it appears now as the second one: all just one complex, rich experience in which everything is present and one thing is zoomed in on.
(If we had 10 different sense, they'd be just more gateways into the same reality, just like it doesn't matter how many on and off ramps a highway has.)

"taking the handle, pulling it = touch + sensation"
What is the difference between “touch” and “sensation”?

As I read this question, the mind immediately provided the answer (touch = surface of the body, sensation = inside the body, e.g. feeling the muscles) - but then came the realisation without thought or simply with my eyes closed, this distinction falls away too.

what does more accurately describe your experience –
a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”?

B. (A involves a lot of mental distinctions that are not in DE.)

With eyes closed, where does the cold appear? Observe the order in which the details appear

The magic of touching a cold drink.
I did this one several times with different things from the fridge, because it wasn't and still isn't clear to me. (As I'm going over these questions again in the morning, I'm trying it out with a hot drink in front of me, and I get the same result.)
I found it really difficult to just look at DE; once again, immediately mental categories intervened. For example, just the knowledge that it's the hand reaching out is difficult to delete. If there's an order to it: at the moment of "impact" (touch) there is coldness appearing, but I cannot go further than this without thoughts intervening and categorising the experience.

Pay attention only to the feeling of your body. Just notice the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images. Keep your eyes closed and look:
Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair? At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation?

I'm aware you stipulated there should be no "bulk answers", but in this case the answer is unequivocally "no" to all of the above questions.
- tall makes no sense in DE
- weight or volume: there is just a present is-ness
- shape or form already disappears when simply closing the eyes
- it is impossible to say where the body ends and the chair begins, it is just one experience (similar to hearing sounds)

Is it "my" "body", or is it just a "body"?

Just a body.
But in DE even "body" is a composite mental category.

However, I also discern this sense of I/me/mine protesting. Its case (various experiences are "mine" and not "yours") can only be made in thought, not in DE. Yet, in thought, this seems sensible.

Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?

No, especially with eyes closed, there is no inside or outside. With eyes open, because of visual perceptions of a body limit, the ideas of inside and outside (as organising thoughts) are added to experience. But even here, paying attention to hearing and sound, breaks down this distinction.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

The actual experience of the body can only be the 5 senses. So the label "body" can only be a conglomerate, a unifying concept.
(An addition to this from this morning: as I'm sitting here and I close my eyes - the visual sense seems to support division most - there's just all kinds of impressions without even a distinction being made between body or not-body. So there is not even this bundle in experience, it is purely a thought-based concept.)

Can the 'body' do things?

Things are done and the body is involved or instrumental in them.
But I can't say it's the body that "does" them (just like the pens in front of me don't do the writing).

I'd like to end this report with two questions of my own about two things you mentioned:
(1) The habit of looking.

It is now to incorporate that looking into your everyday….make it a habit.

Does making it a habit mean being in investigation mode most of the time?
Up to now, I'm only investigating intermittently. I try to answer the questions and do some personal investigation related to that. In addition, since I started investigating, certain questions spontaneously come up more frequently (like: who is really doing this, who is really worried, etc.) So the question is if an effort should be made to increase this questioning, making a deliberate effort to return to it 24/7?

(2) “aware-ing”/knowing/being/am-ness/aliveness
This seems to be like a crucial factor, yet I cannot capture it with the five senses. But to deny this would also be impossible. It is like a big mystery, the X-factor. How to deal with this or describe it in DE?

Have a good weekend
Frank

[poppyseed]

Hi Frank
Thank you so much for your persistence!

- On the other hand very wary: it is the number 1 source of human misery and suffering.
It's like the idea (thought) of a "country": one the one hand perhaps a useful way to organise life for a large group of people when it works well, but it can quickly turn to domination, hierarchies and war with others.

Yes!! Language is useful tool for communication of meaning so once its empty nature is seen there is no problem with utilising it. Freedom lies in seeing that concepts are creations of language that serve only the purpose of communicating. They are practical, but empty. I suppose the analogy with the icons on your computer desktop comes handy. They are used as a visual representation of what is actually a binary code – zeros and ones - so you can make use of them. But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it?

No, I cannot find awareness in DE (meaning I cannot catch it within the net of the 5 senses): it has no form, no colour, and it certainly does not speak - although "it" seems to be mutely witnessing whenever there's something to be witnessed.

What else do we have at our disposal than the 5 senses? So if it has no colour, no form, no sound…, what makes it different than fiction?

So the conclusion is that awareness seems to be wherever the sense presents itself (and it seems impossible to locate anything in DE). So: no container (unless it includes absolutely everything that exists, but then there's no point in calling it a container).

If there's an order to it: at the moment of "impact" (touch) there is coldness appearing, but I cannot go further than this without thoughts intervening and categorising the experience.

Awareness is not a witness – yet, witnessing (noticing, knowing) as an activity is going on

So if awareness and its object are always together, what makes you think that they are separate – is it because the object is "different" (e.g. seeing vs hearing)? Do you see where the illusion is? What if we call the object “experiencing”?
We don’t experience our senses individually. Rather, these are different aspects of experience. Thought tells us that our senses are separate streams of information. We see with our eyes, hear with our ears, feel with our skin, smell with our nose, taste with our tongue. In DE, though, it is seen as a one experience. Senses affect each other. Although speech is perceived through the ears, what we see can change what we hear. In this video, a man produces the same syllable over and over again. If you watch his mouth, you’ll hear the syllable “fah,” but if you look away, you’ll hear “bah.” Although your ears hear “bah,” your eyes see “fah”. This phenomenon is known as the McGurk effect. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k8fHR9jKVM )
Can then awareness/noticing be separated from experiencing? Do you see how labels can change the perception? What is witnessing? How is it different from focus or thought describing what is happening?

Also, when you say that awareness seems to be…,
“Seems like”, “feels like” = thought content
Nothing in DE is “seems like” – it’s either here or not :)
So, does experience have a location that awareness “goes” to? Or location is a label for sensations, etc? With eyes closed, where is the “hand” located? With eyes open is there a location in seeing? What is the reference point? Does your hand have a fixed location? Where is "here?" Where is "there?" Please look at the computer (phone or tablet) display before you. Now, could you tell me from where you are looking at it, and what is there? Is there a "you" in that direction? What do you see? Is there a center of some kind?

The actual experience of the body can only be the 5 senses. So the label "body" can only be a conglomerate, a unifying concept.

The actual experience of a body is thinking. The thought points to seeing, sensing, smelling, etc.

(If we had 10 different sense, they'd be just more gateways into the same reality, just like it doesn't matter how many on and off ramps a highway has.)

True, but also does reality exist somewhere and we observe it with the senses, or “our senses” are the reality?

Things are done and the body is involved or instrumental in them.
But I can't say it's the body that "does" them (just like the pens in front of me don't do the writing).

How are “things done” in DE? What is movement in DE for example? We’ll explore the “body” a bit further but I don’t want to overwhelm you with questions…

1.Does making it a habit mean being in investigation mode most of the time?
Up to now, I'm only investigating intermittently. I try to answer the questions and do some personal investigation related to that. In addition, since I started investigating, certain questions spontaneously come up more frequently (like: who is really doing this, who is really worried, etc.) So the question is if an effort should be made to increase this questioning, making a deliberate effort to return to it 24/7?

However, I also discern this sense of I/me/mine protesting. Its case (various experiences are "mine" and not "yours") can only be made in thought, not in DE. Yet, in thought, this seems sensible.

Yes, exploring what is actually there all the time helps with changing those stubborn perceptions. You’ve probably heard of confirmation bias. When you have two opposing views you have to keep checking their validity. What we are used to do is to check if a new idea fits with the rest of our beliefs and disregard it if it doesn’t (confirmation bias). This method saves energy so it was used for a really long time. Now we’ve added a second method for dealing with opposing concepts – to check for ourselves with our senses which one truly describes what is happening.

Is there an agency that does that, is another question to ask. Is there a “me” that gives instructions to “you”? How is this exchange of ideas observed in DE? Is there an I that can wake up or be awake? What is it that could be awake? What is it that awakening could happen TO?
Is there someone separate form life/THIS/what IS, waiting to wake up to reality? Is there someone who needs to let go of conceptualization? Or letting go happens on its own effortlessly, when the futility of trying to grasp what is with thoughts is recognized?

(2) “aware-ing”/knowing/being/am-ness/aliveness
This seems to be like a crucial factor, yet I cannot capture it with the five senses. But to deny this would also be impossible. It is like a big mystery, the X-factor. How to deal with this or describe it in DE?

Work with the questions above, and it will become clear at some point. Also maybe this video can help with clarity too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lm3G0_ ... ex=17&t=8s

Love
Rali

[FDM]

Hi Rali

Your last two sledge hammer posts have been so rich with unusual perspectives that I'm still spinning and have not found my balance yet. If I'm babbling instead of making sense, that's the reason.

But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it?

Of course not. It's very obvious in this case.

What else do we have at our disposal than the 5 senses?

Thought.

So if it has no colour, no form, no sound…, what makes it different than fiction?

As a separate entity it must be a fiction.
But I keep wondering. If the idea of a car, a train or an airplane were merely a fiction, neither you nor I would ever set foot in one. The fact that they lack a self-essence and are the result of a lot of different things working together, does not make all of it unreal.
As I am aware that I'm writing this, you must be aware that you're reading this.
So if awareness is not an entity, some aware-ing (noticing, knowing) seems to be going on. But this was your comment/question about this suggestion in your post:

So if awareness and its object are always together, what makes you think that they are separate – is it because the object is "different" (e.g. seeing vs hearing)?

Because objects in experience change all the time whereas awareness is a constant factor of experience.

Do you see where the illusion is?

Not yet. But I looked at your next suggestion and that is certainly rattling my imaginary self's cage a bit:

What if we call the object “experiencing”?

What a suggestion.
I tried this out for some time to see if I could still make a distinction. I couldn't. And then there was no trying out anymore; that's just how it is, just experiencing. Going on all the time, at least as long as we're awake, and - without the distinctions of the thought - pretty effortlessly too.
(Yes. Even makes sense logically. If I'm aware of everything in my experience, and if there is not one thing in my experience that I'm not aware of, then being aware becomes a non-differentiated concept, and hence meaningless.)

Can then awareness/noticing be separated from experiencing?

No, at least not in experience.

Do you see how labels can change the perception?

Indeed. This goes so much against certain things I've assumed, I'll need to let this one sink in a bit, check more if I can separate experience and awareness.

What is witnessing?

Well, with this new perspective on experience, I can only observe that noticing is simply this: "something showing up in experience."

How is it different from focus or thought describing what is happening?

Well experience is different from thought since thought is also one of the things (like sense input) that shows up in experience.
Not sure about focus yet. Tried to focus on (or pay attention to) something several times and what I "notice" is a thought-based narrowing or limitation of experience. I don't grasp this one yet.

So, does experience have a location that awareness “goes” to? Or location is a label for sensations, etc?

Within experience, it becomes clear that "awareness" doesn't need to go anywhere - as soon as there is experience, whatever is experienced has shown up already.
Like grammar in language, location positions subject and object in geography.
(I notice there is some resistance from within my habitual way of perceiving. But I get no arguments or evidence from this resistance feeling.)

With eyes closed, where is the “hand” located? With eyes open is there a location in seeing? What is the reference point? Does your hand have a fixed location? Where is "here?" Where is "there?"

With seeing, when the eyes are open there's always a subtle perception of the body too (the bottom "frame" of vision includes a blurry piece of nose, a hand or an arm might easily comes into vision as well).
The subject-object division frame added to perception is so habitual, that my mind is struggling with the insight of one experience (even though it makes more sense).
After closing my eyes a couple of times (and confirming this with sound, where it's obvious), I start to get this with seeing as well - location, here and there, is part of the thought overlay as well. But it's only a glimpse. With vision, the subject-objection/here-there frame is particularly strong and constantly interferes and reasserts itself in my looking at things.
(I watched the video about the McGurk effect where that professor also says that what we see overrides what we hear.)

Please look at the computer (phone or tablet) display before you. Now, could you tell me from where you are looking at it, and what is there? Is there a "you" in that direction? What do you see? Is there a center of some kind?

This already went a little better (maybe because there was no hand from "my" body involved). It's like that famous picture with the candle and the two faces: one way of looking dominates for me (the two faces - subject-object/here-there), but with effort I see the other thing too (a total experience). And in that experience as a unity, there is no centre, it is complete in itself, and hence no positions of looking and what is looked at.

I'm applying this to different things. Just noticed that the mind wanted to smuggle in some division again with the idea of a continuum. So, I'm still struggling with this one (going back and forth between the candle and the two faces).

True, but also does reality exist somewhere and we observe it with the senses, or “our senses” are the reality?

Yes, senses are a division made in the total experience of reality.

How are “things done” in DE? What is movement in DE for example?

They simply happen.
I went into the kitchen to get a glass of water. First there must have been a signal of thirst (although I can't remember it really - maybe it was just a habitual pattern playing out, throwing that habitual pattern into the pool of the mind, see if any fish will bite). Then I found myself walking into the kitchen. (I did not command my legs or muscles to do that - it wouldn't even be the first time that I find myself in the kitchen and wonder: how did I get here, why did I come here.) Water was poured into a glass - all the while I was really planning, making a mental list of things I still have to do.
While walking, cycling or driving, it often happens that I'm thinking about something, yet the body is still walking, cycling driving. "I" may even completely forget that I'm walking, cycling or driving at the time, yet walking, cycling or driving still gets done.
Movement in DE.
It's like movement is always already going on. It may seems as if a movement starts, but that's just a continuation of another movement. It's like the question about who comes first, the chicken or the egg. But there is no first: it's chickens and eggs all the way back.

Is there an agency that does that, is another question to ask. Is there a “me” that gives instructions to “you”? How is this exchange of ideas observed in DE? Is there an I that can wake up or be awake? What is it that could be awake? What is it that awakening could happen TO?
Is there someone separate form life/THIS/what IS, waiting to wake up to reality? Is there someone who needs to let go of conceptualization? Or letting go happens on its own effortlessly, when the futility of trying to grasp what is with thoughts is recognized?

Some very difficult questions here. Let me start with what is clear first.
No, no agency. When - for different kinds of reasons - there's a predominance of thoughts favouring A, then B would be let go of.
There is no one separate form life/THIS/what IS, waiting to wake up to reality. (However, I often feel there is, but there's also the realization that this is exactly the idea that in the flow of my experience has ceased being self-evident.) So there is no "I" that can wake up or be awake, there is the illusion of this "I" that can drop away, but that cannot happen to an illusion.
The question I'm not sure about is: "Is there a “me” that gives instructions to “you”? How is this exchange of ideas observed in DE?" With a bird's eye perspective our exchange appears as this movement of type A thoughts in the process of transformation as more type B thoughts are appearing.

(The video you suggested might bring some clarity - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lm3G0_ ... ex=17&t=8s - is unfortunately no longer available on Youtube.)

You have given me so much to ponder and investigate already. In just one week I've received enough to chew over and investigate for a very long time.

Cheers
Frank