10,000Things

[DurangoK]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
I’m not always good at describing these things, but I can’t say that when I look for a self, I do not find one. Even more clearly I see there’s no separation. While I understand there is no-self and no separation when I look, i want to realize it in a more easy abiding manner.

What are you looking for at LU?
Accountability - I seem to require a little more accountability in order to hold focus on non-abiding nature. LU seems like a good platform for this purpose. Ultimately I would like to return the favor to those who are next in line.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
I expect my guide to hold my nose to the grindstone and to challenge me. Even my koan teacher lets me off too easy, and I still disassociate into busyness rather easily (although much less so these days).

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
I began practicing Zazen in approximately 1991. My practice has taken twists and turns, but it has always been my most important and consistent guiding element during good times and bad (same/same). After Roshi Aitken died I fell naturally into a shikantaza practice that has largely remained. I recently began working with a new Roshi on koan practice, which is a whole lot clearer now than it was in the 90s.

Over the years I have participated in online retreats with Adyashanti and Angelo DeLullo. I am currently fascinated with non-duality, which seems to (mostly) be the direction by which I experience no self.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?
11

[poppyseed]

Hi DurangoK
(what do you want me to call you?)

Welcome to Liberation Unleashed :)! It’s great to see you here!
My name is Rali, and I’ll be glad to be your guide if you like.

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 is expected 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.

Please read through “Liberation Unleashed is not …” in the FAQ’s of LU. Please confirm that you have read them
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. Please watch the below video to learn how to use the Quote function. This will assist us in having a clear dialogue around the questions and answers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fAToDNh9hQ

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 you in?
Love
Rali

[DurangoK]

what do you want me to call you?

K or Kristine, your preference.

Yes, I have read what liberation unleashed is not, and agree to those terms.

What time zone are you in?

Mountain time/Denver time. What time zone are you in?

[poppyseed]

Hi Kristine
Please make sure that you are subscribed to your topic.

Mountain time/Denver time. What time zone are you in?

I'm GMT+2. We have a bit of a difference but we’ll manage

Yes, I have read what liberation unleashed is not, and agree to those terms.

Great! 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

[DurangoK]

Hi Rali,

This was more difficult than I imagined as I don’t have a good feel for the terminology and how it relates to what I experience. Hopefully the responses make sense. I also hope to get better at checking for the notifications. It may take practice to respond every day as being in front of the computer is historically not my happy place.

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

Not 100% sure I understand what that means, but I seem to feel this when in meditation, in nature, and sometimes much or most of the day. It is open and expansive with no real center with no desire to change anything. I am uncertain how that would be if that were to happen all the time or if that is even a potential goal. Right now as I relax and go inwards there is a knot or heaviness in my chest that seems associated with breath and feels almost like a core but has no relationship to what I used to think self was. (As I revisit this there is not even that, only various mild sensations).

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

Largely nothing. Maybe my house will get more messy (ha ha). Maybe less urgency will arise as seems to be the direction in the last few years. Maybe equanimity will further increase.

3. What do you want not to happen?

I don’t worry about what will happen with this, never have with exception to being slightly concerned about my parenting ability decreasing back with my son was little. I see I have not lost ability to take care of practicalities due to the shifts I have already experienced, though priorities have shifted.

4. What are you hoping for?

There is still hope that I will experience non-duality without limits. I don’t know how far it goes, where it ends, or if it can (or is even desirable) to be experienced consistently on an ongoing basis. Maybe that is slightly off topic, but feels like the same response applies to full realization of no separate self too. I don’t understand how much overlap there is.

5. What is missing?

100% awareness on what I seem to realize part time? There is a shifting in and out of open awareness as I live this fairly active life. When not feeling open awareness there is often an undercurrent of desire for what would be a more complete realization, of seeing through what seems to be illusion/delusion, which feels like some degree of suffering or tension. This occurs largely when I feel rushed, in task overload, or when shadow stuff comes up.

Love K

[poppyseed]

Hi Kristine

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, eternal bliss and happily ever after; 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?

I don’t worry about what will happen with this, never have with exception to being slightly concerned about my parenting ability decreasing back with my son was little. I see I have not lost ability to take care of practicalities due to the shifts I have already experienced, though priorities have shifted

Yes! Like I said, it’s just a shift of perception. How can an illusion have abilities/lack of them? An illusion is an illusion. It has never existed and it never will…
Life expresses itself and "we" are part of this expression. In some way, we get the idea that we are life and we dictate what is happening, we think, we do things but when we examine this closely, we see it for what it is - just a mirage, an illusion. There is no doer and thinker. Things are just happening.

What we’ll see soon is that fear is just a sensation with a thought. Fear has a purpose – to protect old ways, conditioning, beliefs, hopes - the survival of the imaginary self. So, obviously when threatened there will be fear involved. But once it is seen that there is nothing that needs protection, it falls away. How we deal with fear initially, is to acknowledge it, thank it for doing its job, allow it to be there, don’t fight it. Then you look carefully what it is protecting and ask yourself if this protection is really necessary...

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?

Do it a few times. Again the more you uncover, the better starting point we have. Whatever comes up is "right", it is exactly what needs to be seen right now. As usual, honesty will make this work

Love
Rali

[DurangoK]

Hi Rali,

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. Is that OK with you?

Yes, this feels right to agree with. The question resonates, and I’m happy to let all expectations and concepts go now to the extent possible.

How can an illusion have abilities/lack of them?

So the “I” is the illusion here, and its more like things are just unfolding now and now and now? I definitely don’t live this part consistently, but if looking very closely everything kind of turns itself inside out. But it takes subtle effort. Except when it doesn’t. And no, an illusion can’t have abilities or lack of abilities.

I like what you said next about fear of being only a sensation with a thought. I see that and would like to recognize that more naturally as stuff comes up.

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?

Looking everywhere for the “I” there is nothing solid. Nothing resembling matter. An awareness of being. But paradoxically also of being and not being everything in the sensory experience. The mountains the eyes see, but the eyes don’t belong to me or even actually do anything. They are only apparently there as I can’t see them. The tightness in the neck, the cool air. A sense that somehow the body is involved in making all of this possible, but there’s no relevance to “why” or “how” because if it’s even really here it doesn’t seem to belong to me. A witness doesn't make sense when really deep in this sense of all- and nothing-ness.

[poppyseed]

Hi Kristine

Thank you so much for your openness and willingness to see through the illusion in all its aspects!

Looking everywhere for the “I” there is nothing solid. Nothing resembling matter. An awareness of being. But paradoxically also of being and not being everything in the sensory experience. The mountains the eyes see, but the eyes don’t belong to me or even actually do anything. They are only apparently there as I can’t see them. The tightness in the neck, the cool air. A sense that somehow the body is involved in making all of this possible, but there’s no relevance to “why” or “how” because if it’s even really here it doesn’t seem to belong to me. A witness doesn't make sense when really deep in this sense of all- and nothing-ness.

Wonderful! That gives me an idea “where you are”.
Before we start let’s just make sure that you understand how to LOOK for no self in the exercises:
Looking is a matter of noticing what is already here, not inventing or imagining something. If I asked you to tell me what is behind your back right now, you could answer by doing one of two things: by thinking and remembering, or by turning your head around and actually looking back and describing what you see. That’s how to look.
Looking is finding out what is true in experience.
Thus, 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
Feeling (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

[DurangoK]

Thank you for doing this with me :-)

Love K

[DurangoK]

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

Yes, I definitely agree with this. One can’t know apple until one has actually experienced apple for oneself. But then one still can’t really know apple until each individual apple is experienced because no two are at all alike.

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?

There is no “apple”. “Apple” misses the point and does not account for the myriad distinctions between each and every individual thing called apple. Even the word as a spelled notion looks suspect to my currently very tired mind. My supposed “apple” is a solid feeling object that resists pressure up to a point. It is asymmetrically roundish and smooth, mostly of the colors we call “red” and “yellow” on the surface, with a delicate floral fragrance. It is unique and unbelievably beautiful, and naming it dumbs it down. Naming my apple “apple” takes away from the individual glory of this unique piece of art. How sad for us all, as everything we look at is actually deeply beautiful, and we are missing the true thing.

Apple cannot be found in this experience, my object is so much more and less than “apple” (less in that my preconceived idea of apple must be not only missing most aspects/details of apple, but also incorrect as I haven’t experienced each and every apple). Language is showing itself to be a poor substitute for the actual thing.

This exercise feels similar to the shift I fell into a couple of years ago whereby all things suddenly became art. All visible things are now lines and colors in spectacular seemingly endless arrays. I make art and have been paralyzed for a while over how to show this in my pieces.

Love K

[poppyseed]

Hi Kristine

There is no “apple”. “Apple” misses the point and does not account for the myriad distinctions between each and every individual thing called apple. Even the word as a spelled notion looks suspect to my currently very tired mind. My supposed “apple” is a solid feeling object that resists pressure up to a point. It is asymmetrically roundish and smooth, mostly of the colors we call “red” and “yellow” on the surface, with a delicate floral fragrance. It is unique and unbelievably beautiful, and naming it dumbs it down. Naming my apple “apple” takes away from the individual glory of this unique piece of art. How sad for us all, as everything we look at is actually deeply beautiful, and we are missing the true thing.

Good! What you are noticing here is really important, but look carefully at one subtle assumption that still seems to be operating. It’s not just that the label “apple” fails to capture the uniqueness of the thing. The deeper question is whether an independently existing “thing” called “apple” is ever actually found at all.
In direct experiencing, what is present?
Colour.
Texture.
Smell.
Taste.
Sensation.
Thoughts ABOUT “apple”.
But where exactly is the object itself before thought groups all of that together and calls it “an apple”?
Can a boundary actually be found between “apple” and “not apple” before thought divides the field into objects? Or is “apple” itself already a conceptual overlay onto experiencing?
This same mechanism doesn’t only apply to apples. It applies to: “tree, “body”, “person”, “Kristine”, “me”. The object is not first discovered and then labelled. Thought constructs the object out of seamless experiencing and then gives that construction a name. So the invitation here is to look even more directly. “Object” is another general label/thought that points to just hearing (sound), seeing (colour), feeling (sensation), smelling (smell), and tasting (taste).
Before the word “apple” appears, before the sense of “object” appears, what is actually present?
Is there an object at all or just… experiencing: colours, sensations, taste (if biting is involved), smell (no hearing here) that are labelled “apple” (experience)?

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= 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

[DurangoK]

The deeper question is whether an independently existing “thing” called “apple” is ever actually found at all.
In direct experiencing, what is present?

So you’re saying the “thing” is not actually there at all?
When I look in another way everything, including “apple”, is just a flat slab or gradation of color that connects suddenly with “hand” and background. Perspective goes away. Perspective seems learned like language was learned. But that’s only the visual. Texture seems part of hand. There is no beginning and end of body, everything is interconnected. Scent moves through head and there are no edges to head or scent. There is no edge to taste.
But none of that feels like apple isn’t there, more like apple is everywhere.

But where exactly is the object itself before thought groups all of that together and calls it “an apple”?

Still feels like apple is everywhere, fluid, or no different than everything else. The concept is evaporating. But wait, sensation almost takes over for the thing. It does take over for the thing. That may be all there is. The thing may not be there at all. It goes in and out of existence depending on I don’t know what…thought. Seems like there is only sense experience and then thought steps in.

Can a boundary actually be found between “apple” and “not apple” before thought divides the field into objects? Or is “apple” itself already a conceptual overlay onto experiencing?

There is no boundry. Apple is the conceptual overlay.

Before the word “apple” appears, before the sense of “object” appears, what is actually present?
Is there an object at all or just… experiencing: colours, sensations, taste (if biting is involved), smell (no hearing here) that are labelled “apple” (experience)?

Only the colors and other sensations.

I will get back with you on the exercises as I'm feeling nearly ready for sleep.

Love K

[DurangoK]

Hi Rali,

I am practicing the exercise but unclear if I'm to add details to the written part.
If it's to be exactly as your example, here is what I think you mean (will add info if required):

Seeing feet in tub, simply = colour (seeing)
Smelling feet in tub, simply = water smell (smelling)
Feeling the warmth and coolness in feet, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting the feet in tub = not applicable but metallic taste in mouth
Hearing the feet in the water, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about feet in tub, simply = thought (thinking)

Seeing a large crystal, simply = colour (seeing)
Smelling the crystal, simply = no smell (smelling)
Feeling the weight and texture of the crystal, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting the crystal, simply = taste (tasting)
Hearing the sounds in the room around the crystal, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about the crystal, simply = thought (thinking)

LK

[poppyseed]

Hi Kristine
Beautiful looking!! Notice how the mind immediately tries to stabilise what is being seen into a new position:

Apple is everywhere.

Everything is interconnected.

There is only fluidity.

But these too are thoughts ABOUT experiencing. Stay closer than that.
Is there actually an “apple everywhere”? Or are there only colours, sensations, smell, taste and thoughts appearing?
Notice the subtle difference. The mind wants to replace “there are separate objects” with “there is one interconnected thing.” But both are conceptual positions. You don’t need to conclude anything. Just keep looking at what is actually present before thought explains it.
You already saw something very important:

The thing may not be there at all.

Yes. But that is not because something mystical replaced it, not because “everything is one” but because the “object” was never directly experienced in the first place. What is directly experienced are colours, sensations, smells, tastes, sounds and thoughts. Then thought organizes these into “apple”, “hand”, “body”, “world". The object is the interpretation.

When I look in another way … Perspective goes away. Perspective seems learned like language was learned.

That’s huge, because even spatial organization is not as inherent as it first appears. Don’t rush to form a new worldview out of this. No need to decide what reality “is.” Just continue noticing:
What is actually present before conceptual overlay?

unclear if I'm to add details to the written part:

Smelling feet in tub, simply = water smell (smelling)
Feeling the warmth and coolness in feet, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting the feet in tub = not applicable but metallic taste in mouth
Hearing the feet in the water, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about feet in tub, simply = thought (thinking)

Good. What I asked of you was to give me a new description of what is really happening sticking just to DE labels (seeing/colours, hearing/sounds…), so no need to give reports of all the senses but what is experienced – I’m sure that you normally don’t taste your feet in the tub :))). It’s all about normal everyday stuff.
To see the point of this exercise let’s sharpen the looking in the ordinary examples you gave:
“seeing feet in tub.” - Are “feet” actually seen? Or are there only colours/shapes, plus a thought labelling them “feet”?
Without thought (labels), where exactly do “feet” begin and “water” end? Can a hard boundary actually be found in seeing itself? Or does thought divide the visual field into objects afterwards?

“feeling the warmth and coolness in feet” – Are “feet” actually felt? Or are there simply sensations appearing? Does sensation itself say “I belong to feet”? Or does thought add that story later?
Same with “smelling water smell”… Can smell be located inside or outside? Does scent have edges? Does it announce “I am coming from water”? Or is there simply smelling happening?
Notice how thought instantly reconstructs a whole world of objects from raw experiencing.

Seeing a large crystal, simply = colour (seeing)
Smelling the crystal, simply = no smell (smelling)
Feeling the weight and texture of the crystal, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting the crystal, simply = taste (tasting)
Hearing the sounds in the room around the crystal, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about the crystal, simply = thought (thinking)

Excellent place to investigate.
Can “crystal” actually be found in sensation? Or only pressure, texture, temperature (aka labels for sensations)?
Where exactly is the dividing line between “hand” and “crystal” in direct sensation?
Can sensation itself separate them? Or only thought?
This is not about denying appearances. The colours still appear. Sensations still appear. Functionality still appears. The point is much more radical:
The world of separate objects is inferred. It is mentally constructed out of seamless experiencing.


Experience/seeing can be likened to an abstract painting and if you look at an abstract painting you start to see shapes etc within the painting itself. Those shapes aren’t really there…but they SEEM (appear) to be. So from that perspective...do the shapes really exist?
Emptiness does not mean a void / a bleak nothingness. Instead, it means that all phenomena are empty of inherent, independent existence. Things only exist in relation to other causes, conditions, and parts, rather than possessing a fixed, permanent "soul" or core identity. Here is a short video explaining this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYqaWmc ... 4&index=41

Stay with immediate experiencing before thought assembles the world. That’s where this opens. So don't replace it with a new belief system.
You’re doing very well. It is now to incorporate that looking into your everyday….make it a habit.

How does it feel to see what actually is?
Please give me a few more examples of what happened in your day
Love
Rali

[DurangoK]

Is there actually an “apple everywhere”? Or are there only colours, sensations, smell, taste and thoughts appearing?
I see that “Apple is everywhere” is incorrect. Maybe a clearer way to say what I see is that what I formally thought of as Apple is no different than anything else, in that there is no meaning, although there is a different color in that space. Or a different taste if I were tasting it, or smelling, touching, thought. Apple, as a word or anything else does not have actual meaning. Like a newborn baby seeing something for the first time. It is hard to language this. Is it normal to feel frustrated?

What is actually present before conceptual overlay? Only the pure sensations, without definition.
Are “feet” actually seen? Or are there only colours/shapes, plus a thought labelling them “feet”?

Feeling feet in tub, simply warmth in parts underwater and coolness above.
Seeing feet in tub, simply pinks and grey shapes, and the colors swirling.
Hearing feet in the water, simply a light sloshing sound.
Thought about feet in tub, simply “the shapes are soothing to look at”

Without thought (labels), where exactly do “feet” begin and “water” end?

They don’t, it’s just colors and shapes. But then we name the colors and that’s attributing meaning too.

Can a hard boundary actually be found in seeing itself? Or does thought divide the visual field into objects afterwards?

It’s the brain interpreting shades and shadows as the boundary of things, plus their shape/depth, etc., thereby attributing meaning.

Are “feet” actually felt? Or are there simply sensations appearing? Does sensation itself say “I belong to feet”? Or does thought add that story later?

“feet” aren’t felt, it’s sensations of energy appearing as mind focuses on supposed feet. Then mind labels it as feet that are warm, cold, etc.

Can smell be located inside or outside? Does scent have edges? Does it announce “I am coming from water”? Or is there simply smelling happening?

Smelling seems to just arise, not just in the nose. I don’t find edges one looking closely.

Can “crystal” actually be found in sensation?

No, not “crystal”

Or only pressure, texture, temperature (aka labels for sensations)?

Seeing large crystal, simply reflections, lines, colors.
Feeling crystal, simply weight and cool firm texture.
Thought about crystal, simply “I feel happy experiencing this crystal”

Where exactly is the dividing line between “hand” and “crystal” in direct sensation?

There is nothing to indicate a dividing line, but the mind wants to indicate that there is.

Can sensation itself separate them? Or only thought?

It doesn’t seem like sensation can divide anything.

do the shapes really exist?

No, its like the Rorschach test, which can only be completed via the mind. The images people see in them are manufactured.

How does it feel to see what actually is?

It feels the same as when I am planning an art composition. Everything is just shape and color, creating feeling. The objects don’t matter.

Seeing the painting I’m working on, simply colors and lines.
Smelling painting, simply musty acridity.
Feeling painting, simply scratchy and tickly.
Thought about painting, simply “very bright”

Seeing the color book, simply bright colors and lines.
Feeling the color book, simply cool smoothness, tiny bumps, smooth edges.
Thought about the color book, simply “very white, it will open if held differently”.

Seeing the hanging light above my head simply black and whitish and many curved lines.
Feeling the hanging light, simply cool, slight textured feeling.
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply “those are great lines for a painting”.

Thank you for the video link, very nice and helpful to hear it out loud.

Love K