Seeing through

[Storienie]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
There is no one controlling actions, they happen by themselves. The self is a label for a collection of thoughts and sensations. The label directs attention to these things that are associated with "me". Thoughts using "I" are all automatic rehearsing of communication, just like all actions are automatic reactions to the environment.

What are you looking for at LU?
I read the Gateless Gatecrashers book a few years ago and am re-reading it now. I think that I have built a conceptual understanding of the illusion of the self, but haven't stepped through the gate. I imagine it will be obvious once I do, so doubt already points to not.

Also, now that I got into reading the book again, I am motivated to explore this question. However, from experience I know that if I don't keep at it regularly, something will distract me and another years will pass before the cycle repeats. Same conceptual insights, and then nothing.

I'm therefore looking for a guide that I can message with every day, to see what my blind spots are that I can examine to see through the illusion of the self for once and for all, instead of staying in these conceptual belief loops.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
I expect to get questions and pointers for me to examine my experience. When I write back, I expect to get reactions to parts of my writing as pointers to examine my reasoning by looking at direct experience. I expect having a direct conversation will feel more personal than reading a book, poking at my "me" in a more effective way.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
I grew up with meditating in the household, buddhist summer retreats and children programmes. My parents are part of a Tibetan buddhism community. I never got too much into it as I was growing up. As an adult, I got interested in consciousness and inquiry again. I practiced the direct pointing meditation of the Waking Upp app, read Jed McKenna's books, the Gateless Gatecrashers book, and watched teachings of diverse teachers. I've never felt a burning need to find the truth. For me, it's curiosity and searching for a happy extistence (which isn't unhappy now, either.)

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

[poppyseed]

Hi Storienie
(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

[Storienie]

Hi Rali,

Thanks for beng my guide! I’m excited to start this process. I’m using my phone for this post, hope it works well.

(what do you want me to call you?)

Please call me Irene

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

Confirmed! Very nice page.

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.

I agree that momentum is helpful, I will try to post daily. This should be doable.

What time zone are you in?

I’m in CEST (UTC+2)

[poppyseed]

Hi Irene

Please make sure that you are subscribed to your topic. In the top left corner, next to "Post Reply" there is an icon that looks like a spanner. When you click on it there is a menu where you can select “subscribe topic’. Click on it once. If you want to be sure that you are subscribed just refresh the page and if you click again should show now “ unsubscribe topic”. Don’t click on it as it will unsubscribe you :).

I’m in CEST (UTC+2)

I'm GMT+2. Perfect :)

Thanks for beng my guide! I’m excited to start this process.

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

[Storienie]

Perfect! I’m subscribed.

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

I expect an ’aha’ moment. I expect there will be clarity and no doubt about what the illusion of the self is. Right now I am unsure whether there is anything to find but still keep searching.

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

Things will go on as usual, but it will be easier to let go of thoughts coming up that judge a situation or feeling. So in that sense, there will be less suffering.

3. What do you want not to happen?

I’m slightly afraid that I will look at the world differently and that will create distance between me and my loved ones. For example wanting to isolate myself. I don’t fully believe in this fear, but it comes to mind.

4. What are you hoping for?

I’m not sure it makes sense to think in terms of hope, but I guess I hope that it will be easier to ‘go with the flow’. I often notice that I have some idea that is holding me back from doing whats healthy for my body, for example feeling social pressure. I hope that seeing there is no self will make these beliefs or norms ‘stick’ less and easier to let go if unhelpful. Another example is dealing with negative feedback or criticism, and not taking it personally. I expect seeing through the illusion of the self will help me let emotions like hurt come and go without reinforcing them with thoughts relating them to the self.

5. What is missing?

I dont believe anything is missing. Why would something be missing? Nothing really comes up here.

[poppyseed]

Hi Irene
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?

I’m slightly afraid that I will look at the world differently and that will create distance between me and my loved ones. For example wanting to isolate myself. I don’t fully believe in this fear, but it comes to mind.

Let’s be clear here… why would the absence of something that has NEVER existed cause a change in existing stuff?

Do you expect that somehow you are going to turn into a zombie or a vegetable? 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 and we need protection 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.
Let’s examine this carefully. Fear/resistance serves to protect the imaginary self from harm. In this case it protects “you” from changing and losing your “humanity” (emotions).
You probably believed in Santa when you were little. There was magic and joy, and love, and giving, and caring. When you realised that Santa is not real, did Christmas change? Did the spirit of Christmas disappear or just the belief in Santa?
Please sit and examine this carefully. Sit with this fear and allow it to be there. See what it is really protecting and if it is necessary. Please let me know what you find.

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

[Storienie]

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?

Yes, I am happy to acknowledge and let them go. One thought that comes up is this doubt that in the past ended the search for a while: ‘If there is just a subtle shift and then the seeking ends, then looking and not finding might just be it, and then I might as well stop looking’

Let’s be clear here… why would the absence of something that has NEVER existed cause a change in existing stuff?

Logically, it can’t. I think this is just based on a belief from what I’ve seen and heard others do when searching for awakening. It hasn’t been my own experience, and doesnt necessarily relate to the illusion of the self.

Do you expect that somehow you are going to turn into a zombie or a vegetable?

Not at all. I dont believe in free will, but that decisions and actions happen by themselves. All animals function this way and humans are just more complex in the thoughts that come up in experience, but ultimately things just happen by themselves.

Life expresses itself and "we" are part of this expression

This doesn’t connect with me too much. Seems a bit too abstract. Things just happen, not sure about something called ‘life’ expressing ‘itself’ in different ways. But that’s me trying to understand the sentence by thinking.

In some way, we get the idea that we are life and we dictate what is happening, we think, we do things and we need protection 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.

I recognize in my experience how it seems like ”I” make choices. However, when I observe thoughts closer, they just seem to pop up by themselves and not preceding actions etc.

When you realised that Santa is not real, did Christmas change? Did the spirit of Christmas disappear or just the belief in Santa?

Its comforting that the spirit of Christmas indeed didn’t disappear.

Please sit and examine this carefully. Sit with this fear and allow it to be there. See what it is really protecting and if it is necessary. Please let me know what you find.

Its hard for me to sit with the fear. It feels more like a reasoning/ thought than something in my body. My reaction is thinking its not a real fear, not relevant, like thinking about it will just fabricate a story around it instead of uncovering something that was there.

If you look for the I, what is there?

Where exactly did you look? What exactly did you find? Please describe in detail what appears – feelings, sensations, thoughts, anything?

When I look for the ‘I’, I direct attention to my head and chest and find sensations of tingling, heavy heart, and space in between thoughts. Then a thought might come up or I pay attention to the colors and shapes in my visual field while being aware of an empty feeling. When I try to locate the empty feeling, attention goes to the sensations of my body again.

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

Thought comes up saying ‘Yeah, I agree, I thought about it often enough so this is not new’.
When I contemplate every individual word, ‘experiencer’ and ‘witness’ have some doubt associated with them. There is experiencing happening, seeing happening. Is it happening to someone or something? There is an emptiness that I associate with ‘me’ because it’s what I find when I look for ‘me’. It’s weird to say something is happening ‘to’ an emptiness, so then the answer is no.

[poppyseed]

Hi Irene
Thank you for your honesty!

Its hard for me to sit with the fear. It feels more like a reasoning/ thought than something in my body. My reaction is thinking its not a real fear, not relevant, like thinking about it will just fabricate a story around it instead of uncovering something that was there.

What we’ll see soon is that fear (like any other emotion) is just a sensation with a thought. We don’t sit with the story, we sit with the sensation, but if you say that it’s not something threatening the inquiry at the moment, we can do that at a later stage – emotions…

Thought comes up saying ‘Yeah, I agree, I thought about it often enough so this is not new’.
When I contemplate every individual word, ‘experiencer’ and ‘witness’ have some doubt associated with them. There is experiencing happening, seeing happening. Is it happening to someone or something? There is an emptiness that I associate with ‘me’ because it’s what I find when I look for ‘me’. It’s weird to say something is happening ‘to’ an emptiness, so then the answer is no.

Thank you! 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. If I ask you to look for your phone or keys, you would quite naturally, take a look and locate them. That’s how to look.
Looking is finding out what is true in experience.

So… 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 (or any other object).



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

[Storienie]

Hi Rali, thanks for your reply and the clarifications!

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

Yes, I agree. Not thinking or remembering, but looking. I will do my best.

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.

I understand the difference between the two, but I have a question: when looking, you can look at a thought saying ‘i know all this already, because x y z’ or in your example ‘I’m looking at an apple’. Am I correct in understanding that mentioning what the thought says to you (‘I’m looking at an apple’) is helpful, but describing that I’m looking at an apple without breaking it down into the exact components that appear in my direct experience, is not helpful? Or is mentioning anything else than ‘a thought appeared’ not necessarily helpful?

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?

I understand this but it feels elusive. It’s easier for me to think about it like a network of associations. ‘Apple’ by itself doesn't exist, but is made out of associations (thoughts) of the colour red, memory of a sensation of biting and juicyness, feeling and weight etc. So what exists are the thoughts and if you are looking or holding the apple also the colors and sensations that are there. Then we recognise all of these as belonging to ‘apple’. But indeed, ‘apple’ is the label we paste on it and has nothing substantial to it.

[poppyseed]

Hi Irene

I understand the difference between the two, but I have a question: when looking, you can look at a thought saying ‘i know all this already, because x y z’ or in your example ‘I’m looking at an apple’. Am I correct in understanding that mentioning what the thought says to you (‘I’m looking at an apple’) is helpful, but describing that I’m looking at an apple without breaking it down into the exact components that appear in my direct experience, is not helpful? Or is mentioning anything else than ‘a thought appeared’ not necessarily helpful?

Yes, you’re seeing an important distinction.
It is useful to report that a thought appeared and, when relevant, to mention its content. For example: “Colour is present, but a thought says, ‘apple.’”
That shows both what is directly present and what thought adds.
The trap is not in mentioning the thought’s content. The trap is believing that the content describes something directly found.
So don’t stop at: “I’m looking at an apple.” Break it down - colour is present, maybe sensation is present, or taste or smell. A thought says “apple.” Another thought may say, “I know this already.” Now look carefully.
Can the “apple” itself be found anywhere apart from colour, sensation, smell, taste, and thoughts?

I understand this but it feels elusive. It’s easier for me to think about it like a network of associations. ‘Apple’ by itself doesn't exist, but is made out of associations (thoughts) of the colour red, memory of a sensation of biting and juicyness, feeling and weight etc. So what exists are the thoughts and if you are looking or holding the apple also the colors and sensations that are there. Then we recognise all of these as belonging to ‘apple’. But indeed, ‘apple’ is the label we paste on it and has nothing substantial to it.

Good. But notice that this is still an explanation.
Right now, with an apple in front of you (or whatever fruit or object you are using), are associations actually woven together into an entity called “apple”?
Or do colour, sensation, smell, and thoughts simply appear, while thought claims they belong to one thing?
Don’t answer from logic. Take a real apple and look. I don’t want you to answer from memory (associations), I want you to report direct experience.
When the thought “apple” is absent for a moment, is an apple missing?
When the word “apple” appears, does it add anything to the colour itself?
Can the label touch, contain, or organise the colour and sensation?
And look at this very closely:
Is recognition of “apple” something you do, or does the label simply appear by itself?
Please answer only from what happens while looking.

One more thing. A description of tasting an apple is not the taste itself. When your friend eats an apple and describes how sweet it tastes, how fragrant it is, how crunchy the flesh feels, how can you know what he is talking about if you haven’t tasted that apple?

I recently tried a new fruit for me which the locals call “sour soap”. If I give you a description – the fruit is fragrant, sweet and sour, fleshy, and soft – did you manage to experience and get an idea what the fruit tastes like?
How can you know what I am talking about if you haven’t tasted that fruit? The description of experience is no help when it comes to the sense of experiencing. We can talk about tasting the sour soap, but it’s all conceptual: ideas about ideas and not the experience that is happening right now. Ideas are good for directing attention, like this: The next time you eat a fruit, remember to experience the taste fully, as if you are tasting it for the first time. Dive into the experience, noticing all and forgetting all you know about the fruit. Savour every bite of it. Or simply LOOK! Do you see the difference between talking about the taste of a fruit (trying to understand it) and tasting it?

The next time you eat something, pause before naming it. Notice only what is actually present: taste, smell, colour, sensation, thought…
Does the word “apple” contain any taste?
Does the thought “sweet” taste sweet?
Can the word “waterfall” make you wet?
Can the description replace the actual experience?
Stay with the tasting before thought explains it.
Then tell me briefly:
What was directly experienced?
What was added by thought?

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

[Storienie]

Hi Rali,
Yesterday I did the exercise a few times. Sometimes it’s hard to keep the focus. I will do it some more today and write back on the other questions in your post when I get back from work.
For now, here are some examples from the exercise.

 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)

1. Newspaper
Seeing a newspaper = colours and shapes (seeing)
Thought automatically reading words on the paper = thought (thinking)
Thought saying ‘newspaper’ = thought (thinking)
Thought about how it would sound if I wrinkle the paper = thought (thinking)
When reaching out to wrinkle the newspaper:
Feeling soft paper = sensation (feeling)
Hearing crisp paper sounds = sound (hearing)

2. Looking at a cloud
Looking at a cloud = colour white (seeing)
Looking at the sky = colour blue (seeing)
Thought about squeezing a pillow-like cloud = thinking

3. Eating a kiwi
Seeing the color and shape of the kiwi = seeing
Sour flavour = tasting
Feeling of kiwi piece on the tongue = feeling
Thought/Image of what shape the kiwi piece is like based on feeling = thought
Thought about how a kiwi is round = thought

4. Watching TV
Hearing sounds from the TV = hearing
Seeing images (colours and shapes) = seeing
The sounds and images were so distracting that I couldn’t make out my thoughts easily/ couldnt keep attention with the exercise.

5. Drinking water
Looking at the glass = seeing
Holding the glass, feeling the weight and texture of the glass = feeling
Thought saying ‘I’m holding the glass’ = thinking
Feeling glass brim against lip = feeling
Thought about glass being ‘smooth’ and ‘cold’ = thinking
Feeling water in mouth = feeling

[poppyseed]

Hi Irene

Thank you for doing such wonderful looking! :) It is now to incorporate that looking into your everyday….make it a habit.
How does it feel to see what actually is?

One small remark…

Looking at a cloud = colour white (seeing)
Looking at the sky = colour blue (seeing)

Can “white” or “blue” be found in DE? Or just colour/seeing?

Look at the word ‘GREEN'.
What is actually seen?
Is “green” seen, or is there colour together with the written label ‘GREEN'?
Does the label ‘GREEN' correspond to the colour that is presently seen, or does it merely suggest a different colour?
Now look more closely.
Can “red” itself be found in seeing, or is “red” also a label added by thought to the colour?
Replace the word ‘GREEN' with ‘GOOD’ and then ‘BAD’
Does the seen colour change in any way?
Does it become good or bad?
Or is there simply colour, while thought supplies the labels “red,” “green,” “good,” and “bad”?
Please report only what is seen, and what thought adds.

I’m awaiting the rest of your previous reply
Love
Rali

[Storienie]

Can “white” or “blue” be found in DE? Or just colour/seeing?

Thanks for pointing that out. ‘Seeing’ seems to just be seeing. Its a bit weird to describe, but there is just seeing and emptiness until a thought comes by saying ‘colour’ or ‘shape’ or ‘blue’. A sensation of unease arises when I stare at things and wait for a thought to come and label things. Not much labeling happens by thoughts right now while I pay attention to seeing, but other thoughts appear about what I will write or just distracting thoughts.
After a few minutes I feel like I lost concentration and the uneasy feeling is gone, but the weird ineffable feeling is also gone.
I focus on the question again and look at a book, and it’s like I pressed ‘pause’ and there is just seeing and no thoughts, until I start typing and thoughts come up about what I write.
Hearing birds and voices = hearing + a thought replaying the bird song + thought about a bird.

Look at the word ‘GREEN'.
What is actually seen? Is “green” seen, or is there colour together with the written label ‘GREEN'?

Coloured letters, so the written label in colour.

Does the label ‘GREEN' correspond to the colour that is presently seen, or does it merely suggest a different colour?

The thought ‘green’ comes up and is made out of two parts: the written word, and the green colour as a vague hue-image. It doesn’t correspond to the colour that is seen in the printed letters.

Now look more closely.
Can “red” itself be found in seeing, or is “red” also a label added by thought to the colour?

‘Red’ is a different experience here. Different hue-thought, different feeling. There is a difference between experiencing a red colour and a green colour, and also a difference between thinking ‘red’ and ‘green’. The label ‘red’ can’t be found in seeing, but can be experienced in thought. The colour red can be experienced, but the label ‘red’ always comes as a thought.

Thought says ‘I feel like I’m not explaining this well.’

Replace the word ‘GREEN' with ‘GOOD’ and then ‘BAD’
Does the seen colour change in any way?
Does it become good or bad?
Or is there simply colour, while thought supplies the labels “red,” “green,” “good,” and “bad”?
Please report only what is seen, and what thought adds

Yes, the colour doesn’t change. The different letters make the experience of the words different, because seeing is different and thoughts are different when reading them.

**Can the “apple” itself be found anywhere apart from colour, sensation, smell, taste, and thoughts?**

I will look at a bottle instead of an apple. ‘Bottle’ is 1. a thought of the word, 2. a thought of the image of a bottle, and 3. seeing the color and shape in front of me. I stare at the bottle for a while. Thought says ‘the bottle is there and I’m here, so there is a bottle there’. The seeing of the bottle is still the same image. Thought comes up about moving the bottle so it changes in the seeing image. Another thought says ‘that will prove the bottle is real’.

This is slightly frustrating and tiring. I can’t prove the bottle exists outside direct experience, but I don’t want to accept it. I feel struggle.


Let me know if there’s a question I missed that you want me to answer after this! Thanks for your help, it’s an enjoyable conversation for me.

[poppyseed]

Hi Irene,
Good looking. And this is the most important part of your reply:

I can’t prove the bottle exists outside direct experience, but I don’t want to accept it. I feel struggle.

Pause here.
You are not being asked to accept that the bottle does not exist outside direct experience. That would only be another conclusion—a new belief replacing an old one. I’m asking something much simpler:
Right now, can anything called “a bottle existing outside experience” actually be found?
All you have is the senses - seeing, hearing, smelling, tatsing, feeling and thinking. How can you know what is outside of experience? That would be an assumption...
Look at the bottle again.
Follow the lines of the bottle, notice the different colours. Explore it as if you wanted to paint it, you can even paint it if you’d like to. You could also imagine that you come from a culture that isn’t familiar with bottles and you see it for the first time. Again, explore only your first-hand experience, disregarding the thoughts about the bottle.
What is called “a bottle”? What can be seen?
Where is the image of the object, is it inside or outside of you?
If it is seen inside or outside, where is the border where the image crosses over from being outside to being inside of you? What does the border consist of?

There is seeing. There may be sensation. There are thoughts saying “bottle,” “there,” “real,” and “I’m here.”
Now turn toward the struggle.
Where is the struggle experienced? Is it a sensation somewhere in the body?
What exactly does thought say must be accepted?
Does the sensation itself object to anything, or is the objection entirely in thought?

The bottle is there and I’m here.

In direct experience, where exactly is the dividing line between “here” and “there”?
Can an “I here” be found in seeing?
Can a “bottle there” be found apart from seeing and thoughts describing it?
Do not try to solve whether the bottle is ultimately real. Leave that mystery untouched.
Just report:
What is directly present?
What does thought claim about it?
What is the struggle itself, before it is named “struggle”?

Thought comes up about moving the bottle so it changes in the seeing image. Another thought says ‘that will prove the bottle is real’.

Is there a thinker separate from that thought?
Is there an “I” standing apart from thought, reporting on it?
Can thought be made into an enemy without another thought doing that?
Be careful not to turn thought into a separate character. ‘Thought says’ does not mean there is you here and thought over there causing trouble. Look now: is there a thinker apart from the thought? Is there anyone being attacked by thought? Or are thought, resistance, frustration, and the story of ‘me versus thought’ all simply appearing together?
Does thought come to someone? Is there an Irene present before the thought, waiting for it to arrive?
Can a watcher be found apart from the seeing and the thought?
And when you say, “I lost concentration,” find the one who had concentration and then lost it. What exactly is found?

Its a bit weird to describe, but there is just seeing and emptiness until a thought comes

First, what is this “emptiness”?
When looking, can emptiness actually be found as something separate from seeing?
Is there seeing on one side and emptiness beside it?
Is emptiness like a container that is holding the seeing? Or is “emptiness” a thought-label for the absence of other labels?
Please do not assume that a quiet or unfamiliar experience is “emptiness.” Look for what that word points to.
Can it be seen? Heard? Felt? Tasted? Smelled? Or is “emptiness” only known as thought / spiritual term?

Close your eyes. With eyes closed, you will now experience 'blackness'. There may be other things you can find going on, sure. If you are looking at a bright light, there may be a red glow. There may be sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics. Just to make things simple, whatever you can see with eyes closed, I'm going to refer to it as 'black' or 'blackness' just for simplicity.
1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness' as I mentioned?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?
3) Can what is seeing/witnessing the blackness be found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me'/Irene/ a person/ emptiness / awareness / the Universe / any other entity be found that is witnessing the blackness? Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the see-er/observer/experiencer, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

Experiencing happens through the five senses + thought. If there is experience, one or more of those are present. If it’s not in the first five then it is a thought. If I close my eyes and feel emptiness, like there's nothing, that happens through sensations. Emptiness in the Buddhist sense simply means that something is empty of self-nature. And no-thingness means that things are dependent. Just like a school is a thing that doesn't exist. It is empty of school-essence. Emptiness is not a void.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYqaWmc ... 4&index=41

If there is 'awareness' of nothingness/emptiness, that is often a subtle image of nothing with very subtle sensations. True nothingness means absolutely nothing – no heartbeat, no breathing, zilch. So if there are no sensations and there is nothingness, that's often a subtle thought that is trying to create something.
Is there anything here that is not the senses? Those would be physical, but there are also sensations when you close your eyes that don't have a location (unless they are mapped onto an image of the body).
The way I look at sensations is that they include anything that is sensed, such as touching a cup or a feeling of emptiness/nothingness.

We will return to the other questions. For now, stay with this. Please try to answer all questions!

Love
Rali

[Storienie]

Here it is!

Right now, can anything called “a bottle existing outside experience” actually be found?

It can’t, how can something be found that is outside experience?

How can you _**know**_ what is outside of experience?

It’s impossible. Indeed can only be an assumption. Can’t confirm something that you don’t experience directly.

What is called “a bottle”? What can be seen?

Colour is seen
Pattern is seen (which is also colour)
Shape is seen (which is contrast of colour agains other colours)

So it’s actually just colour

Where is the image of the object, is it inside or outside of you?

Outside of me

If it is seen inside or outside, where is the border where the image crosses over from being outside to being inside of you? What does the border consist of?

The border is where all colour disappears (at the edges of the field of vision).

Thought says ‘everything that is seen visually is outside of me.’

Paying attention to the border brings up feeling of tingling at the skin of the face. Thought says ‘the tingling is the location of the border’.

I can’t find the border further than this.

Where is the struggle experienced? Is it a sensation somewhere in the body?

Yes, slight tension in the body together with thoughts of frustrated gestures.

What exactly does thought say must be accepted?

That the bottle doesn’t exist outside direct experience. But you clarified above: its not that it doesnt exist, it’s that it can’t be found.

Does the sensation itself object to anything, or is the objection entirely in thought?

I dont see how a sensation can object. The tension together with the thought of frustrated gestures is labelled ‘struggle’.

In direct experience, where exactly is the dividing line between “here” and “there”?

See above my explanation about inside and outside. Other than that, thought labels ‘close’ and ‘far, ‘here’ and ‘there’, ‘depth’, ‘distance’, all words directing attention. With ‘distance’ also a superimposed thought in space (like an arrow between objects) or directing attention to the space between ‘here’ and ‘there’.

Can an “I here” be found in seeing?

Attention is directed towards the body and the tingling. The thought ‘I here’ lingers. In seeing, there is only seeing of the colours of the clothes, nose and hair.

Can a “bottle there” be found apart from seeing and thoughts describing it?

No

What is directly present? 
What does thought claim about it?
What is the struggle itself, before it is named “struggle”?

I believe I answered these questions above. Let me know if there is something I’m missing.

Is there a thinker separate from that thought?

No. In direct experience there is only thoughts popping up.

Is there an “I” standing apart from thought, reporting on it?

No, just the thought popping up by itself

Can thought be made into an enemy without another thought doing that?

No

is there a thinker apart from the thought? Is there anyone being attacked by thought? Or are thought, resistance, frustration, and the story of ‘me versus thought’ all simply appearing together?
Does thought come to someone? Is there an Irene present before the thought, waiting for it to arrive?

Thoughts appear and other thoughts appear afterwards. When I think of ‘Irene’ it appears the same as when I think of ‘a bottle’.
Irene is a label, a thought. It appears together with other sensations and thoughts. Irene is not waiting for the thoughts to arrive, can’t do that as a thought/ label.

There is emptiness before and after thoughts. It’s the absence of thought while attention being focused on finding thought. It’s not Irene.

There is always a sensation in my chest and tingling on my skin when attention is focused on the body. When looking for ‘me’ attention goes there and finds sensations. But ‘me’ is not the sensations, the sensations are sensations. ‘Me’ is a thought occurring at the same time as the sensations.

Can a watcher be found apart from the seeing and the thought?

There is seeing and thought and feeling. Nothing else.

And when you say, “I lost concentration,” find the one who had concentration and then lost it. What exactly is found?

No one had concentration, but thoughts about the subject stop coming or attention goes to other things.

First, what is this “_**emptiness**_”?

For me, emptiness is the absence of thoughts. Like a ‘pause’, where attention is focused but no thoughts come up. Attention is also not focused on sound or other sensations, but just on the (absence of) thoughts.

When looking, can emptiness actually be found as something separate from seeing?

Yes, because it’s in the thought dimension. It’s separate from thought because it’s the absence of thought.

Is there seeing on one side and emptiness beside it?

It’s superimposed, like hearing and seeing which can be at the same time as well.

Is emptiness like a container that is holding the seeing? Or is “emptiness” a thought-label for the absence of other labels?

Its a thought-label for the absence of other thought-labels.

Can it be seen? Heard? Felt? Tasted? Smelled? Or is “emptiness” only known as thought / spiritual term?

It’s only a label. Wouldn’t say it’s spiritual, just absence of other thoughts to name.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is '_**blackness**_' as I mentioned?

Yes

2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than '_**blackness**_'?

No

3) Can what is seeing/witnessing the _**blackness**_ be found?

Same as with eyes open, there is just feeling and thoughts and nothing more.

4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me'/Irene/ a person/ emptiness / awareness / the Universe / any other entity be found that is witnessing the _**blackness**_? Or is there just '_**blackness**_' to be found? What do you find?

Just blackness. There are thoughts saying ‘there must be awareness holding everything, all the buddhist teachings talk about awareness’ but that is thought appearing. Awareness is also a label (and much less clear what it points to than ‘me’ or ‘bottle’), but there is no other thing found than feeling, seeing, thoughts etc.

Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?

No, just seeing.

Would anything that is suggested as the see-er/observer/experiencer, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

No.

**Is there anything here that is not the senses?** Those would be physical, but there are also sensations when you close your eyes that don't have a location (unless they are mapped onto an image of the body).
The way I look at sensations is that they include anything that is sensed, such as _**touching a cup**_ or a _**feeling of emptiness/nothingness**_.

Yes, what I label ‘emptiness’ also comes up together with other subtle feelings like chest warmth, soft hearing of sounds, and other things that attention is not focused on. Everything is in the senses, if we include thought as a sense.