Seeing through

[Storienie]

Hi Rali,

Again I answered everything except the last few questions. I will look at them after work. They all take some time to look at and then try to put into words.

What makes them “individual”? Before thought distinguishes and names them, do separate units announce themselves?

I used ‘individual’ as opposed to a ‘container that is experience’, but thought is what labels them as ‘individual’. Before labeling something as sound or colour…

I hesitate here. I observe sound and colour and can’t make up separate units. Sound becomes more prominent or colour does, and then suddenly a sound becomes prominent that I hadn’t noticed before. Today at work I noticed that I get engrossed in my thoughts and have no memory of sounds or seeing of the past few minutes. After noticing the sound that I hadn’t noticed, thought says “then before thought names them, perhaps they aren’t there at all. Maybe things don’t appear in DE without being accompanied by thought.” When looking in DE, I can’t say that colour is there before thought names it, because noticing colour instead of sound already involves thought…

When looking just at colour… there is just colour.

Listening to sound while looking at colour… I don’t know how to describe it except to say they are both there. I don’t see a ‘thought’ labeling them when I let go of questions and just look. I don’t see a category called ‘seeing’ and ‘hearing’, but there are definitely both there. Perhaps there is an almost imperceptible thought-image there too, but I can’t make it out.

It feels like I’m getting somewhat tangled in thoughts, so I’ll continue for now.

Is there really a relationships among sounds, colour, etc.?
Let’s test this directly rather than reason about whether the senses are separate.

Ah ok, that might be helpful.

Is a leg actually found?

Other than the thought of the leg, there are sensations, but there is no “leg”.

Does the sensation itself have the shape, size, or location of a leg?

No, the sensations don’t have much similarity with a leg at all.

Does the seen image itself say “leg”?

No, the image is just the image and nothing else and thought says “leg”.

Does it contain sensation?

The image does not contain sensation

Is there a direct link between them?

I can’t see a direct link. The image and the sensations of leg appear as related as a table and the sensations of my leg, in the sense that I see or feel no difference in how they appear. Just there.

Does the seen image produce the sensation?

No

Does the sensation occur inside the image?

No

Does either one contain the other?

No

Do they announce themselves as two separate streams?

They don’t “announce” themselves as anything. Thought says “but they are different streams”, but I don’t see any streams. They are different, though.

Or are there simply what we label seeing and sensation, while thought links them and says: “This sensation belongs to that leg.”

Yes

Can it be found anywhere apart from thought or mental imagery?

No

Can simultaneity itself be seen or felt?

No, it only appears as a thought to me. There is for example sound and image, and then the thought “simultaneous” or “focus on sound first and then image”.

Can separation itself be located?

No, there is one image or sound followed by another, and then thought labels them ‘separate’.

Or are those also descriptions added afterward?

Yes

Can an actual line, wall, gap, or boundary be found dividing thought from sound? Where exactly does thought end and sound begin?

Not at all. Sound and thought are very similar and there is no boundary.

Does either announce itself as belonging to a separate category? Or is the division supplied by thought and labelling?

The division is made when thought labels them. The only trouble I’m having is to see whether there is always a label present. There is no doubt of what is sound and what is thought, and thought can clearly say “here is sound” or “focus on sound”, but often there are no words. There might be a “focus”, which is a light mental image, but I’m not sure it’s always there.

I don’t always find a dividing label in DE. Sound and thought are still there, and can easily be labeled by thought afterwards or not.

Can an actual boundary be found dividing colour, sound, and thought?

No boundary.

Can separation itself be seen, heard, or felt? Or are “colour,” “sound,” and “thought” agreed labels used to describe distinctions that thought makes?

I want to say “they are so different”, but that’s a thought. I can’t see, hear or feel a separation. Any comparison or separation is only in thoughts. Any switch in focus is also a thought.

[Storienie]

Hi Rali,

Here are the rest of the answers!

Is the separation as individual senses directly experienced or it is an illusion created by labels?

I can’t find a direct separation, but I can’t fully agree with the separation being “an illusion created by labels”. When I look at thought, seeing, feeling and hearing at the same time, I find them all there, just being there with no labels and no categories. I can then think about them being different, but they don’t appear with a label or essence saying “different”.
Still, I can’t say that the separation is an illusion. That doesn’t seem clear right now.

In DE is there anything more than just THIS always?

I don’t want to agree without making sure we are saying the same. In DE there is nothing more than what is there, what I can point at. Those are described as thoughts, sounds, images etc.

But all that is known is the wax. Nothing actually changed and nothing was ever born or lost, although it may have seemed to.

I read your explanation of THIS again and this part doesn’t resonate. Perhaps that helps in figuring out where I’m at.

When the labels “thought,” “sound,” “colour,” “separate,” and “together” are not followed, what actual boundary remains?

There is no boundary, just whatever is there being there. I feel stuck trying to explain it without using the labels for thought, colour etc.

I just rubbed my hands for a while again. There is just “rubbing of hands” without thought distinguishing sound from feeling from sight.

[poppyseed]

Hi Irene,
You have clearly found already that no boundary can be located between what we call colour, sound, feeling, and thought. But you still say:

They are all there.

They are different.

Let’s examine that very carefully. Take what we conventionally call a sound.
Without comparing it with colour, feeling, or thought, what makes it a different thing?
Now look at what we call colour.
Without remembering the sound or comparing the two, does colour announce that it belongs to a different category?
Where is the difference located? Is it in the sound? In the colour? Between them? Can it be seen, heard, or felt?
Or does difference arise only when thought compares what is present with memory of something else?

I can’t find a direct separation, but I can’t fully agree with the separation being “an illusion created by labels”. When I look at thought, seeing, feeling and hearing at the same time, I find them all there, just being there with no labels and no categories. I can then think about them being different, but they don’t appear with a label or essence saying “different”.
Still, I can’t say that the separation is an illusion. That doesn’t seem clear right now.

Look again and again. Without the labels, how is it known that there are several different things present?
Can “several” be found?
Can “both” or “all” be found?
Can a number of experiences be counted without thought separating them into units?
Look for what directly establishes either claim.
When comparison, memory, counting, and naming are not followed, are distinct things actually found?
Or does the claim that there are different things appear only as thought?
Does it contain a quality saying: “I am sound and not colour”?

Just notice what is ‘underneath’ all thoughts.
Thoughts add an overlaying narrative of names, labels, interpretations, explanations over the simplicity of what IS.
Instead of endlessly reaching for ideas, concepts and explanations, just let it all go, and see. Just see what is here now silently, without words. Just notice what is left when you stop thinking about it.

We established that even LOOKING is still a commentary – a new one, but nonetheless still a commentary…
Look again right now, is looking any different than a new way of describing just THIS?
I introduced a new virus-thought: “LOOK!”, and it is reorganising all old stories about what IS. Now it is containing a lot more labels like seeing, hearing, sound, colour,…
We use “the senses” to create a temporary “gap” between thought content and DE, but is that separation even possible in DE? The new commentary might be a subtler, or quieter, or more basic thought, not claiming ownership, but still a thought.

Thoughts are always out of step with reality, and they obstruct the clear seeing of how things actually are. Reality is very simple. Once you can see this, you will stop endlessly frustrating yourself by trying to figure out how things are. Just look, what is it that is separate from what is, and trying to figure out how things are?
Is there a self or me here, who is separate and isolated from what is, from reality, and thus is in need to understand reality? What is doing the inquiry? What is getting confused or stuck?

Truth or reality is not an idea or a belief. It cannot be grasped by thoughts. It does not need to be understood by the intellect. Actually, it is impossible to understand through thoughts. It is inconceivable, ungraspable. And yet, it can be directly experienced. It’s easy to look at the finger that points to the moon and assume that the finger itself is where focus should go. If you get hooked on looking at the finger, you can discuss the finger, debate about it, argue about it, and even create a following, but the moon is not there. The moon is located where the finger is pointing to. You can miss and forget the pointing entirely if all you can see is the pointing tool. Labels should not be assumed to be “things.” Freedom lies in seeing that concepts are creations of language that serve the purpose of communicating. They are practical, but empty - they don’t point to anything separate.

I’ve been asking you to compare sound to colour. Let’s look at what comparison actually is.
What we call comparison is commentary about what is already happening. Thought conceptually cuts something out of the whole, labels it “sound,” cuts out something else, labels it “colour,” and then declares: “They are different.” “They are both present.” “They are superimposed.” “One is more prominent.”
But before that commentary, can separate pieces with actual boundaries be found? You already said that no boundaries can be found, so what makes them different and prominent?
Is there an actual (experiential) cutting line separating them?
Or does thought perform the apparent cutting by naming them separately, then construct a story about the relationship / differences between the named parts?
Look at "white" vs "black" - you can say they are different, but they are both just seeing. You can say "seeing" is different from "hearing" but they are both what IS, just this.
Look at the word “and”: sound and colour.
Can the “and” be directly experienced?
Does it point to an actual division or relationship found in what is happening? Or is it part of the description?
These words (e.g. individual, different, together, simultaneous, superimposed, several) describe a relationship between supposedly separate things. But can the separate things themselves be found before thought divides and names them?
Comparison is therefore not neutral looking. It is a story laid over what is happening: thought extracts apparent parts from the whole and then comments on how those imagined parts relate. BUT the subtler is there too - silence is also a sound (just a subtler one). Have you ever experienced no sound? Or no seeing?Just because you've been conditioned to notice/focus/comment only on the louder "aspects" of THIS (the lava lamp), that does not mean there are separate parts. Simply look before the cutting and commentary:
What actual division is present?
Love
Rali

[Storienie]

Without comparing it with colour, feeling, or thought, what makes it a different thing?

I don’t think i can look at what makes it different without comparing it.

I can say sound comes along with certain feelings and thoughts (for example painful sensation for loud sounds, the mental image of the ear), but that’s not looking only at sound and also would be comparing to what feelings and thoughts arise when looking at colour. There is no way of looking at things being ‘different’ without comparing.

Without remembering the sound or comparing the two, does colour announce that it belongs to a different category?

No

Where is the difference located? Is it in the sound? In the colour? Between them? Can it be seen, heard, or felt?

The difference is located in thought.

Or does difference arise only when thought compares what is present with memory of something else?

Yes

Without the labels, how is it known that there are several different things present?

It can’t be known

Can “several” be found?

Not in DE, just the label in thought

Can “both” or “all” be found?

No

Can a number of experiences be counted without thought separating them into units?

No

When comparison, memory, counting, and naming are not followed, are distinct things actually found?

No

Or does the claim that there are different things appear only as thought?

Yes, thought is very quick at labeling. “Thats a road” ”house” “sound”, its not necessarily with words but also with a recognition-feeing-in-thought, so its not very perceptible.

Does it contain a quality saying: “I am sound and not colour”?

No

Instead of endlessly reaching for ideas, concepts and explanations, just let it all go, and see. Just see what is here now silently, without words. Just notice what is left when you stop thinking about it.

It’s very easy to just look and see how uncomplicated everything is there, but thought comes in and questions the simplicity quite quickly. The reason why it becomes confusing is because “it can’t be that simple, so I have to look harder” and then comparison and questioning comes in. Today, answering your question is very straightforward.

is looking any different than a new way of describing just THIS?

Yes, looking at colours, sounds, thoughts separately is just a new way of labeling, but still a way of labeling.

but is that separation even possible in DE?

I see. In DE there is just THIS, what is there, and thought comes in and labels it. Thought is also part of THIS, though. But thoughts feel like a thick layer sometimes, a lot of thoughts make it harder to look at the rest. When looking at DE before thought comes around, THIS is simple and clear. Not much going on except THIS. Perhaps I’m theorizing and thinking too much again.

what is it that is separate from what is, and trying to figure out how things are?

Hm. Easy thought answer is “nothing is separate”, but let’s look.

Hm, getting tangled in thoughts again. Thought seems separate from colour and sound, or at least that’s what thought says. Thoughts go on and on explaining and reasoning.

Is there a self or me here, who is separate and isolated from what is, from reality, and thus is in need to understand reality? What is doing the inquiry? What is getting confused or stuck?

Right now it feels like thoughts go reinforcing themselves in some narrative. There is no self, but thoughts go on doing what they are used to doing. I can also stop the train of thought and just look again- I’m tired and this just seems like more thinking and rambling than looking. Just a few questions ago it seemed clearer.

But before that commentary, can separate pieces with actual boundaries be found? You already said that no boundaries can be found, so what makes them different and prominent?

It’s just thought labeling them different or prominent. Just thinking on thinking: looking for sound and colour is looking for categories, so looking at thoughts.

Is there an actual (experiential) cutting line separating them?

Nope

Or does thought perform the apparent cutting by naming them separately, then construct a story about the relationship / differences between the named parts?

Yes! Exactly. Thinking on thinking.

Can the “and” be directly experienced?

Reading the sentence “sound and colour” makes me laugh a a bit. There is no sound in direct experience, nor “and”, nor colour. All labels. “And” is even emptier though, because it points to just thought instead of to THIS+thought.

I’m writing a bit more unfiltered than before, curious to hear whether I’m digging another hole or if I seem on the right track here.

Does it point to an actual division or relationship found in what is happening? Or is it part of the description?

Just the description.

But can the separate things themselves be found before thought divides and names them?

No.

Comparison is therefore not neutral looking. It is a story laid over what is happening: thought extracts apparent parts from the whole and then comments on how those imagined parts relate

Yes! A puzzle piece falling in place.

Have you ever experienced no sound? Or no seeing?

Just looking at THIS is quite silent. What I experience now when looking is the same as at the beginning of our exchanges, very silent, but now with less worried thoughts about it trying to make sense of it.

I dont know if it’s what you mean though. Could just be how experience is right now. Thought says “of course its how experience is right now”, but there is doubt.

What actual division is present?

No division at all. Division = commentary