Introduction

[Wisiwig]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
The ‘self’ is a mental avatar that logically/linguistically ties together sensations, mental activities (emotions, thoughts), and the belief that one controls one’s life.

What are you looking for at LU?
Fellowship with others who are seeking deeper meaning and insight. LU addresses a very specific group of seekers, I would like to connect with that group as the growth process so far has been isolating, others simply don't understand what I am seeking. The isolation has been good because it has focused my efforts, but it would be nice to connect with others on the same path.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
Greater insight that is the result of overcoming automatic biases and assumptions which likely restrict what I am able to recognize. While I am not familiar with the guided conversation protocol, I assume that it has a structure that I am unlikely to generate on my own, and thus it may be more effective than continuing without a guided conversation.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
I’ve read hundreds of books on philosophy, religion, and personal growth. Over time my interest has refined to a simple focus on meditating and understanding existence through my personal experiences and insights.
The current meditation focus is to distinguish sensory perceptions, thoughts, and emotions from the awareness of those events. The writings of Christiane Michelberger are serving as my guide. Insight has also been informed by books by Katrijn Van Oudheusden, Suzanne Segal, and Douglas Harding, and others. The Faith Mind Sutra has been a source of contemplation for several years. Participation in silent group meditations has been an important influence. As a certified yoga instructor I have taught yoga and meditation classes that emphasized greater awareness of the here and now.

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

[Wisiwig]

Today I focused my meditation on awareness. What is it, where is it. My conceptualization of ‘awareness’ has evolved from an ‘observer’ to a general ‘awareness’ that was like a blank movie screen; receptive, non-assertive, neutral. Those qualities felt right, but when I was challenged with identifying awareness in my meditation I was shocked to find that I had assumed that awareness was a ‘thing’, an object. I was surprised at my reaction to this observation, I felt disconcerted, disoriented, generally uncomfortable with this possibility. I recognized how my finite mind had objectified ‘no-thing’. But at the same time, I was uneasy because I had no category, no label to assign to awareness. What is a no-thing? If it is no-thing, it is nothing, yet that is not true. I found awareness to be something. I tried to call it a field, but that still is a thing with boundaries, so it isn’t a field, a cloud. Perhaps it is a force, an energy, which I found to be partially true.

Then I wondered about the relationship of awareness to sound. Does awareness hear sound? If sound animates awareness when the physical sound waves meet awareness, that would mean that awareness is an object, so that doesn’t work. I then experienced a knowing that awareness is the sound, awareness animates the sound. Awareness is not animated by the sound, it does not need to hear the sound, it is the sound. Again, I found this to be disconcerting, but true. I have no frame of reference, no knowing, that informs what this means, what it is.

My thoughts went to my concept of self. I have long ago accepted that there is no self, but obviously I did not know that meant. In the past I was attracted to the idea that there is a divine spark, an individualistic shard of the divine that continued the ‘me’ but in a higher order. More recently, I have seen the weakness of this belief as it is a version of subject/object. But if awareness is the sound, that would mean that I am awareness. Before this experience I would have agreed with the statement that ‘I am awareness’, but I had not connected with this deeper meaning. This has renewed a large set of questions about ‘what am I’ and free will.

[Noro]

Hello Wisiwig, Welcome to Liberation Unleashed. I am sorry that you have had to wait a while for a reply, and I have read with interest your second posting of your more recent insights. I can see that you are ready to jump in.
My name is Rowena and I am happy to be your guide. Please let me know what you would like me to call you.

The following is a simple introduction, before we get started.

1. Here at LU we assist in the exploration of the idea of the separate self. This is a guiding based on direct 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.

2. 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.

3. Please read the following documents from LU *carefully* and let me know if you have any reservations or doubts regarding them:

http://www.liberationunleashed.com/register/disclaimer/

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


4. Please make sure that you are subscribed to your thread. 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. (To be sure that you are subscribed just refresh the page and if you click again should show “Unsubscribe topic”.)

6. Please answer all questions individually, not in a bundle, as this will assist us both in having a clear dialogue. Also 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.

7. When replying to a question it makes it a lot easier to follow the enquiry using the

'Quote Function'

to highlight the questions and answers. Here's a video link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fAToDNh9hQ

Throughout this exploration the questions that I would like you to answer are written in blue text. But please check and answer all questions even if I miss using the blue text!!

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. And I will do so as well.
What time zone are in? I am in Belgium which is CET
If you're okay with everything so far, we can start.

Today I focused my meditation on awareness. What is it, where is it. My conceptualization of ‘awareness’ has evolved from an ‘observer’ to a general ‘awareness’ that was like a blank movie screen; receptive, non-assertive, neutral. Those qualities felt right, but when I was challenged with identifying awareness in my meditation I was shocked to find that I had assumed that awareness was a ‘thing’, an object. I was surprised at my reaction to this observation, I felt disconcerted, disoriented, generally uncomfortable with this possibility. I recognized how my finite mind had objectified ‘no-thing’. But at the same time, I was uneasy because I had no category, no label to assign to awareness. What is a no-thing? If it is no-thing, it is nothing, yet that is not true. I found awareness to be something. I tried to call it a field, but that still is a thing with boundaries, so it isn’t a field, a cloud. Perhaps it is a force, an energy, which I found to be partially true.

This is a wonderful exploration. How is this landing with you now? Are you settling in to this insight?

Then I wondered about the relationship of awareness to sound. Does awareness hear sound? If sound animates awareness when the physical sound waves meet awareness, that would mean that awareness is an object, so that doesn’t work. I then experienced a knowing that awareness is the sound, awareness animates the sound. Awareness is not animated by the sound, it does not need to hear the sound, it is the sound. Again, I found this to be disconcerting, but true. I have no frame of reference, no knowing, that informs what this means, what it is.

Our rational mind likes to categorize, and when there is no frame of reference, it is on shaky ground......
How is this insight landing? You said you found this to be disconcerting, but true. This is a great place to be in.
How does 'disconcerting' feel as a sensation in the body?
Does this insight still feel disconcerting?

My thoughts went to my concept of self. I have long ago accepted that there is no self, but obviously I did not know that meant. In the past I was attracted to the idea that there is a divine spark, an individualistic shard of the divine that continued the ‘me’ but in a higher order. More recently, I have seen the weakness of this belief as it is a version of subject/object. But if awareness is the sound, that would mean that I am awareness. Before this experience I would have agreed with the statement that ‘I am awareness’, but I had not connected with this deeper meaning. This has renewed a large set of questions about ‘what am I’ and free will.

This is what we can explore together, and your inquiry to date has really set the stage for this. Let's start with a few simple exercises just to settle in.

VISUAL FIELD 1

Take a few relaxed breaths to let the dust settle for a while, and:

Look to your right.
Then look to your left.
Finally, bring your head back to centre, CLOSE YOUR EYES and look forward.

Okay, so when you look to the right, the view (visual experience) on the right is seen (whatever that is).

When you look to the left, the view on the left is seen (whatever that is).

And then, when you look in front of you with eyes closed, the visual experience in front is seen.

So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ to see or not to see? Y/N

I’m not asking can you ‘choose’ to see something else like another view or ‘blank space’ if you close your eyes.
The question is:

Can you turn seeing off? Y/N
Can you NOT see what is seen? Y/N

Same thing when you are facing to your left, can there be a choice to NOT see the view on the left? Y/N
Same thing when you are facing forward with closed eyes, can you NOT see the what is seen? Y/N

Is there an independent self or 'doer' that can choose to turn seeing off or on? Y/N

Let me know how you got on with this.

Warm regards,
Rowena

[Wisiwig]

Hello Rowena, Thank you for working with me. Please call me Wisiwig (what I see is what I get), an acronym that I have adopted to remind me to see without thinking. Wisiwig is a derivation of the acronym WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). I have read the Disclaimer and the “What is not” documents, I accept the conditions. We are in the same time zone (CET), I am currently in Albania.

How is this landing with you now? Are you settling in to this insight?

The experience when I experienced the knowing that sound is awareness, as much as hearing is awareness, shifted my experience of everything, but in a subtle way. There is an intellectual component to that shift. I could never have imagined that experience before this occurred so this has opened my intellectual understanding of what is meant when it is said that everything is one, although the understanding seems superficial at this point. On an inner level, I now have a new curiosity, an openness, about my environment and my relationship to it. It has opened an awareness of possibilities I was not be able to consider before.

How does 'disconcerting' feel as a sensation in the body?
Does this insight still feel disconcerting?

I have meditated on the disconcerted/disoriented sensations since then. Shortly after the experience I was able to meditate and connect with a whisper (it was less intense) of the ‘disconcerted’ sensation but it faded after a few days. Since then I have not encountered the disconcerted/disoriented sensations that I experienced the first time. But I found that reaction to be interesting and have contemplated that reaction, which would make sense as being a reaction of my separate self (ego).

The ‘disconcerted’ sensation had the quality of urgency, an impulse, and a visceral threat alert sensation similar to what I might feel if I heard a strange noise at night. At the time, I knew that the new knowing experience was not a threat to my existence but it was all so new I didn’t immediately differentiate the sensations from my sense of what I am. Shortly after the onset of the the ‘disconcerting’ sensation’, I regained my orientation and recognized the sensation but did not allow that to escalate to an emotional response. It makes sense to me that the newness of the experience may have contributed to the ‘disoriented’ sensation that I experienced.

Visual Field 1

Can you turn seeing off? Y/N

No, I can’t turn seeing off. Seeing is always on.

Can you NOT see what is seen? Y/N

No, seeing is involuntary.

Same thing when you are facing to your left, can there be a choice to NOT see the view on the left? Y/N

No, there is no choice to NOT see the view on the left.

Same thing when you are facing forward with closed eyes, can you NOT see the what is seen? Y/N

No, there is no choice to Not see the what is seen when facing forward. Even when I close my eyes, I see light through the eyelids.

Is there an independent self or 'doer' that can choose to turn seeing off or on? Y/N

No, there is no controller, no ‘doer,’ that volitionally turns seeing off or on.

Hey, thanks for the great questions! I look forward to working with you. BTW, when formatting the quote boxes, should I change the text color to blue or is default satisfactory?

[Noro]

Good morning Wising,

What a great name! It couldn't be more apt for this exploration!

There is an intellectual component to that shift. I could never have imagined that experience before this occurred so this has opened my intellectual understanding of what is meant when it is said that everything is one, although the understanding seems superficial at this point. On an inner level, I now have a new curiosity, an openness, about my environment and my relationship to it. It has opened an awareness of possibilities I was not be able to consider before.

Your noticing is spot on, there is definitely an intellectual component involved in all this, together with a psychosomatic component and then also a subtle energetic component also. It seems that you are including all three in your above description. Beautiful! <3

At the time, I knew that the new knowing experience was not a threat to my existence but it was all so new I didn’t immediately differentiate the sensations from my sense of what I am. Shortly after the onset of the the ‘disconcerting’ sensation’, I regained my orientation and recognized the sensation but did not allow that to escalate to an emotional response. It makes sense to me that the newness of the experience may have contributed to the ‘disoriented’ sensation that I experienced.

This is great, your curiosity and openness working beautifully. Exploration of the senses, in particular the felt sense are key. The following quote you will know well! I love the Faith in Mind Sutra also

"If you would walk the highest Way,
do not reject the sense domain.
For as it is, whole and complete,
this sense world is Enlightenment."

Hey, thanks for the great questions! I look forward to working with you. BTW, when formatting the quote boxes, should I change the text color to blue or is default satisfactory?

I am looking forward to working and exploring with you too. And no need to change the text color to blue, I use it mostly to highlight questions to make them more visible.


INVESTIGATION WITH AN APPLE
Here's an exercise for you to get super clear on what direct experience is. Place the piece of fruit in front of you on the table. If you don't have one to hand, you can go online and find a photo of an apple.

When looking at an apple in the usual way, we are looking at something in the visual field, and we will see that there's colour and then we will perceive a shape. Then thinking comes very quickly afterwards with a thought saying "apple" and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."

In actual or direct experience we are simply seeing, and the simple act of seeing does not include any interpretations or descriptions. Those are overlayed through thought onto the visual experience which is totally non-conceptual.

In actual fact, nothing is named in direct experience, (think of a baby that is looking around in wonder), all that is seen is a kaleidoscope of light/color. However, as a concession, for the sake of communicating we can allow a minimum of thought content in order to do this exercise; so we can say that colors and shapes are seen, and thinking is also 'seen' but the content of thought, the thoughts about what is seen, is not included.

Actual experience does not refer to thought content (including labels, interpretations and descriptions) about something.

Actual experience refers to the raw data of sound, color, smell, taste, sensation and the fact of thinking arising, but not its content.

So, as you do this apple exercise, is there really an 'apple' here or only color and shape and a thought about 'apple'?
Can an actual 'apple' be found in direct experience?

While thoughts or descriptions are known, what they talk about can't be found in direct experience.

I hope that this is clear for you. Let me know how you get on.

Warm regards,
Rowena

[Wisiwig]

So, as you do this apple exercise, is there really an 'apple' here or only color and shape and a thought about 'apple'?
Can an actual 'apple' be found in direct experience?

I don’t know when, but perhaps a year or so ago, I came upon this idea, perhaps in something I read, that the label follows the experience. I played with it at that time and now it is second nature. For this exercise, my ‘apple’ was a plum, since I had several on hand. With no narrative or label, it is simply various shades of similar color that change as I move my head around the plum. It has no taste, smell, or sound. There is no actual plum, only color; no purple, only color; no shape, only color. It only becomes ‘round purple plum’ when thought is allowed. In this context, it seems that the high-level words color, taste, smell, sound, and sensation are necessary labels because the actual experience of color, taste, smell, sound and sensation cannot be fully described using words. The generalized nature of each category label is the closest we can come to not using descriptive labels.

Lately I have been working on deconstructing what is sensed as I pass through my daily life; what is seen are colors not things, sound qualities are heard not something making the sound. This allows for the experience but not the mental processing prompted by the experience.

[Noro]

OK, that's great info. I will keep introducing some exercises to take a look at, just in case you haven't already looked there.
I normally check my emails frequently throughout the day, so we can keep this conversation moving along.

TIME EXERCISE
Time is an experience, it is not fundamental

There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time, or an event that is moving forward on a linear line, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

Take a few deep breaths to relax and then look in direct experience and answer the following according to your actual findings, NOT thoughts about your findings:

Is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along a line of time?

An experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

How long does the ‘now’ last?

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or simply thoughts about ‘time’?


Rowena

[Wisiwig]

Rowena, I’ve enjoyed responding to these questions and I feel like I could write a book about these questions, but I have tried to keep my responses brief. This has helped me connect some dots.

Is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along a line of time?

There is always the now, there is never not the now. My impression is that the now is constantly changing, that change is described using the concept of time when operating withing a materialistic orientation. But the now does not move, it is the changing content of the now that is changing. When the now is viewed through a materialistic orientation, one interpretation is that the now is moving along a timeline. The past being a series of memory snapshots that are stitched together to form a sense of continuity (usually attached to a selective and ego-enhancing narrative). The future being a series of imagined snapshots of potential conditions of the now. The materialistic point of view (an interpretive framework) is the bias that shapes how memories and imagination are interpreted. Reasoning operates within the already-established orientation, becoming a perceptual filter and a boundary that limits possibilities. Also, reasoning is limited in throughput, and thus abstractions/simplifications are applied to arrive at a manageable workload. The word ‘apple’ is an abstraction of the experience of seeing red, round, sweet smell and the experience of photons exciting rods and cones in the retina.

An experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

The use of metered concepts like moments, minutes, and hours fits within the timeline concept of materialism. Each metered concept has a beginning and an end. But the now has no beginning or end, it simply is.

Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?

No, there are no discrete episodes, like a daily television show. We live in a world that varies from day to night but to consider that evidence of time would be to view the day/night phenomena as primary which is a materialistic approach. Instead, there is continuity with presence and the now. The day and night are changes that present within the always present now.

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

The ‘present moment’ is not moving, rather the rate of change withing the now varies, giving the illusion that time is passing slowly or quickly.

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

My experience is that the now has always been. I have never experienced a past or a future.

How long does the ‘now’ last?

The now has no time-based boundaries, it is always present.

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

There is no start or end of the now, I am just now realizing that it is another word for consciousness, awareness, etc. Perhaps the now concept is used to counter the training we have received that time is real and materialism is primary.

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

Like the smoke of an eternal flame, ‘the past’ lingers in memory while the now is ever present. The previous conditions of the now are somewhat captured in memories, although those memories never reproduce the complete now as it once was. Memories are corrupted by bias, ego, inaccurate recall, and limited/selective perception.

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

When thoughts (memories) are accessed, it is the experience of those thoughts that is interpreted as the past. Narrative accounts are created to tie episodes of thoughts into a cohesive story.

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or simply thoughts about ‘time’?

There is no actual experience of time, only thoughts about time. The only experience of time is thoughts (memories) of past conditions of the now and thoughts (imaginations) of unexperienced conditions of the now interpreted through a material point of view.

[Noro]

Good morning Wisiwig, and apologies for the misspelling on the last post!

I loved reading your response to this last exploration into the concept of time.

There is no start or end of the now, I am just now realizing that it is another word for consciousness, awareness, etc. Perhaps the now concept is used to counter the training we have received that time is real and materialism is primary.

Yes, exactly, it is another word that once uttered can easily become a concept that can be viewed as a pointer to something basically unnameable, unknowable, and unconceptualizable (excuse the made-up word!) And even saying it's a pointer is off the mark since pointers are used to point a some'one' to a some'thing'.


INTRODUCTORY BODY MEDITATION
Sit with eyes closed for a few minutes. Pay attention only to the pure felt sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

Can a boundary be detected between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

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

What does the word/label ‘body’ actually refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body, without referring to conventional materialistic concept of the body?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. Take your time, don’t rush. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, having a short break from work, walking, etc) before replying.


Warm regards,
Rowena

[Wisiwig]

Rowena, Your questions left me questioning the existence of the body. Here are my responses:

Can it be known how tall the body is?

Any sense of a body is derived from sensations and visual observation. With eyes closed, there are only sensations which occupy a general location and range. Without overlay of a visual or mental ‘map’ of the body, the location becomes diffuse, not focal. I laid on a sofa and crossed one leg over the other. I queried if the pressure of the heel on the sofa was the pressure of my head. I was able to discern that the location of the sensation seemed to be somewhere between the heel and my belly but the more I studied it, the more diffuse the location became. I wasn’t able to completely flip the impression of the body. I look back and see that at this time I was still referring to a mental map of the body, but later on I was able to free myself of the mental map more and more.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

The body seems to float. The sensation of the body contacting the sofa becomes less intense over time and with some points of contact disappeared entirely, as if I were floating above the sofa.

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

The body was an impression that there is something there but it only exists as sensations. The sensations related to the body occurred where there was pressure on the body or physical activity in the body (heart beating). But the sensations were all independent sensations, not connected unless I superimposed a mental map of the body.

Can a boundary be detected between the body and the clothing?

Like the boundary between the body and sofa, there can be a sensation of clothing on the body but it is a diffuse sensation, like a slight electrical field.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair (sofa)?

I tried to not have a mental (visual) representation of the body, which helped me to perceive the diffuse nature of the sensations of contact. There is no boundary, more like a zone of sensation, if I assume there is a body. If I assume there is no body, then the sensations were free-floating energies that were not related to the other sensations.

Is there an inside or an outside?

No, there are only sensations.

If there is an inside - an inside of what exactly?

There is not an inside, just a set of sensations.

If there is an outside - an outside of what exactly?

There is not in outside, just a set of sensations.

What does the word/label ‘body’ actually refer to?

The word/label ‘body’ refers to the mental map that is superimposed on the sensations perceived.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body, without referring to conventional materialistic concept of the body?

The actual experience of the body is that of many independent sensations.

[Noro]

Another great exploration!

DEEPER BODY INVESTIGATION
Here is an even deeper investigation of the body. Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time, do this investigation when you are feeling relaxed and grounded. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen.

Repeat the exercise several times.

Stand in front of a bigger mirror.

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

(2) Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror? Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or only thoughts suggest it?

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.
Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’? Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all? Or are there only colours and shapes?

(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.
Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly down to any body parts).
Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

(8) Start to walk slowly forward.
Is there a ‘body' walking, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all, Or just thoughts interpreting sensations as ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just thoughts about a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

(9) Still moving slowly forward, are the sensations localized in an actual space, like a sense of ‘moving through the room’; OR is there only seeing; thoughts content describing the seeing i.e. "moving through the room" and sensations appearing without any particular location?

(10) Let me know how this experience landed with you.

Warm regards,
Rowena

[Wisiwig]

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

Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror? Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?
There are two distinct sets of sensory input. The visual input says there is a body there. The sensations are in the vicinity of the body, but don’t have a clear relationship. It reminds me of filter apps that superimpose features like hats or clown faces, onto existing photographs of people.

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

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?
There seems to be a weak connection felt because the movement aligns with the hand, almost because I think there should be a connection?

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

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or only thoughts suggest it?
Looking directly at the hand gave me more of an impression (thought) that ‘this is my hand’ and there seemed to be more identification with the perception of the hand.

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

Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’? Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all? Or are there only colours and shapes?
The image in the mirror consists of colors and shapes, there is no body in or on the mirror.

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

Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?
There are only thoughts that suggest there is continuation of the body outside of the mirror.

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

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

(8) Start to walk slowly forward.
Is there a ‘body' walking, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all, Or just thoughts interpreting sensations as ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just thoughts about a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

There are only sensations when walking, as if I am sitting in a surround sound theater and the haptic chair is vibrating in specific locations while I watch the scenery pass on the movie screen. I did this while walking today when I went out for lunch. I tried not to look down to see my feet, which amplified the sensation of floating down the sidewalk. It seems that there may be no body, but just sensations and thoughts about a body, with a fancy visual app which with the right conditions superimposes the image of a body. If I assume the now is the only constant, it is the sensory input within the now that fluctuates and gives the impression of walking.

(9) Still moving slowly forward, are the sensations localized in an actual space, like a sense of ‘moving through the room’; OR is there only seeing; thoughts content describing the seeing i.e. "moving through the room" and sensations appearing without any particular location?

For several months I have been experimenting with walking in my hallway (a safe location) with my eyes closed, while paying attention to sensations. The floor loses it’s hardness, it becomes softer. The leg movements become a floating sensation. With my eyes barely open I feel like I am floating forward. With my eyes fully closed and mind fully on sensation, I feel like my legs are moving but I am not going anywhere.

(10) Let me know how this experience landed with you.

This is a good exercise. As I mentioned I have been playing with similar exercises. Another exercise that I found interesting is using a mirror mounted on a door, I straddle the door. I shift close so both of my eyes see the mirror side of the door. When I raise only the right arm, it looks like the body is raising both arms. The trick is to sit in this position while raising both arms up/down 10 times, then on the 11th time, only raise the right arm. What happens is that the image in the mirror is raising both arms, and there is a sensation of the left arm being raised, even though the physical arm was not raised. The visual perception of the left arm raising prompts the sensation of the left arm raising. A bit of a glitch in the matrix.