A hard case?

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Seeing the moon = simply colors (seeing)

I noticed that a lot of your answers sound like logical conclusions (not looking)

Maybe I am doing this wrong, but what I always do is to look at direct experience and try to draw conclusions from it.

If I simply look at DE, usually, for some time, there is just silence. Should I just stay with this silence?

I’m impressed with your patience. Thank you, Rali.

Maybe some expectation is still in the way of “getting” this. I’ve already understood and can confirm in reality that subject/object division is just a feature of language, not of reality. In reality, there is just this. But I’m kind of waiting for a deeper realization, like the one I had many years ago, for some seconds, that was not dependent on logical conclusions.

How exactly are you talking to yourself ;)?

Haha, there is talking happening.

Is there anything that makes “sense” in THIS, without the story?

Without story this just is. “Sense” just happens in thoughts.

Do you see a listener? Is it needed then if all is happening without one?

I answered “probably not”, because, although in DE it is clear that there is no listener, I have doubts if we can extrapolate this to reality as a whole. Who knows what is happening “outside” of DE, right? (Here I assume that there are things happening outside of DE, but this is probably the case, right?)

Is reality knowable at all? It is “experienceable” but is it knowable? Or knowledge is just another story built of approximations/symbols?

I used the wrong word here. What I meant was “experienceable”.

Can a sensation be not sure?

Indeed. A sensation just is.

I will continue tomorrow.

Best,
Nelson

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Hearing the rain outside = simply sounds (hearing)

Are there even discrete “states” or just pulsating never ending feeling?

There are no “nouns” in reality. No fixed, limited, independent, things.

So, no states, just a pulsating never ending feeling.

Do you see any borders that show that one state is finished and the next one starts?

No.

Are there really “patterns”/shapes?

There is THIS. Patterns and shapes are thoughts. Generalizations created by the mind.

Are they always the same?

No.

Do you see a border of where the sounds is and where the colour is in experience?

No.

Are they happening in space?

They are happening in mind/experience. Although mind/experience are just another labels to THIS. And there is no “they”, because it implies division.

How can you differentiate between the two without the labels “colour” and “sound”?

I can’t.

And if there is just flux of hearing_seeing where is the border between seeing and hearing?

There is no border.

Are they dependent on eyes and ears?

Only mind creates this division.

Or is it all just one inseparable “experience”?

It is all just one inseparable “experience”.

Do you see that?

To be honest, no. I can only imagine that it is the case.

Can what a thought says ever be true?

Thoughts are “mental” sounds and images, how can they be true? They have no intrinsic truth value. They can only exist/happen. What implies that they are true are another thoughts.

Also, to say that something is true or false, apparently, is a bunch of conventions, based on an intrinsically flawed language.

If thought is just an approximation, a symbol, would the story/theories ever be true?

No.

So why bother looking for an answer in thoughts?

Although they are never exactly true, they can be helpful, right? With their help we can put rockets in space.

But I’m thinking here, helpful to whom? This only makes sense if there is an “I”, but we can’t find one.

I will continue tomorrow.

Best,
Nelson

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Feeling the chair = simply sensations (feeling)

What theories are you referring to?

Theories about what is not immediately available in experience. But ignore it. I’m tired of theories.

Aren’t we just looking here?

Yes.

Is the absence of an “I” a theory or an observation???

An observation.

We are not looking just to see that there is no “I”, we are looking at how “things” actually are.

Yes.

So what makes then the experiencer necessary?

In reality, there is nothing making an experiencer necessary. What makes it appear to be necessary is language.

Is there even experience happening without the labels (nothing to be experienced and no one to experience it) or just inseparable seeing_hearing_smelling_tasting_feeling_thinking or just THIS?

Yes, just THIS. No experiencer, doer or divisions.

Without these where, when and why can the I possible exist?

It can’t.

“I” just points to here_now, nothing else. Can you see that?

In a deeper sense, yes.

Do you see any proof for the existence of an “I”?

No.

If all that is available are the senses (nothing outside or inside them) can the “I” be anything else but an illusion, an abstraction, an assumption, a fairy tale, just language?

Yes, it is an assumption, created by language.

Best,
Nelson

[poppyseed]

Hi Nelson
I'm away on a holiday. I thought I could do it but the internet is quite spotty. I'll be back on Saturday and we can continue. I apologise for the delay!
Love
Rali

[poppyseed]

Hi Nelson

Thank you for your patience!

If I simply look at DE, usually, for some time, there is just silence. Should I just stay with this silence?

Nothing wrong with that ;)

Maybe some expectation is still in the way of “getting” this. I’ve already understood and can confirm in reality that subject/object division is just a feature of language, not of reality. In reality, there is just this. But I’m kind of waiting for a deeper realization, like the one I had many years ago, for some seconds, that was not dependent on logical conclusions.

Like I said, this is not about states (deep realisations).Can you realise THIS? What is that which has the realisations? Thoughts? Can thoughts think or they just appear? And are they appearing to someone??
Reality is simple. If you expect some big bells and trumpets announcing that you have arrived, some major changes and improvements in your life, you are still in the ego’s trap.

I answered “probably not”, because, although in DE it is clear that there is no listener, I have doubts if we can extrapolate this to reality as a whole. Who knows what is happening “outside” of DE, right? (Here I assume that there are things happening outside of DE, but this is probably the case, right?)

The last sentence (...) is the only one that has some value. The rest are fairy tales :))
Are these your doubts? Did you come up with them? How exactly? Did you go somewhere to retrieve these doubts? Where exactly is “outside” and where is “inside”? Do you see a border where things cross to come from “outside” “inside”? "What if" is just an invitation to stay in the "head".

Thoughts are “mental” sounds and images, how can they be true? They have no intrinsic truth value. They can only exist/happen. What implies that they are true are another thoughts.

Also, to say that something is true or false, apparently, is a bunch of conventions, based on an intrinsically flawed language.

Exactly!!

So why bother looking for an answer in thoughts?

Although they are never exactly true, they can be helpful, right? With their help we can put rockets in space.

But I’m thinking here, helpful to whom? This only makes sense if there is an “I”, but we can’t find one.

Are thoughts instructing the rest of the experience how to appear? Are there really “rockets” in DE? You just can’t mix the DE with a story. DE is one thing and the story something else; the story is the meaning that is assigned to what is happening. Do you see that?
Love
Rali

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Hearing the rain = simply sounds (hearing)

Thank you for your patience!

Don't worry. Thank you so much for continuing!

Can you realise THIS?

What THIS is can become clearer or cloudier depending on thoughts/identification, right?

At least, this clear seeing occurred in the experience I mentioned.

What is that which has the realisations?

I can’t find anything in DE that can have a realization. Sounds, colors, sensations, thoughts, none of it can have a realization.

Thoughts?

Thoughts can’t have a realization.

Can thoughts think or they just appear?

Just appear.

And are they appearing to someone?

I can’t find an experiencer in DE.

I will continue tomorrow.

Best,
Nelson

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Seeing the table = simply colors (seeing)

Are these your doubts?

They are just thoughts happening.

Did you come up with them? How exactly?

I can’t find an author of them. They just happen.

Did you go somewhere to retrieve these doubts?

No.

Where exactly is “outside” and where is “inside”?

"Inside of DE" is a label to what is happening/existing here. "Outside of DE" is a label to an imagined outside.

Do you see a border where things cross to come from “outside” “inside”?

No.

"What if" is just an invitation to stay in the "head".

Indeed.

Are thoughts instructing the rest of the experience how to appear?

Good point. No.

Are there really “rockets” in DE?

Just colors, sounds, etc. “Rocket” is a mental object.

DE is one thing and the story something else; the story is the meaning that is assigned to what is happening. Do you see that?

Yes, I do.

Best,
Nelson

[poppyseed]

Hi Nelson

Can you realise THIS?

What THIS is can become clearer or cloudier depending on thoughts/identification, right?

Are thoughts not part of THIS? Ultimately, whatever “clarity” you have ABOUT this will be “unclarity”, as no view about reality is true. But look again, are you the reader of thoughts? Whose view are they obscuring? What is it? What is it that is currently identified with thoughts? What is it that is standing apart from thought and has the ability to disregard them?
What do thoughts happen to? Is there someone outside of thoughts, being identified with them? Where is the mysterious, unknown, outside entity?
Love
Rali

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Hearing cars passing by = simply sounds (hearing)

Are thoughts not part of THIS?

Thoughts are part of THIS.

Ultimately, whatever “clarity” you have ABOUT this will be “unclarity”, as no view about reality is true.

Indeed.

But look again, are you the reader of thoughts?

Can’t find a reader of thoughts.

Whose view are they obscuring?

No one's. Rather, it is more like the truth can be more or less self-evident.

What is it? What is it that is currently identified with thoughts?

Nothing.

What do thoughts happen to?

They just happen.

Is there someone outside of thoughts, being identified with them?

No.

Where is the mysterious, unknown, outside entity?

It is just imagined.

Best,
Nelson

[poppyseed]

Hi Nelson

But look again, are you the reader of thoughts?

Can’t find a reader of thoughts.

Does that mean that there is one that cannot be seen/found, an invisible one? LOOK harder then! If all the evidence points to no entities, just because thoughts “insist” on one, does it make it true?
You say “I can’t find a reader of thoughts”. Your answer is supposed to mean “no” but the way it is expressed implies a “reader”/ a “noticer", and also a bit of doubt. What is this entity that cannot find a “reader” but still doubts it?
Love
Rali

[poppyseed]

Hey Nelson
How is the inquiry going? I've been quite concise with the questions?
Love
Rali

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Hearing a music on my computer = simply sounds (hearing)

How is the inquiry going? I've been quite concise with the questions?

Yes, and you were very spot on.

This thing is simple. We usually believe that what is here is “I/Nelson” living this experience, but looking closer there is just the experience itself. There is nothing seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting or thinking.

What I’ve also been trying in the last 2 days was to just stay with this looking, and stop trying to analyse it so much.

Experience got a little “expanded” since then.

If all the evidence points to no entities, just because thoughts “insist” on one, does it make it true?

Certainly not.

Your answer is supposed to mean “no” but the way it is expressed implies a “reader”/ a “noticer", and also a bit of doubt. What is this entity that cannot find a “reader” but still doubts it?

Spot on. There is a mix of a story and assumptions, but it is like the mind don’t want to go there. This feels like staring at a wall.

I will explore this a little more.

I just want you to know how this work that we’ve been doing changed things around here. I was complete lost, confused and negative when we started this inquiry, and nowadays everything feels more like a flow. Thank you so much, Rali.

Best,
Nelson

[poppyseed]

Hi Nelson

Spot on. There is a mix of a story and assumptions, but it is like the mind don’t want to go there. This feels like staring at a wall.

Ok, there is a resistance. LOOK in DE! What is there – there are seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling, tasting and thinking. Whatever is not in the first 5 is thinking content.
Check, how is this “resistance” appearing? There are sensations and thoughts, right? “Isolate” just the sensations. Inquire into the sensation and ask if the sensation itself knows anything about ‘resistance’. Is the sensation “resisting”? Can you find anyone/anything IN the sensation itself, or BEHIND the sensation that is resisting? Now look at the thought that comes with it. Can you find anyone/anything in the WORD ‘resistance’ that is resisting? Is the thought resisting or just talks about resisting? Are there any hooks or ties between the sensation and the thought?
Once you are at just raw sensation without the thoughts, allow the sensation all the space it needs without pushing it aside or judging it. Sensations come and then go. But, while you are “there” look at what this thought (i.e. mind) is trying to protect. Is there anything that needs protecting?
It’s important to not just answer these questions, but to do the exercise and stay with the sensations as long as they are there. So ask the question – Was there ever a witness, a doer, an “I”, Nelson, a self, a doer, a seer? Is there one now? Observe the actual mechanism of “resistance” and “emotions” in general, and let the experience “come” and “go” without trying to suppress it or change it. Feeling all emotions is the freedom to live life fully; to experience whatever presents itself, without thinking that it should be different. The rich fullness includes all.

I just want you to know how this work that we’ve been doing changed things around here. I was complete lost, confused and negative when we started this inquiry, and nowadays everything feels more like a flow. Thank you so much, Rali.

Awesome! Really happy!
Love
Rali

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Feeling my back on the chair = simply sensations (feeling)

LOOK in DE! What is there – there are seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling, tasting and thinking. Whatever is not in the first 5 is thinking content.

Yes.

Check, how is this “resistance” appearing? There are sensations and thoughts, right?

Yes.

Inquire into the sensation and ask if the sensation itself knows anything about ‘resistance’. Is the sensation “resisting”?

No.

Can you find anyone/anything IN the sensation itself, or BEHIND the sensation that is resisting?

No.

Can you find anyone/anything in the WORD ‘resistance’ that is resisting?

Indeed, no.

Is the thought resisting or just talks about resisting?

Just talks about resisting.

Are there any hooks or ties between the sensation and the thought?

No.

I know we already touched all this topic, but it felt different this time.

I will take some more time with the other pointers, like “Is there anything that needs protecting?”.

Best,
Nelson

[poppyseed]

Hi Nelson

I will take some more time with the other pointers, like “Is there anything that needs protecting?”.

Good. Sit with that question deeply:
"Is there anything that needs protecting?"
Not as an idea, but as a direct experience—what arises when you look?
Is there something truly at risk, something that could be lost?
Or is the sense of needing protection just another passing movement, appearing within THIS/what was never in danger?

Love
Rali