Seeker

[Nitimak]

Sounds good!

Will observe and report back.

Thanks much

[Nitimak]

Good morning,

Just wanted to let u know I am on it.

Will report back once I have gone through the below experiments few times during the day.

Much gratitude,

[graceabounds]

<3

[Nitimak]

Hello Becca,

"Then, stop watching the objects as labelled objects. Just look at the seeing itself. Observe the pure process of seeing. This is direct experience"-

I tried this few times during the day, initially it was getting difficult to observe without cables, but afterwards I could watch it without labels. At that time, objects were getting blurry and distinction was getting lesser. What was seen was primarily shapes, colors.

"for example, when having breakfast, become aware of:
Seeing a cup, simply= image/colour
Smelling coffee, simply = smell
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought"

Having dinner-
Smelling soup, smell
Seeing soup bowl, image/ color
Tasting soup, taste
Picking up bread, touch/ sensation
Hearing chewing of bread, sound

Washing dishes
Hearing water pouring, sound
Hearing dishes touching each other, sound
Picking up dishes, touch/ sensation
Picking up sponge and applying soap, touch/ sensation
Smelling soap fragrance, smell

I tried to do this excercise while brushing teeth, driving car, watering plants

Many thanks

[graceabounds]

Very good.

Have a look at an apple. If you have a ‘real’ apple handy, you can use it for this exercise, otherwise google for a photo of one.

When looking at an apple, there's color; a thought saying ‘apple’; and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."

What is known for sure? Color is known and thoughts are known.

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?
Direct experience does not refer to thoughts ABOUT something…because that is only just more thought. Actual or direct experience is sound, thought, color, smell, taste, sensation.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only color and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?
Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?
While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in actual experience. This is what is meant by ‘looking in direct experience ‘. What you know for sure, and, is always here.

Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour 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?

Wherever you are sitting right now, look for an object to use. Don’t pick up the object or turn it around, only look at what can be seen without touching it or turning it.
Have one?
Now look at it and describe what you see. Give yourself a bit of time with it. Just look, nothing else.
Done?

Now describe the back side of the object.
How is it known what the back side looks like?
What tells what it looks like?
How can it be known that there is a back at all? That the object is 3D?
Can this be known in direct experience?
Can an object be known at all?

Oh and here’s a quick tutorial on using the quote function on this forum, it is helpful when there are a lot of questions to answer:

https://youtu.be/QCbZYSvnTpc?si=aO3SkOfWS_N0z4Ar

In gratitude,
Becca

[Nitimak]

Thank you Becca,
I will report back on below asap. Its been a bit of busy day.

Need one clarification,

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?
Direct experience does not refer to thoughts ABOUT something…because that is only just more thought.

Can u explain bit more about thought being direct experience but the content of thought not? I couldn't understand the difference.

Thank you

[graceabounds]

Sure!

A thought appears: Maybe the sentence, “I need to go to the store.”
The hearing of that thought, the “voice in the head,” is direct experience.
But the content (the story about “the store,” the future, you as a person who must go, the idea of a body walking into a shop) all of that is imagination, not present. It’s just more thought.

The arising of thought is immediate, actual, undeniable.
What the thought is “about” (the mental picture, the story, the idea) is always one step removed, always a map, a concept, never the territory.

[Nitimak]

Understood! Thanks so much 🙏
Will report back on below excercise tomorrow.

Much gratitude.

[Nitimak]

Good morning Becca,

Now describe the back side of the object.
How is it known what the back side looks like?
What tells what it looks like?
How can it be known that there is a back at all? That the object is 3D?
Can this be known in direct experience?
Can an object be known at all?

I looked at the mouse of my computer-
In direct experience, I dont know the back side as its not known either thru taste, touch, smell, sound or shape/color. However, I get a thought "imagining the back side " which is not direct experience.

A thought is the one which tells what it looks like i.e. labeling it ( direct experience only providing raw experience of touch, taste, smell, sound, color)

It cant be known in direct experience that there is back at all without moving it. Only thought or imagining tells there is a back.

An object cant be known. Its clear that mind is combining all the direct experience and labeling it as an object. This is very profound. Thanks so much for this excercise 🙏

Much gratitude

[Nitimak]

I also did the experiment with Apple as you suggested and thanks so much for clarification on thought and content of thought.

Thanks a ton.

[graceabounds]

Great, so in the same way…
What are you actually experiencing this moment, as you read?

Its clear that mind is combining all the direct experience and labeling it as an object.

Is there an object? Is there a self?

Going back:

This "feels like" is not in one place and seems it moves. Its hard to point to it as it comes as a feeling

The sense of self that is not locatable… where is the boundary? Where is the backside?

What is here that is not a thought, not a label, not a story?

[Nitimak]

Is there an object? Is there a self?

With this logic, guess no object and no self

The sense of self that is not locatable… where is the boundary? Where is the backside?

No boundary as it can move anywhere like energy. No backside either.

What is here that is not a thought, not a label, not a story?

Just the experience of taste, touch, sound, smell and sight? And its not an object.

[graceabounds]

Haha, without guesses or using logic…

Drop out of the head and look.

Right now. No story, no explanation—
Is there anything here that you can call “object”?

What’s actually happening?
If you drop the names, the categories, the list of senses, the divisions—
What is here, directly?

Even before you say “just the experience,” look:
Is there even a someone having the experience?
Is there a location for experience?
Is there a border, a center, a “me”?

Or is there only… THIS?
No boundary, no label, not even “senses”
just immediacy, just what is,
before it’s chopped up and explained.

[Nitimak]

My quick responses are below but need to ponder bit more and understand implications of whats being said here-

Right now. No story, no explanation—
Is there anything here that you can call “object”?

No

What’s actually happening?
If you drop the names, the categories, the list of senses, the divisions—
What is here, directly?

Its hard to say whats happening if I drop names, categories, senses and divisions. Does it mean nothing is happening?

Just the "sense of being" is here directly.

Even before you say “just the experience,” look:
Is there even a someone having the experience?
Is there a location for experience?
Is there a border, a center, a “me”?

Answer is no for all

is there only… THIS?
No boundary, no label, not even “senses”
just immediacy, just what is,
before it’s chopped up and explained.

I cant say whats there if there is no boundary, label or senses. Not sure if I understand what is "what is". All I can say is its the "sense of being" - is that what u mean by what is?

Much thanks

[graceabounds]

Just the "sense of being" is here directly.

Is there any need to get TO this?

Was effort required?

What is absent?

The following exercise is designed to let you ‘feel’ the difference between actual experience and imagined experience.

Close your eyes and imagine that you are holding a spoon. Imagine the spoons form, its size, its weight, its temperature. Look and feel at the imaginary spoon for a while.

Then open your eyes … is there a spoon here, in real life?
So how did you see that there is no spoon?
What happened to the spoon?
Did it disappear or did it never exist?

Notice that there was no boom and no bright flashes of light when the imaginary spoon was no longer imagined. Remember this, the shift to seeing through the illusion of a separate self is not going to be any more than this, it is just a dropping of a belief – the belief is the glue that holds the illusion together.

Now go and get a spoon from the kitchen and hold it in the same way that you imagined it.
Feel the spoon’s form, its size, its weight, its temperature.
Close your eyes and feel the spoon for a while.

Now open your eyes … is there a spoon here, in real life?
Are the image of the spoon and the experience of the spoon the same?
How does imagining and experiencing the same thing differ?

Now close your eyes again and bring your attention to the image of “me”, the separate individual entity. Spend some time exploring this, and then answer the following question:
Is it an image or is it an actual entity?

The questions are really just there for you to consider as you do the exercise, I do not need detailed answers to each one, just some reflections on how the exercise went for you, or if you have any questions or need any clarification.