Liberation Unleashed Forum The Gate
https://liberationunleashed.com:443/nation/
https://liberationunleashed.com:443/nation/viewtopic.php?t=10133
I experience the color red. I don't experience the color green at all, only the word, which seems to lose its meaning.When you look at the word label GREEN, what is the actual experience?
Is the color red experienced, or is the color green experienced as the label suggests?
I'm not sure what you mean by "one-to-one correspondence with reality." The red label seems to negate the meaning of the word "green," so perhaps the label doesn't have a one-to-one correspondence with reality.Does the label GREEN have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?
Or does the label suggest something else other than what is here now (red colour)?
Green is just a label that overlays the actual experience of red.Is 'green' associated in any way with the experience of the colour red?
Or is green just a label that overlays the actual experience of red?
I think that the redness is not affected.If the label GREEN is replaced with the label GOOD or BAD , is the 'redness' affected in any way as the labels suggests?
The redness does not become good or bad, so the labels don't have an actual effect on reality.Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’?
Do the labels have an actual effect on ‘reality’?
The label GREEN in red font turns the word green into simply a collection of sounds without meaning.Let me know what is actually SEEN?
Yes, I get that.Are you clear that there is nothing green there to experience?
Yes.All we are doing is noticing that the words are not the things themselves - never have been and never will be.
Are you clear about that?
No.1) In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'?
I want to say yes, I am doing the hearing, but I realize that there is only what is being heard.2) Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only 'what is heard'?
I can identify these things, but when I focus on the hearing, all I can find is what can be heard.3) An 'I'? a 'body'? a 'person'? a brain? a pair of ears? Can these be found doing the hearing? Or is there just what can be heard'?
There is only what’s heard.4) Can a boundary be found between the hearer and what's heard or is there only what's heard?
Again, I want to say yes, but if I focus on it, no, it’s an illusion.4b) Is there location or distance of what is heard?
Hearing is nonjudgmental and open. Listening implies an effort at understanding.5) What is the difference in the experience between listening and hearing?
I can see that you clearly 'see' (for want of a better word) that there is only what is being heard.I want to say yes, I am doing the hearing, but I realize that there is only what is being heard.
Well, part of the difficulty of this exercise is talking about it without referring to an "I." If there is an inkling, it feels like the "I" is in my head, but pointing to it can't happen because it can't be identified.If there was any inkling of an "I" doing the hearing, where might that "I" be found?
It can't be found.The same goes for when thoughts arose "I can identify......." etc. Where is that "I" that can identify located.
Is it hiding somewhere in the body?
Please take a look and let me know if you can find a separate "I" somewhere.
It's simply present. It can't be located.SIMPLY HEARING
Put on some music. Use earphones if you have them.
Allow yourself to become absorbed in the sounds.
See if you can feel the body resonating with the sounds.
Ask the following questions:
Where does it feel that the sound is?
Here. Present, but unlocatable.Where does it feel that "I" am?
It's formless and can't be pinpointed.Now ask "What is hearing?" and "Where is it located?"
No! They seem to be the same.Is there something called a hearer to be found separate from what is heard?
It deepens.What happens to the quality of hearing when you ask this question?
Attention seems to occupy the same space as the music. Is that hearing or the thought space? Or something different?Does attention shift from hearing to the thought space?
No.Notice any sensations that arise in the body with this question.
Be fully with the sensations in the body, let go of any thoughts
Allow yourself once again to become absorbed in the sounds.
Can an INHERENT HEARER be found?
No. There is simply hearing.Could anything that is suggested as a hearer, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
You are not the first to say that Glen, I think it is the format of reading questions and answering them as an exercise and an old pattern of conditioning that wants us to find the 'correct' answer. If you can leave all that aside, each 'exercise' is really a meditation on direct experience and looking to find something separate that is apart from the experience. Also, I acknowledge that some of the questions are a bit misleading and seem to require a more personal, conceptual response and if I am not sure about that I will just inquire again to make sure. As per your comment below:Putting down this exercise for the moment, I feel it's important to tell you that I have a strong desire to answer your questions "correctly" and get a good grade, or a gold star. And, I feel that I am answering your questions truthfully and honestly. I want you to be aware of this tendency that I have.
So your response is clear, no actual "I" can be identified. :)Well, part of the difficulty of this exercise is talking about it without referring to an "I." If there is an inkling, it feels like the "I" is in my head, but pointing to it can't happen because it can't be identified.
No.Now, can you physically grasp or touch that image of a cup?
No.Can you pour tea into it?
No, of course not.Can you drink from it?
The image is "real", but the cup is not, at least not in the same way.Is there a "real' cup or just an image of a cup?
Yes.Is there an appearing mental image?
What's the difference between the content of the mental image and the image itself? If the image is real, then the content is also real in the same way. Am I muddying the waters here? The simple answer to your question is no.Is the content of the mental image (the cup) 'real'?
Yes, this makes sense.The thoughts and mental images are 'real' only as arising thoughts and mental images, the experience of them as thinking cannot be denied. However the contents of thought, what the thoughts are about, are not 'real', they are interpretations overlaid onto the direct experience.
Can you see this?
No.Is either of the above two imaginings more 'real' than the other?
There is a body response to the chocolate, in my mouth and in my belly.Was there any body response to one or both of the two imaginings?
I don't know. They seem to appear from nowhere and disappear to nowhere.Where are thoughts coming from and going to?
No.Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?
Not that I'm aware of. No.Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?
No.Can you predict your next thought?
No.Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?
No.Can you choose not to have painful, negative, or fearful thoughts?
This is a tricky one. At some level we can influence our thoughts, no? Otherwise we wouldn't be able to learn anything, remember anything, or grow. No, I can't pick and choose my thoughts, or prevent thoughts from arising, but I can try to use my thoughts for the greater good.Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?
No.Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?
No. But can't I assume agency as the result of a thought? Otherwise I would never do anything. Everything we do requires thought at some level, doesn't it?What can a thought do i.e. does it have agency?
No.Can a thought think another thought?
No.Can you find an "I" without a thought that says "I"?
You talk about influencing our thoughts otherwise we wouldn't be able to learn anything etc. Well, think about that, in the above scenario, something must have been experienced that had an impact on the 'system' that caused a shift in perspective.This is a tricky one. At some level we can influence our thoughts, no? Otherwise we wouldn't be able to learn anything, remember anything, or grow. No, I can't pick and choose my thoughts, or prevent thoughts from arising, but I can try to use my thoughts for the greater good.
This is a great answer to look closely at. Can you see that you answered the question perfectly with the first word "No"!No. But can't I assume agency as the result of a thought? Otherwise I would never do anything. Everything we do requires thought at some level, doesn't it?
Please look for a separate "I" that could assume agency:But can't I assume agency as the result of a thought? Otherwise I would never do anything.
Can a a separate independent "I" or Do-er be found anywhere other than a thought?If no "I" can be found, then isn't assuming agency as a result of a thought a moot point?
In answer to that question here is a meditation where you can look and see if thoughts are required:Everything we do requires thought at some level, doesn't it?
No, and I can't find one.You talk about influencing our thoughts otherwise we wouldn't be able to learn anything etc. Well, think about that, in the above scenario, something must have been experienced that had an impact on the 'system' that caused a shift in perspective.
From that shift in perspective, comes a shift in attitude from what was perhaps viewed as carelessness in retrospect into a more 'positive' attitude (for the greater good.)
Is there an independent 'you' that needs to be present in all this?
No.Is there a 'you' who could pick and choose any kind of thought?
Yes, that's helpful.When you are hungry, thoughts of eating appear.
When you have work to do, thoughts about work appear.
All thoughts simply appear, but the content is mostly not 'out of the blue' as it were, for the mind is always processing, making associations, assumptions, and interpretations about what it comes into contact with.
Does this make it clear?
Yes, I can sense the resistance in my chest and face.The first thing I would look at here is to find the 'motor' behind these thoughts. The thoughts are an expression of some inner resistance to the idea that there is no independent "I" or self that has agency.
And when there is resistance, there are always sensations in the body.
If it is still 'alive' please do a quiet little investigation with this and let me know what you find.
No to both questions.Can you find an "I" without a thought that says "I"? (You've already answered that one in the exercise).
Can you find an "I" located at some precise point in the body?
No.Can a a separate independent "I" or Do-er be found anywhere other than a thought?
No, not that I can tell.Do this as many times as you like, and EACH TIME inquire: How is the movement controlled?
- Does a thought control it?
Strangely, no.- Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?
I don't know.- How is the decision made to turn the hand over?
I don't remember that anything or anyone made the decision.Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.
- Who or what chose which hand - the left or right hand for the exercise?
No.Can you find a separate individual "I" or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?
I don't know. Recently I've been listening to a lot of Alan Watts's talks, and he often talks about a similar exercise - opening and closing the hand. He asks if you can describe how you do it. Of course the answer is no, but yet you know how to do it, because you do it. He also talks about making decisions, and says that we don't "do" it; it simply happens. If you had to decide to do things, you would have to decide to decide, and decide to decide to decide, an on and on ad infinitum. So, the answer to your question is no, as hard as that is to grasp.Can a thought initiate anything or is that just another thought story, an overlay to what is actually happening?
That's right, "you know how to do it, because you do it." Does that 'you' mentioned refer to anything in particular or just a way of languaging to say that somehow it is known? Is there a 'you' that can be found, or experienced separately from what is happening in direct experience?I don't know. Recently I've been listening to a lot of Alan Watts's talks, and he often talks about a similar exercise - opening and closing the hand. He asks if you can describe how you do it. Of course the answer is no, but yet you know how to do it, because you do it. He also talks about making decisions, and says that we don't "do" it; it simply happens. If you had to decide to do things, you would have to decide to decide, and decide to decide to decide, an on and on ad infinitum. So, the answer to your question is no, as hard as that is to grasp.
Yes, I can sense the resistance in my chest and face.