The Gate

Hi Lilla
Excellent. This is very honest looking.

Thought kept coming up: ‘me, me, me’.

Good. Now notice: the thought says “me,” but does the thought produce a me? Does the word “me” point to an actual owner, or is it just a mental sound/thought appearing?
Say the word “me” silently, several times. “Me. Me. Me.” Now look.
Is an owner found? Or is there only a thought claiming ownership?
The thought “me” appears — but does it point to anything actual?

I felt uneasy as I couldn’t clearly say, there is no owner.

Good. Don’t try to say “there is no owner.” That would just be another conclusion. Stay with the not-knowing. Not-knowing is much more honest than adopting a spiritual answer.
In actual experience, when the question of owner is checked, there is sensation, thought, uneasiness, widening, silence. But no owner is found. That is enough.
Now this part is important:

Then there is a feeling of being a little kid, a sense of feeling small and worried.

Good. That is not a problem. That is selfing showing itself as contraction/fear – as protection of old ways. How we deal with fear – we separate the story from the sensation. Do not analyse the child-story. Do not ask why it is there. Close the eyes and feel “small and worried” only as sensation.
Does the sensation says “small” in any way? Or “worried”? Is there an actual little kid there?
Or sensation plus images plus thoughts?
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 the thought is trying to protect. Is there anything that needs protecting?

Where is the irritation?

In the belly, hands and feet

Good. “Belly, hands, and feet” is useful language, but now let’s look more closely.
With eyes closed, is a belly actually found? Are hands actually found? Are feet actually found? Or are there sensations, with thought mapping them as “belly,” “hands,” and “feet”? Does the sensation actually have a location, or the location is a label?
When you say “in the belly,” what is actually known – pressure, tightness, warmth, contraction?
And without the mental body-map, can it be known that this sensation is “in” anything?
Look carefully.
Does sensation itself say “I am in the belly”? Or does thought add the location?
So from now on, it’s fine to use ordinary language, but in the investigation, translate it back into actual experience:
“Belly” = sensation + body-map thought.
“Hands” = sensation + body-map thought.
“Feet” = sensation + body-map thought.
Now check again:
Is irritation located in a body?
Or is there sensation, and thought says “this is in the body”?
Love
Rali

Hi Rali :)

but does the thought produce a me? Does the word “me” point to an actual owner, or is it just a mental sound/thought appearing?Say the word “me” silently, several times. “Me. Me. Me.” Now look.Is an owner found? Or is there only a thought claiming ownership?The thought “me” appears — but does it point to anything actual?

It's just thought, claiming ownership. It doesn't point to anything actual. Yet, when the thought "me" appears there is also a felt sense of something personal. This felt sense is also just a sensation. A sensation that is familiar, that I'm very much used to. Realising that it's only a sensation there seems to be a slight detachment from the thought "me".

Does the sensation says “small” in any way? Or “worried”? Is there an actual little kid there?Or sensation plus images plus thoughts

No, the sensation doesn't speak, it's just sensation plus thoughts. There's no actual kid there, it's the mind interpretation of the sensation.

Is there anything that needs protecting?

When I ask this, sensation plus thought appears. First tight and worried then after a while a sense of relief. But these are just the mind's interpretation of different sensations.

With eyes closed, is a belly actually found? Are hands actually found? Are feet actually found? Or are there sensations, with thought mapping them as “belly,” “hands,” and “feet”? Does the sensation actually have a location, or the location is a label?

No, location is just a label.

When you say “in the belly,” what is actually known – pressure, tightness, warmth, contraction?
And without the mental body-map, can it be known that this sensation is “in” anything?

The DE of the body-map is just sensations. The sensation is not in anything. I cannot place it anywhere, it has no position.

Does sensation itself say “I am in the belly”? Or does thought add the location?

thought adds the location.

Is irritation located in a body?
Or is there sensation, and thought says “this is in the body”?

Wow. It's interesting. When I observe the body-map with eyes closed, and I'm with the sensation only, the sensation is placeless. When the mind comes, it gives a position to the sensation.
Thank you.
Love,
Lilla

Hi Lilla
Beautifully seen. Good. Let’s test this more deeply - not to create a special perception or try holding onto the placeless-ness, but just to check what is actually found.
Here is an even deeper investigation of the body. Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen. Repeat the exercise several times.
Stand in front of a large mirror.
1. Close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled “body.”
Are these sensations actually a body?
Or are they sensations, with thought saying “body”?
2. Open the eyes and look in the mirror while still attending to sensation.
Is there any actual connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror? Or do thought and mental image say, “that image is my body”?
3. While attending to sensation, move one hand and observe the movement in the mirror.
Is there any actual link between the felt sensations labelled “hand” and the image moving in the mirror? Or is the connection supplied by thought?
4. Now do the same movement with the hand, but look at the hand directly, not in the mirror.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or do they simply appear together, with thought saying they are connected?
5. Now look only at the image in the mirror.
Does the image itself say “me”?
Does it say “my body”?
Does it even say “body”?
Or are there only colours and shapes?
6. Notice where the mirror ends and some parts cannot be seen (probably legs).
From the image in the mirror alone, is it known that unseen parts exist? Or do memory, thought, and mental image add that?
7. Turn away from the mirror and look forward. Don’t look directly at any body parts.
Ignoring thought and mental image, is a body found anywhere? Or are there only sensations, seeing, sounds, thoughts?
8. Walk slowly.
Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Can “walking” itself be found?
Or is “walking” a label for changing sensations and images?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an seeing that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?
9. Now stand still.
Without touching, looking, memory, or mental image, can it be known that there is a back of the head?
Is “back of the head” actual experience? Or thought based on memory and learned body-map?
Take your time with this. Repeat it several times if needed. Report only what is directly found — not what is logically known. Especially look for this:
Is the body actual experience? Or is “body” a label for sensations, images, and thoughts?
Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

1. Close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled “body.”Are these sensations actually a body?Or are they sensations, with thought saying “body”?

They're sensations, with thought saying body.

Open the eyes and look in the mirror while still attending to sensation.
Is there any actual connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror? Or do thought and mental image say, “that image is my body”?

When I open my eyes, the felt sensation looses it's strength. It is felt very weakly, even with the effort of keeping my attention on the felt sense. The reflection in the mirror has no connection to the felt sense. My mind makes connection between the two. 

3. While attending to sensation, move one hand and observe the movement in the mirror.
Is there any actual link between the felt sensations labelled “hand” and the image moving in the mirror? Or is the connection supplied by thought?

I can feel the sensation in the arm, and while moving the arm too. The image in the mirror has no connection to the felt sense. The connection is supplied by thought.

4. Now do the same movement with the hand, but look at the hand directly, not in the mirror.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or do they simply appear together, with thought saying they are connected?

My hand moving or staying still are both sensations, essentially the same. Only thought makes a difference.

5. Now look only at the image in the mirror.
Does the image itself say “me”?
Does it say “my body”?
Does it even say “body”?
Or are there only colours and shapes?

Thought says it's me. Not the image itself. After a while, there are only colours and shapes experienced.

6. Notice where the mirror ends and some parts cannot be seen (probably legs).
From the image in the mirror alone, is it known that unseen parts exist? Or do memory, thought, and mental image add that?

From the image in the mirror alone the unseen parts don't exist. Only memory adds that.

7. Turn away from the mirror and look forward. Don’t look directly at any body parts.
Ignoring thought and mental image, is a body found anywhere? Or are there only sensations, seeing, sounds, thoughts?

If the body is not in my sight, it doesn't exist. There are only sensations.

8. Walk slowly.
Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Can “walking” itself be found?
Or is “walking” a label for changing sensations and images?

There are only sensations (I closed my eyes for this exercise for a better focus). Walking is only a label for changing sensations and images.

Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?

Body cannot be found, there are only thoughts about a body.

Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an seeing that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

There is only seeing, and thought saying 'room', and appearing sensations. This one is harder to observe with DE. It's hard to experience sight as seeing, rather than through the mind's interpretation. When I experience sight as merely a sensation it is very freeing.

9. Now stand still.
Without touching, looking, memory, or mental image, can it be known that there is a back of the head?
Is “back of the head” actual experience? Or thought based on memory and learned body-map?

The back of the head cannot be known. It's a thought based memory.

Body is a label for sensations, images and thought. There seems to be a very strong belief in the existence of it.
Thank you.
Love,
Lilla

Hi Lilla,
Beautiful looking. You’ve seen again and again that what is really found are sensations, images, thoughts, but “body” itself is not found. Now let’s look at this:

There seems to be a very strong belief in the existence of it.

Good. Let the belief be there. Don’t try to get rid of it. Now check:
What is this “strong belief” made of in direct experience?
Is it a sensation? A thought? An image? A feeling of familiarity? A tightening? A repeated assumption?
When the belief “there is a body” appears, does it actually produce a body?
Or is there only thought saying “body,” sensation appearing, and maybe an image or memory?
A thought says “my body”, “of course it exists.” But can thought make the body actual in direct experience?
And now look even more closely.
Is there a believer of that belief? When the thought “there is a body” appears, does it appear to someone? Or does it simply appear? Can a believer be found apart from the thought “I believe this”?
Thought says, “I believe this.” Is there an “I” believing, or just another thought claiming the belief?

If the body is not in my sight, it doesn’t exist. There are only sensations.

Careful with the wording. We are not making a claim about whether a physical body exists in the world. We are only checking what is found in direct experience. So the clean version is:
When the body is not seen, only sensations and thoughts are found. The body itself is not found in direct experience.
Stay with that precision. Now look at sight.

It’s hard to experience sight as seeing, rather than through the mind’s interpretation.

Good. Take one simple object: a cup, a door, a hand, anything. Look without trying to make sight special.
Before thought says “cup,” what is there? Colour. Shape. Light. Shadow. Texture.
Does sight itself say “cup”?
Does sight itself say “distance”?
Does sight itself say “object”?
Does sight itself say “my body is over here looking at that over there”?
Or are those added by thought?
Now include the so-called body in the same seeing. Look down at the hands or legs.
Are “hands” found? Or colours, shapes, sensations, and thought saying “hands”?
Is there a viewer behind the seeing?
Or is there just seeing, and thought says “I am seeing”?
Don’t try to stay in a “freeing” perception. That becomes another subtle seeking.
Just check, freshly:
What is actual?
What is added by thought?
Love
Rali

Hi Rali,
so here we go :)

What is this “strong belief” made of in direct experience?
Is it a sensation? A thought? An image? A feeling of familiarity? A tightening? A repeated assumption?
When the belief “there is a body” appears, does it actually produce a body?
Or is there only thought saying “body,” sensation appearing, and maybe an image or memory?

The DE of this sentence is a sensation in the body. It is also a repeated assumption, but that is not a direct experience, is it?When the belief, 'there is a body' appears, the DE is just sensation. It doesn't produce a body. 

But can thought make the body actual in direct experience?

No. Thought generates a DE of sensation, that's all.

Is there a believer of that belief? When the thought “there is a body” appears, does it appear to someone? Or does it simply appear? Can a believer be found apart from the thought “I believe this”?
Thought says, “I believe this.” Is there an “I” believing, or just another thought claiming the belief?

Another thought claims ownership of the believer. When I investigate further, who/ what this believer is, a body-map sensation appears. Thought keeps saying 'me' and sensations change, but the voice and sensation appears more distant and a sense of a void grows. The void doesn't feel uncomfortable. It just doesn't have any qualities. There is no I.

Before thought says “phone,” what is there? Colour. Shape. Light. Shadow. Texture.
Does sight itself say “phone”? Weight, pressure, sensation
Does sight itself say “distance”? Sensation
Does sight itself say “object”? Sensation
Does sight itself say “my body is over here looking at that over there”? 
Or are those added by thought .Those are added by thought.

Are “hands” found? Or colours, shapes, sensations, and thought saying “hands”? Hands aren't found, only colours, shapes, sensations.
Is there a viewer behind the seeing? No
Or is there just seeing, and thought says “I am seeing”? There's just seeing.

Thank you so much!
Love,
Lilla

Hi Lilla
Beautiful. This is very clear looking.

The DE of this sentence is a sensation in the body.

Good catch! But look closely. Is that accurate?
You’ve already seen that “body” is a label for sensations, images, and thoughts. So can a sensation actually be in the body? Or outside?
With eyes closed, is there a body-container holding the sensation? Or is there simply sensation, and thought says “this is in the body”? Does the sensation itself say “inside”? Does it say “body”? Does it say “located here”?
So the cleaner report would be “The direct experience is sensation, with thought labelling it ‘in the body.’” Or even simpler: “The direct experience is sensation.”

When the belief ‘there is a body’ appears, the DE is just sensation. It doesn’t produce a body.

Yes. No actual body is found in direct experience. But look carefully.
Does thought actually generate sensation? Or is there thought appearing, sensation appearing, and then another thought saying, “the thought caused the sensation”?
Can the cause be found in direct experience?
Stay precise.

Thought keeps saying ‘me’ and sensations change, but the voice and sensation appears more distant and a sense of a void grows. The void doesn’t feel uncomfortable. It just doesn’t have any qualities. There is no I.

Good. But don’t hold onto the void. Don’t make “void” into a place to stand.
Is “void” actual?
Or is “void” also a label for an absence of familiar qualities?
Does the void know anything?
Does the void own anything?
Is the void you?
Is the void observing?
Look directly. There may be silence, openness. no obvious personal feeling, ease.
But is there an entity there?
Even “there is no I” can become a thought-position. So don’t use it as an answer. Check freshly.
When thought says “me,” is a me found?
When thought says “no me,” is a no-me found?
Or are both just thoughts?
Experiencing happens through the physical senses + thought. If there is experience, one or more of those are present. If I close my eyes and feel expansive and like there's nothing, that happens through sensations.
Emptiness in the Buddhist sense simply means that something is empty of self-nature. And no-thingness means that things are dependent. Just like a school is a thing that doesn't exist. It is empty of school-essence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYqaWmc ... 4&index=41

If there is an experience of nothingness/emptiness/void, that is often a subtle mental image of nothing with very subtle sensations. True nothingness means absolutely nothing. So if there are no sensations and there is nothingness, that's often a subtle thought that is trying to create something. These subtle sensations could also be called aliveness, being, presence or I AM, but even that is a label, is it not? Is there anything here that is not the senses?
Sensations could be "physical", but there are also sensations when you close your eyes that don't have a location (unless they are mapped onto an image of the body). The way I look at sensations is that they include anything that is sensed, such as touching a cup or a feeling of a void – it is a combination of subtle sensations. But it's good to remember that we can only experience see, hear, feel, taste, smell and thought. Anything not in the first five is thought.
So when you say void, I want to question it, because you may be reifying something that isn't there.

There is just seeing.

Good. Now look again with seeing.
Is there seeing plus a seer? Is there seeing plus an object? Or is “seer” and “object” added by thought?
When the phone is seen, sight does not say “phone,” “distance,” “object,” or “my body over here.” Those are all thought-additions. In the raw seeing, there is colour, shape, light, shadow - ever changing seeing.
And now the central question:
A thought says “I believe”, “I see”, “I feel”, "I inquire", “I understand.”
But can an actual I be found doing any of these?
Do not answer from memory. Look right now.
Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

You’ve already seen that “body” is a label for sensations, images, and thoughts. So can a sensation actually be in the body? Or outside?
With eyes closed, is there a body-container holding the sensation? Or is there simply sensation, and thought says “this is in the body”? Does the sensation itself say “inside”? Does it say “body”? Does it say “located here”?

You're right. I wasn't accurate by saying "sensation in the body". There's only sensation and thought says it's in the body. Sensation itself doesn't define anything. Thought labels sensations.

Yes. No actual body is found in direct experience. But look carefully.
Does thought actually generate sensation? Or is there thought appearing, sensation appearing, and then another thought saying, “the thought caused the sensation”?
Can the cause be found in direct experience?

They all appear without a cause. It is thought that makes a link between sensations.

Good. But don’t hold onto the void. Don’t make “void” into a place to stand.
Is “void” actual?
Or is “void” also a label for an absence of familiar qualities?
Does the void know anything?
Does the void own anything?
Is the void you?
Is the void observing?
Look directly. There may be silence, openness. no obvious personal feeling, ease.
But is there an entity there?

Void is just a label for the absence of familiar qualities. Void knows nothing, and owns nothing. Void isn't me and isn't observing anything. Yet, sensation and thought saying I still seems to be present in the experience for a while, then it dissolves. Looking closely, this sense of I is just thought and sensation, that is very familiar. 

Even “there is no I” can become a thought-position. So don’t use it as an answer. Check freshly.
When thought says “me,” is a me found?
When thought says “no me,” is a no-me found?
Or are both just thoughts?

They're both just thoughts.

Is there anything here that is not the senses?

IN DE there is only sensations and they are always present. 

Is there seeing plus a seer? Is there seeing plus an object? Or is “seer” and “object” added by thought?

In DE there are only sensations. The sense of there being a seer and an object is not true. Thought makes a division in experience, but I don't quite know how and how to describe it. The more I stay with DE, the clearer it is that there is no seer and object. DE feels very subtle though and the pull of thinking, thought identification often stronger.

Thank you so much, Rali!

I'll be away for a few days, and I'll might ne be able to reply until Monday. I'll try to make time for observation, but I cannot promise.
Love,
Lilla

Hi Lilla
Beautiful.

There’s only sensation and thought says it’s in the body.

Yes. Sensation does not say body, inside, outside, here, there, mine, or me. Thought labels. Thought places. Thought claims.
Also, notice the phrases: “It seems like…”, “It feels like…”
These usually point to thought-content or interpretation.
Seems like, feels like = thought content
In direct experience, something is either directly found or it isn’t. Seeing is here. Sensation is here. Sound is here. Thought is here. But “it seems like there is a body,” “it feels like there is a me,” “it seems like thought is doing something” — these need checking.
What is actually present?
So whenever “seems like” or “feels like” appears, pause and translate it - in DE, “seems like” is a signal to look again.
What is the raw experience? What is thought adding/interpreting?
And this is important:

They all appear without a cause. It is thought that makes a link between sensations.

Good. Stay there. In direct experience, cause is not found. Link is not found. Thought says one thing caused another, but the actual cause is not seen.
Now a small correction.

In DE there is only sensations and they are always present.

Let’s keep the language precise. In direct experience there are seeing / colour, sound, sensation, taste, smell, thought appearing. The content of thought may talk about body, self, seer, object, cause, distance, time, Monday, practice, progress, but that content is not directly found as actual.
So check this freshly:
Is “Monday” actual now? Or is it thought?
Is “being away for a few days” actual now? Or is it thought?
Is “I might not be able to reply” actual now? Or is it thought?
Right now, what is actually here? Seeing. Sensation. Sound. Thought. Maybe taste. Maybe smell. Anything else?
Now this:

Thought makes a division in experience, but I don’t quite know how and how to describe it.

Good. Don’t go into “how.” “How” pulls attention into explanation. You don’t need to know how. You only need to notice that division is added by thought.
Just look.
Before thought says “seer,” is a seer found?
Before thought says “object,” is an object found?
Before thought says “experience,” is experience divided?
Or is division only known when thought names parts?
Let the pull of thinking be included too. Don’t make it wrong.
When thought-identification is strong, what is actually found? Thought. Sensation. Familiarity. Maybe contraction. Maybe urgency.
But is there an actual one identified? Or does thought say, “I am identified”?
This is the main question for the next few days:
When thought says “I,” what is it pointing to right now?
Not yesterday. Not in theory. Not from memory. Right now.
And while you’re away, don’t make this into homework. Just use ordinary moments like walking, eating, speaking, irritation, waiting, looking at a phone.
Ask simply:
What is actual?
What is thought adding?
Is there someone this is happening to?
No need to reply until Monday. Just keep looking and enjoy your time away!
Love
Rali

Hi Rali, :)

I hope you're well.

What is the raw experience? What is thought adding/interpreting?

In actual experience right now there's seeing,hearing, sensations and thoughts experienced. Saying that something seems like or feels like are thought interpretations.

Is “Monday” actual now? Or is it thought?
Is “being away for a few days” actual now? Or is it thought?
Is “I might not be able to reply” actual now? Or is it thought?
Right now, what is actually here? Seeing. Sensation. Sound. Thought. Maybe taste. Maybe smell. Anything else?

The first three questions are not actual now. They are only thoughts. Right now there's seeing, hearing or sound, sensation and thoughts. Nothing else.

Before thought says “seer,” is a seer found? No.
Before thought says “object,” is an object found? No.
Before thought says “experience,” is experience divided? No. 
Or is division only known when thought names parts?

Division is only known when thought names parts. This makes me wonder, am I just not aware of the moments when there's no division experienced or are thoughts constantly running in the background that I'm not aware of, producing an experience of division? I don't have a strong desire to know. I'm totally fine by never having an answer to it. The openness to what is actual is stronger than an interest in knowing. 

But is there an actual one identified? Or does thought say, “I am identified”?

It's a thought that says "I'm identified".

When thought says “I,” what is it pointing to right now?

When I pose this question to myself, I get body-map sensations. Thought often adds: nowhere.

What is actual?
What is thought adding?
Is there someone this is happening to?

Asking what is actual brings the attention to DE. There's peace experienced in these moments. (I know it's a thought interpretation.)
The 'what is thought' adding question produces several body-map sensations and the mind stays quiet for a while. While the mind is quiet, DE is experienced more directly. 
'Is there someone this is happening to' points to a body-map sensation. This sensation dissolves quicker than in the early days of our conversations and an openness, that has no qualities is experienced in the background. I don't quite know how to express myself more precisely.
 
Thank you. I had a lovely few days away with the family by lake Balaton. 

Love:
Lilla

Hi Lilla
Lovely to hear from you. Lake Balaton sounds beautiful.

Right now there’s seeing, hearing or sound, sensation and thoughts. Nothing else.

Good. Keep returning to this simplicity. Now let’s sharpen a few places.

Division is only known when thought names parts.

Yes. Exactly. Before thought names “seer,” “object,” “body,” “room,” “family,” “lake,” “me,” “experience” — is there a divided experience? Or is there simply seeing, sound, sensation, thought?
Now this wondering appears:

Am I just not aware of the moments when there’s no division, or are thoughts constantly running in the background?

Notice what happened. Thought offered a puzzle. A subtle “how does this work?” question. Good that there is no strong desire to know. Leave it unknown. But let check the elephant in the room :)
Right now, seeing is known. Sound is known. Sensation is known. Thought is known. What knows this?
Don’t answer “awareness.” Don’t answer “me.” Don’t answer “nothing.” Look.
Is there anything separate that is aware of what is happening?
Can a noticer be found? Can an observer be located?
Is there something behind experience watching it, noticing or not noticing?
When thought says “I am aware,” is an “I” found?
When thought says “I notice,” is a noticer found?
When thought says “I missed it,” is someone who missed it found?
Stay with the immediacy.
Just check: is there a separate knower of this?
Look even more closely: is there a separate thing called noticing/knowing?
Seeing happens. Sound happens. Sensation happens. Thought happens.
Then thought says, “I noticed that.” But before that thought, is a noticer found?
Is an act of noticing found apart from what is happening?
Or is there just happening — and thought commenting on it (or not commenting)?
When thought says, “I am aware of this,” is there an “I” apart from the thought?
When thought says, “noticing is happening,” is “noticing” found as something separate?
Or is that another label? Is there even something to be noticed without the labels (e.g. apples)?
Don’t forget that even seeing, hearing, thinking,... are labels – DE labels but still labels. Close your eyes and allow a thought or a series of thoughts to appear. Continue to pay attention to thoughts as they appear for a few more seconds. With your eyes still closed, listen to whatever sound is present for several moments. Now, go back and forth between thoughts and the sound.
Does the sound appear in a different place to thoughts? Can you find an actual line / wall / boundary that divides the thoughts and the sound? Or is the line a mental construct?
When you open your eyes, do the colours appear in a different place to thoughts and sounds? Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides thoughts, sounds and colours, or is that division a mental construct?

Without the labels there is just THIS. In Buddhism the term “suchness” or “thusness” (whatever is happening) is used, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction. I like the word “THIS” as it is more like a pointing word – pointing to whatever is directly experienced like an arrow with no extra meaning – rather than labelling the experience.
But don’t answer from philosophy. Check right now.
What is here before thought comments?
What is added after?

When thought says ‘I,’ I get body-map sensations. Thought often adds: nowhere.

Good. But does “nowhere” point to something actual?
Or is “nowhere” another thought-answer for just subtle experience? Is there true nothingness – no breathing, no heartbeat, no “blackness” (with eyes closed)?

There’s peace experienced in these moments.

Peace is fine. But peace is not the point. Peace does not prove anything. Lack of peace would not disprove anything. Peace is just sensation, thought-label, ease, quietness.
Is there someone peaceful? Or is “peace” simply appearing?

While the mind is quiet, DE is experienced more directly.

Look closely. Is DE “experienced by someone”?
Or is there simply seeing, hearing, sensation, thought — with less thought-commentary?
When commentary is loud, is there a self? When commentary is quiet, is there a self?
Or is self only ever thought plus sensation?
Finally:

an openness, that has no qualities is experienced in the background.

Good. But don’t make openness into a new home.
Is “background” actually found? Or is “background” another thought-label?
Is openness behind experience? Does openness know anything? Does it observe? Does it own experience? Is it Lilla?
Or is openness a label for sensations happening in quick succession, making it seem and feel expansive?
But it's good to remember that we can only experience see, hear, feel, taste, smell and thought. Anything not in the first five is thought. The investigation now is very simple:
When “I” appears, what is actually there?
Not what thought says. Not peace. Not openness. Is there an entity in any shape or form (e.g. “open”) besides what is happening?
Look right into the “I.” Is it anything more than thought, sensation, colour, smell, taste, sound, and labelling?
Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

is there a divided experience? Or is there simply seeing, sound, sensation, thought?

There’s only seeing, sound, sensation, thought…

Right now, seeing is known. Sound is known. Sensation is known. Thought is known. What knows this?

I get no answer. There’s a subtle body-map sensation upon investigation, but other than that I find nothing.

Can a noticer be found? Can an observer be located?
Is there something behind experience watching it, noticing or not noticing?

There are body-map sensations and thoughts that are familiar and make the person/observer believable. The more I look, the clearer it is that the ’me’ sensation is a sensation I’ve got used to, has become familiar and linked with thoughts. There’s no noticer or observer found.

When thought says “I am aware,” is an “I” found?
When thought says “I notice,” is a noticer found?
When thought says “I missed it,” is someone who missed it found?

The answer to all is no.

is there a separate thing called noticing/knowing?

Thought immediately wants to answer it, but if I look in DE, nothing is found as an answer.

“I noticed that.” But before that thought, is a noticer found? No.
Is an act of noticing found apart from what is happening? No. It’s all one.
Or is there just happening — and thought commenting on it (or not commenting)?
When thought says, “I am aware of this,” is there an “I” apart from the thought?There isn’t.
When thought says, “noticing is happening,” is “noticing” found as something separate? No.
Or is that another label? Is there even something to be noticed without the labels (e.g. apples)?Witout the lables, there’s just isness. Exitence.

Does the sound appear in a different place to thoughts? Can you find an actual line / wall / boundary that divides the thoughts and the sound? Or is the line a mental construct?

There’s no line between the two. What I found interesting, is that when I listed to thought, I immediately put my attention to my head, and thoughts were experienced there. Doing this exercise a few times, I rested the attention and when listening to thoughts, they appeared in no space. Sounds still seemed to come from certain direction, even in resting attention (although sense of direction greatily loosened).

When you open your eyes, do the colours appear in a different place to thoughts and sounds? Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides thoughts, sounds and colours, or is that division a mental construct?

They all appear in a spaceless place.. There’s no division between them.

But does “nowhere” point to something actual?
Or is “nowhere” another thought-answer for just subtle experience? Is there true nothingness – no breathing, no heartbeat, no “blackness” (with eyes closed)?

I don’t know true nothingness. Sensations are always there. They’re constant.

Is there someone peaceful? Or is “peace” simply appearing?

Peace is simply appearing.

What is here before thought comments?

Sensations.

What is added after?

I don’t know. Something understands and derives meaning of thought. I guess it’s another thought that understands.

Is DE “experienced by someone”?
Or is there simply seeing, hearing, sensation, thought — with less thought-commentary?
When commentary is loud, is there a self? When commentary is quiet, is there a self?
Or is self only ever thought plus sensation?

There’s only seeing, hearing, sensation, thoughts, etc.
Self is only thought plus sensation. When commentary is loud, there are sensations that are familiar, and thoughts claim those sensations to be his/hers. It’s an illusion, which I’m starting to see more clearly.

Is “background” actually found? Or is “background” another thought-label? Another label.
Is openness behind experience? Does openness know anything? Does it observe? Does it own experience? Is it Lilla? It’s just a label. Sensation plus thought.
Or is openness a label for sensations happening in quick succession, making it seem and feel expansive? Exactly.

Is there an entity in any shape or form (e.g. “open”) besides what is happening?
Is it anything more than thought, sensation, colour, smell, taste, sound, and labelling?

There's no entity.

Thank you so much!
Love:
Lilla

Hi Lilla,
This is very clear.

There’s no noticer or observer found.

Good. Stay with that but not as a conclusion — always look fresh.
Seeing happens. Sound happens. Sensation happens. Thought happens. Thought comments, “I noticed.” But no noticer is found.
Now be careful here:

Without the labels, there’s just isness. Existence.

“Isness” and “existence” are also labels. Beautiful labels maybe, but still labels.
Without labels, what is actually found?
Colour. Sound. Sensation. Thought appearing. Taste. Smell. Just THIS
Does “existence” itself appear as something separate from these?

“Isness” is okay as a description, as long as it isn’t made into a thing. But “existence” is already a concept. It implies non-existence, and now thought is comparing ideas. Existence is a speculation as it opposes to non-existence which… Can you experience non-existence right now?

So stay simpler.
Without labels, what is directly found?
“Isness” may describe the immediacy of this, but can “isness” be found as something separate from colour, sound, sensation, taste, smell, and thought?
Or is it just a word pointing to the undeniable presence of what is already here?
Don’t hold onto “isness.” Don’t turn it into a new ground. Just this: seeing, sound, sensation, taste, smell, thought - whatever is happening right now...

Now this is important:

Something understands and derives meaning of thought. I guess it’s another thought that understands.

Less guessing and more looking :)
Is there a something that understands thought?
When meaning appears, is an understander found?
Or is there thought, then another thought saying “this means…”?
For example, look at the word: apple. Meaning appears immediately.
Was there someone choosing or creating that meaning?
Can the moment of understanding be found?
Can an understander be located?
Or does meaning simply appear, followed by thought saying “I understand”?
Try this with a few words: mother, lake, danger, Lilla, me
Watch what appears.
Images? Sensations? Thoughts? Familiarity?
Is there an entity understanding them, or does meaning simply arise?

Self is only thought plus sensation.

Yes. Now look even more sharply:
Is self ever anything more than thought, sensation, image, familiarity, and ownership-claim?
When thought says “my sensation,” is the owner found?
When thought says “my thought,” is the owner found?
When thought says “I understand,” is the understander found?
You are seeing the mechanism now: thought labels, thought divides, thought locates, thought claims. The exercises are doing exactly what they are meant to do: separate direct experience from concept and expose “self,” “body,” “owner,” and “observer” as labels added to sensation, image, and thought.
For next time, sit with only this:
Meaning appears. Is there an understander?
Look in real time.
Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

Can you experience non-existence right now?

No, I can only experience existence.

Is there a something that understands thought?
When meaning appears, is an understander found?
Or is there thought, then another thought saying “this means…”?

Meaning just appears. There's no owner to it and it doesn't come from anywhere.

Was there someone choosing or creating that meaning?
Can the moment of understanding be found?
Can an understander be located?
Or does meaning simply appear, followed by thought saying “I understand”?

Meaning simply appears and another thought claims that I understand. Wow, I'm amazed at how thoughts have tricked me and I'd not seen through the mechanism.

Images? Sensations? Thoughts? Familiarity?
Is there an entity understanding them, or does meaning simply arise?

Images and sensations appear. Meaning simply arises.

Is self ever anything more than thought, sensation, image, familiarity, and ownership-claim?
When thought says “my sensation,” is the owner found?
When thought says “my thought,” is the owner found?
When thought says “I understand,” is the understander found?

There is no owner found. It amazes me to slowly realise that they all simply arise.

Is there an understander?

Meaning simply appears, there's noone or nothing that understands it. 
You wrote, that existence implies non-existence. It's true, and I'm wondering if sitting with opposites would also be helpful in deconstructing meaning. I've never really looked into words only having meaning in relation to their's 'opposite'.

Thank you.Love,Lilla 

Hi Lilla,
Beautiful.

Meaning simply appears and another thought claims that I understand.

Yes. That is very clear. Meaning appears. Thought claims it. No understander is found.
This is the same mechanism again and again:
Sensation appears — thought says “my body.”
Thought appears — thought says “my thought.”
Meaning appears — thought says “I understand.”
Seeing happens — thought says “I see.”
Choice happens — thought says “I chose.”
But when checked, no owner, no understander, no seer, and no chooser is found.

Now look closely at that sentence:

Wow, I'm amazed at how thoughts have tricked me and I'd not seen through the mechanism.

Did thoughts actually trick someone?
Is there a “me”/observer that was tricked?
Are thoughts an entity with intention?
Or did thoughts simply appear, and more thoughts claimed them as true?
A thought appeared: “my body.” ,“I understand.”, “I am the one noticing.”, “this is happening to me.”. Then another thought now says: “I was tricked.”
But is the one who was tricked found?
Look again.
Was there ever a separate Lilla being fooled by thoughts?
Or was there just thought, sensation, belief, familiarity, and claiming?
And “I had not seen through the mechanism” — is that personal failure?
Or did seeing simply not happen until it did?
Right now, thought says “I see it now.”
Is there an “I” seeing?
Or is seeing happening, and thought claims it?

As we’ve seen, there are seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling, tasting and thinking. Whatever is not in the first 5 is thinking content. Thought is self-organised around the experience but at some point becomes organised around itself. Language is basically the relationship between concepts – how they are organised. That carries meaning on top of the meaning of the actual concepts. That is why different concepts mean different things to different people and in different situations. One very good example of how words and language are just pointers to but not the actual DE, and how meaning is formed, is AI. GPT (Generative pre-trained transformers) are large language models that are based on the semantic relationships between words in sentences (natural language processing). GPT models are trained on a large amount of text. The training consists in predicting the next token (a token being usually a word, sub-word, or punctuation). Throughout this training, GPT models accumulate knowledge about the world, and can then generate “human-like” text by repeatedly predicting the next token. But does AI have any direct experience of what it’s talking about? Is it an entity that has intentions, or is it just a collection of algorithms?
I’ve basically introduced a virus thought (LOOK!) that causes all thoughts to be reorganised by itself (self-organise) around the experience :)
Does that ring true in experience?
So... Where is the one doing the inquiry/looking? What is looking in DE?

Now, about opposites.

I've never really looked into words only having meaning in relation to their's 'opposite'.

Yes, words often get meaning through contrast: existence/non-existence, self/other, inside/outside, here/there, body/world, before/after, success/failure. That is what in Buddhism is called emptiness. In Buddhism, emptiness is not a void or a philosophy of nothingness. Instead, it describes how things exist: all phenomena are "empty" of independent, unchanging, inherent existence because they exist only in relation to a web of causes and conditions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYqaWmc ... 4&index=41

I suppose the analogy with the icons on your computer desktop comes handy. They are used as a visual representation of what is actually a binary code – zeros and ones - so you can make use of them. But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it?
So check now:
Is “inside” found by itself? Or does it only make sense in relation to “outside”?
Is “self” found by itself? Or does it only make sense in relation to “other”?
Is “existence” found as a thing? Or does the word only make sense because thought contrasts it with “non-existence”?
This is one way to see emptiness directly. A word seems to point to something solid. But when looked at, its meaning depends on other words, contrasts, memory, and thought. It has no fixed substance of its own.
So “inside” is empty of inherent inside-ness. “Self” is empty of inherent self-ness. “Body” is empty of inherent body-ness. “Existence” is empty of inherent existence-ness. Not because nothing appears. Seeing appears. Sound appears. Sensation appears. Thought appears. But the fixed thing that the word seems to name is not found (e.g. apple). Concepts are not objects or subjects themselves. Groups of concepts taken for truth of how things are become beliefs upon which new ideas land and stick, creating an even bigger, more magnificent castle of concepts. What seems to be “Lilla’s world,” the totality of Lilla’s experience of all that is happening, is a creation of language, and words are the building blocks that create the story about it.

Try this very simply... Close the eyes.
Can “inside” be found without thought comparing it to “outside”?
Can “outside” be found without thought comparing it to “inside”?
Or are there only sensations, sounds, thoughts?
Then look:
If neither “inside” nor “outside” is directly found, what happens to the one who was supposed to be inside?
Don’t analyse the opposites. Use them like a blade. Each word points back to direct experience — and the solid thing dissolves when checked. Use them when they appear naturally. When a word appears, ask:
What is directly found?
What contrast is thought implying?
Is either side actual?
Love
Rali