Seeing through

[poppyseed]

Hi Irene,
Good looking! Let’s look directly at this assumed boundary between “inside” and “outside.”

The border is where all colour disappears (at the edges of the field of vision).
Thought says ‘everything that is seen visually is outside of me.’
Paying attention to the border brings up feeling of tingling at the skin of the face. Thought says ‘the tingling is the location of the border’.
I can’t find the border further than this.

Please find a quiet place, sit or lie down, close your eyes, and attend only to sensations.
Ignore thoughts and mental images as much as possible.

1. Take something cold from the fridge – like a can of cooldrink. When you touch the can, what does more accurately describe your experience:
a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”?
With eyes closed, where does the cold appear? Observe the order in which the details appear

2. Sit comfortably on a chair. Close your eyes and relax. Pay attention only to the feeling of your body. Just notice the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images. Keep your eyes closed and look:
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? Do sensations have a definite size, shape, or weight?

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair? At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation (labelled “body on chair”)?
Can a boundary be found between the body and clothing?
Is it "my" body, or is it just a body?
Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?
What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
Without thought or mental imagery, can a body be found? Or are there only sensations appearing?
Can the 'body' do things?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, walking, lying down, etc) before replying.

Now bring attention to the tingling you previously called “the border.”
Does the tingling itself say “this is the edge of me”?
Does it contain an inside and an outside?
Does it form an actual continuous boundary?
Or is there sensation, followed by thought saying “skin,” “face,” “border,” and “me”?
Please report what is directly found, not what must logically be there.
We’ll do an open eyes exploration next time…
Love
Rali

[Storienie]

Hi Rali, here is my daily looking. It’s hard to remember to look during work or other activities, but when I sit down to it here is what I find.

1. Take something cold from the fridge – like a can of cooldrink. When you touch the can, what does more accurately describe your experience:
a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or 
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”? 
With eyes closed, where does the cold appear? Observe the order in which the details appear

b. Coldness sensation labelled “cold”
When ignoring thoughts, there is no other details than coldness. Even location seems to be thought, because it involves a mental image of space.

2. Sit comfortably on a chair. Close your eyes and relax. Pay attention only to the feeling of your body. Just notice the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images. Keep your eyes closed and look:
Can it be known how tall the body is?

No. Without looking at thoughts or mental images, the only thing left is feeling and seeing blackness, which don’t say anything about how tall the body is.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

The body just comes up as sensations of feeling. Without looking at thoughts, there is nothing else there apart from feeling.

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form? Do sensations have a definite size, shape, or weight?

Without looking at thoughts, there is no definite body at all. There are sensations (feeling) floating in space with gaps of no sensation between them.

Sensations seem to be located at places, but I can’t take them apart from a mental image about a location (thought). The size of sensations is perceived, but I wouldn’t call them ‘definite’, more ‘blurry’ or ‘vague’

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair? At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation (labelled “body on chair”)?

One sensation (feeling) labelled “sitting on chair”.

Can a boundary be found between the body and clothing?

No, there is just sensation labeled “clothes on skin”.

Is it "my" body, or is it just a body?

Just the label “body” for the feelings of the body. When thinking “My body”, attention is directed to the same feelings as with the label “body”.

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

With eyes closed and without paying attention to thoughts, there is no inside or outside.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

There are sensations (feeling) of tingling, heartbeat, touching, breathing, moving. (Not paying attention to thoughts)

Without thought or mental imagery, can a body be found? Or are there only sensations appearing?

Just sensations appearing.

Can the 'body' do things?

No, sensations appear and there is no ‘body’ without the label appearing (which is thought).

Now bring attention to the tingling you previously called “the border.”
Does the tingling itself say “this is the edge of me”?

No

Does it contain an inside and an outside?

The tingling does not contain inside or outside, it’s just tingling.

Does it form an actual continuous boundary?

No, it’s like other sensations, floating in space with gaps in between. Attention is directed to some tingling and the rest falls away.

Or is there sensation, followed by thought saying “skin,” “face,” “border,” and “me”?

Yes, that’s it.

[poppyseed]

Hi Irene
This is very clear looking. You found no body apart from sensations and thought-labels. You also found no actual boundary, inside, or outside in the sensations themselves. Wonderful!

There are sensations (feeling) of tingling, heartbeat, touching, breathing, moving. (Not paying attention to thoughts)

Yes! The actual experience of the body is thought. Thought points to sensation and colour and labels it a ‘body’, but a body cannot be found as actual experience, only thoughts about a body.

There is one phrase to examine more closely:

Sensations floating in space.

When thought and mental imagery are ignored, is “space” actually experienced? Can space itself be found? Or are there simply sensations, with thought adding location, distance, gaps, and space?

Let’s take the body investigation one step deeper, especially around the assumed link between the seen image and felt sensations. Please go slowly and do each step before moving to the next. 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 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 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.
Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

9. Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?
Please report what is directly found at each step.

Love
Rali

[Storienie]

Hi Rali,
I’ll continue with the exercise this evening, but here is the looking for the first questions. It’s not entirely clear so I’m sending it in advance in case there is anything you want to point me to before I go on.

When thought and mental imagery are ignored, is “space” actually experienced? Can space itself be found? Or are there simply sensations, with thought adding location, distance, gaps, and space?

“space” is only a mental image and a label. When thought is ignored, there is sensations and the absence of sensations, but no “space”.

Looking again and examining “the absence of sensations”, I don’t find an absence of sensations. I find different sensations depending on what attention focuses on. “The absence of sensations” is a mental image/ thought of a location of sensations and the gaps found.

I’m not clear on this. It’s hard to distinguish the mental image of space from sensations. It’s clear that “space” is a label for a mental image. When ignoring thought, it seems like sensations are without a location, but it’s hard to be sure. I don’t know if it’s possible to fully ignore thought when looking for a location of sensations.

I’m not sure I’m expressing myself clearly, but what I’m trying to see is whether a sensation occupies the whole field of awareness (by which I don’t mean an “awareness” exists, but that all that appears is sensation, fully occupying attention) and whether it’s possible to feel only that, separate from the simultaneous mental imagery of a location, which makes it seem like the sensation has a location.
I pay attention to the sensation of “feet touching the ground” and simultaneously the sensation of “tingling of the skin of the face” is there and “hands holding the phone” and “body sitting on the couch”. All of it seems to be there at the same time, attention shifting from one to the other making them appear stronger or softer or not at all. When focusing only on the feeling of these sensations, they blend into each other and there is no thought about location.

[Storienie]

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?

No, the sensations and the images are both perceived- I almost write ‘superimposed in space’. Thought starts labeling ‘here’ and ‘inside’ and imagining whether feeling is ‘outside of the body the same as seeing’.

There is definitely sensation/ feeling.
There is also seeing.
There is also thought linking the two.
There is no sensations in the image seen.

Doing the exercise again and there is definitely no “connection” that isn’t thought. There is sensation, image, and thought.


I’ll leave it here and do the exercise a few more times tomorrow. I still doubt whether it is clearly seen or not.

[poppyseed]

Hi Irene
This is clear enough.
Notice what is happening now: thought is asking whether the seeing is clear, whether sensation has a location, whether thought has been fully ignored :)), and whether the exercise has been done correctly.
But before following those questions, actually, this is a good time to look at the idea of focus and attention. You say attention shifts between sensations, making some seem stronger and others weaker. Close your eyes and sit quietly for 10-15 minutes. Watch what focus does. Focus on focusing, attention itself.

Can the thing called “attention” be found?
Is there an entity moving it? Do you move it, or it moves by itself? What moves attention? Is thought in control of attention?
Can you decide what it will land on next?
Hold focus on breath - see how it moves to thoughts, sensations, feelings, sounds.
Is this something you control?
Or does a sound, sensation, image, or thought simply become prominent, and afterward thought says, “attention moved there”?
Is there anything more than sensation + thought that says “I’m doing this”?

Where is the “you” in the looking? What is looking made of?
There is what IS happening and the description of it (aka thought/attention). But where exactly is the look-er?

Try this now... Sit quietly and notice what becomes prominent next. A sound may stand out. Then a sensation. Then an image. Then a thought.
Was there a controller choosing the sequence?
Could the next focus be known before it happened?
Now look at the labels themselves.
“Sensation,” “seeing,” and “thought” are useful words for describing experience.
But are three separate things actually found?
At this moment, can a boundary be found where seeing ends and sensation begins?
Can a boundary be found where sensation ends and thought begins?
Or are those divisions added afterward by thought for the sake of describing what happened?
Do not replace the old story with a new story such as “everything is one” or “all is awareness.”
Just look. Before anything is named… Are there separate categories?
Is there an observer sorting experience into seeing, feeling, and thinking?
Or do the labels arrive after what is already happening?
And about doubt:
Can the one who doubts whether this is clearly seen be found?
Or is there simply a thought saying, “I still doubt whether this is clear”?
Please report what happens while looking, not what should be true.

Once this is clear, continue with the rest of the questions about body.

Love
Rali

[Storienie]

Hi Rali,
This is as far as I got yesterday. I will continue with the rest of the questions today!

Can the thing called “_**attention**_” be found?

No. What can be found is a sensation and thoughts/ labels for ‘attention’ or ‘focus’ or spacial imagery on top of the sensations.

Is there an entity moving it? Do you move it, or it moves by itself? What moves attention? Is thought in control of attention?

Sensations and thoughts appear by themselves. Thoughts appear that say ‘move attention here’ at the same time or before sensations appear (or increase in intensity). I can’t find anything that makes the thoughts or the sensations appear.
Sometimes sensations appear without a thought labeling attention.

Can you decide what it will land on next?

A thought can precede a sensation, but I don’t see that the thought causes the sensation.

Hold focus on breath - see how it moves to thoughts, sensations, feelings, sounds.
Is this something you control?

No, there is just feeling and hearing the breath.

Or does a sound, sensation, image, or thought simply become prominent, and afterward thought says, “attention moved there”?

Yes, or a thought says “now i will move attention… here” and then the sensation becomes prominent.

Is there anything more than sensation + thought that says “I’m doing this”?

No.

Where is the “you” in the looking? What is looking made of? **There is what IS happening and the description of it (aka thought/attention).** But where exactly is the look-er?

There are thoughts saying “you” “looker”, imagery of space in the head, feelings of tingling, feeling of breathing.

Other than that, there is no extra “looker” or “watcher” apart from the thoughts, seeing and feeling. There is a thought saying “there must be something more to find, how can things be seen if there is no one to see them?”. But I don’t find anything that observes, just sensation and colors.

[Storienie]

Hi Rali,

Here are the answers to the rest of the questions. I’m a bit tired, so perhaps looking into these questions at another time will be helpful.

Was there a controller choosing the sequence?

Not at all.

Could the next focus be known before it happened?

No, it all happens by itself, also focus.

Now look at the labels themselves.
“Sensation,” “seeing,” and “thought” are useful words for describing experience.
**But are three separate things actually found?**

First reaction is confusion. Thought says “Of course they are separate!”.

Hearing and thinking about hearing aren’t very different in experience. Seeing and hearing are different. That’s not the question though.

In experience, everything happens in the same place/space. That’s the “superimposed” thing I was having trouble with earlier. Thought labels direction, location, and the type of thing experienced (colour, sound, sensation). They are all different from each other, like in different dimensions, but are all things experienced in the same realm.

My writing doesnt sound very clear, perhaps your other questions will make it clearer. I am not sure how to approach this.

At this moment, can a boundary be found where seeing ends and sensation begins?

No, sensation and seeing are both there, superimposed.

Can a boundary be found where sensation ends and thought begins?

Also no, again superimposed.

Or are those divisions added afterward by thought for the sake of describing what happened?

In don’t notice thought adding divisions. Thought labels ‘feeling’ quite clearly with the word ‘feeling” and hearing with ‘sound’. Seeing just happens without labeling it seems. Thoughts and mental images pop up while looking around, not labeling ‘seeing’ but just going on in content about something random.

Before anything is named… Are there separate categories?

Before anything comes into attention, there are no separate categories already there. When something comes to attention, the sensation/seeing/hearing/thought appear. There are no separate categories standing separate from attention.

Is there an observer sorting experience into seeing, feeling, and thinking?

Things seem to appear as a sound/feeling/thought. Nothing is sorting stuff.

Or do the labels arrive after what is already happening?

After or simultaneously, yes.

Can the one who doubts whether this is clearly seen be found?

No, there are just thoughts expressing doubt.

Or is there simply a thought saying, “I still doubt whether this is clear”?

Yes

Please report what happens while looking, not what should be true.

This is what I’m finding while looking! A thought usually has an answer ready, but I check in experience before every answer.

[poppyseed]

Hi Irene,
Yes. This is what I wanted you to look at. You are checking before answering, and what you repeatedly find is that thoughts, sensations, seeing and hearing happen. Focus/labelling shifts. But no controller, thinker, looker, sorter, or doubter can be found.

Everything happens in the same realm.

They are like different dimensions.

They are superimposed.

What is this “realm”? Can a realm actually be found? Is it seen, heard, felt, smelled, tasted, or thought?
Or is “realm” a label thought uses to explain that several things seem present?
Now look at the categories themselves.
Take what you call “seeing.”
Before the label “seeing” appears, can a separate thing called seeing be found?
Or is there simply colour, followed by the label “seeing”?
Now look more closely.
Before the label “colour” appears, is a thing called colour found? Or is “colour” also thought naming what cannot actually be divided or described? (remember “GREEN” - labels do no not directly correspond to reality)
Do the same with sound, sensation, and thought.

We don’t experience our senses individually. Rather, these are different "aspects" of experience. Mind tells us that our senses are separate streams of information. We see with our eyes, hear with our ears, feel with our skin, smell with our nose, taste with our tongue. In DE, though, it is seen as a one experience. Senses also “affect” each other. Although speech is perceived through the ears, what we see can change what we hear. In this video, a man produces the same syllable over and over again. If you watch his mouth, you’ll hear the syllable “fah,” but if you look away, you’ll hear “bah.” Although your ears hear “bah,” your eyes see “fah”. This phenomenon is known as the McGurk effect. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k8fHR9jKVM )
Another example of sensory interaction is how both taste and smell are vital for savouring food (flavour). If smell is lost or impaired, for instance, the taste of food will also be impaired, even if taste receptors on the tongue are working fine.
Here is a fun video that demonstrates a relationship between sight and touch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DphlhmtGRqI

So even though it might look as there are clearly defined senses, DE shows a different story - even the senses are dependently originated which makes them also empty of inherent existence. Yet, they are still useful for communication. 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?

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 right now like an arrow with no extra meaning – rather than labelling the experience.

THIS is like looking at a lava lamp. The wax may seem to change shape, and the shapes it seems to take may seem to be present one moment, and absent the next. But all that is known is the wax. Nothing actually changed and nothing was ever born or lost, although it may have seemed to. All that is known is THIS (LOOK!) - nothing can be added to it, nor taken away.
So look!
What divisions are actually present before thought describes them?
Do distinct dimensions announce themselves?
Is there one place in which they all occur?
Or are “different,” “same,” “together,” “separate,” “superimposed,” and “realm” all descriptions added by thought?
Do not conclude that everything is one. Do not conclude that nothing is separate. Look before both conclusions.
What is actually found before naming begins?

Love
Rali

[Storienie]

Thanks Rali,
Here are my answers.

What is this “realm”? Can a realm actually be found? Is it seen, heard, felt, smelled, tasted, or thought?

The “realm” is the term that came up to describe the space in which stuff appears. It’s a label. I can’t find a ‘space’ or a ‘realm’ apart from the sounds, colours and other sensations that appear. The fact that the sensations “appear in a realm/space” is a thought.

Or is “realm” a label thought uses to explain that several things seem present?

Yes, several things present at the same time. (“At the same time” is also a label that thought gives)

Before the label “seeing” appears, can a separate thing called seeing be found?

Not something called ‘seeing’, but color/ whatever is being seen can be found.

Or is there simply colour, followed by the label “seeing”?

Yes, although the label “seeing” doesn’t appear too often. Mostly just colour coming in without thought attaching a label, or the label being ‘table’ ‘window’ etc. ‘Seeing’ is a label like ‘table’ or ‘here’ or ‘me’.

Before the label “colour” appears, is a thing called colour found?

‘Colour’ is also a label coming up in thought. Before the label appears, what is seen is label-less and not ‘called’ anything. It’s still seen though, like how a baby would see for the first time and not call things by name.

Or is “colour” also thought naming what cannot actually be divided or described?

Thought is involved in dividing and describing. Without thought, nothing is divided or described. But whatever is seen is not all the same colour before ‘colour’ is named and “divides” what is seen into shapes etc. What is seen before anything is named is not all the same and that is experienced, but just not labeled.

(remember “GREEN” - labels do no not directly correspond to reality)

Yes, any labels do not directly correspond to reality. But they point to reality, and there are differences present in reality to point to. ( “reality” is a label for what is in experience, what is seen/perceived )

Do the same with sound, sensation, and thought.

1. Sound
Before the label “sound” appears, there is an experience, unlabeled and just experienced.
2. Sensation
Before the label “feeling” appears, there is the experience of the sensation. It’s not called anything or labeled anything.
3. Thought
Before the label “thinking” appears, there is an experience.

But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it?

No, indeed.

So even though it might look as there are clearly defined senses, DE shows a different story - even the senses are **dependently originated** which makes them also **empty of inherent existence**. Yet, they are still useful for communication.

I don’t want to start theorising or understanding this logically, but let me relate it to what I see.
In my DE I find ‘superimposed’ sensations of different senses. I also find that the different kinds of sensations get ‘categorised’ by thought. The ‘categorisation’ just points to the sensation/ experience, but that is all it does. It doesn’t “say” anything about the nature of the sensation. In your video examples, it might just be that thought labels something one way or another, and that doesn’t say anything about “what was really there” (figure of speech, as we cant know in DE what is really there outside of DE).

What divisions are actually present before thought describes them?

I dont experience divisions, just attention moving to one thing or the other. There are no boundaries between seeing, hearing and feeling when I make sound rubbing my hands. All the sensations appear simultaneously. I can focus on one of them and thought can label it or focus itself can make it ‘stand out’ (which is a form of tought/mental imagery). Focusing on hearing vs seeing is not different from focusing on seeing the floor or the wall (just different things appearing).

Do distinct dimensions announce themselves?

Dimensions are no different from labeling/thought.

Is there one place in which they all occur?

There is one space/realm/experience in which all sensations appear.

Or are “different,” “same,” “together,” “separate,” “superimposed,” and “realm” all descriptions added by thought?

Yes.

Do not conclude that everything is one. Do not conclude that nothing is separate. Look before both conclusions.
What is actually found before naming begins?

No thought about concluding anything here.

Before naming begins, there is experience. That’s it.

[poppyseed]

Hi Irene
Before we continue there are two clarifications we need to make
First, let’s clarify our use of language. Words do not have a direct one-to-one correspondence with what is actual as you’ve seen. They are agreed upon labels used for communication.
So, for this inquiry, we need to agree on what the labels refer to and use them consistently.
We have been using:
Colour or image = seeing
Sound = hearing
Smell = smelling
Taste = tasting
What is felt = sensation or feeling
Words and mental images = thought
These categories are not separate realities. They are practical labels that allow us to describe what is being examined. So when you write:

superimposed sensations of different senses

the word “sensations” is being used too broadly. In our agreed terminology, colour is not a sensation.
Sound is not a sensation. A mental image is not a sensation. “Sensation” refers specifically to what is felt.

There may be seeing, hearing, sensation, and thought together. Thought may then describe them as “different senses,” “superimposed,” “simultaneous,” or “one experience.”
Now examine the description itself.
Can “superimposed” actually be found? Does seeing sit on top of sensation? Does sound overlap with seeing?
Or are seeing, hearing, sensation, and thought simply the agreed labels used to communicate what is happening, while “superimposed” is an additional explanation?
The labels are useful. They are not the actuality they point toward. Just as the word “green” is not the colour, the word “sensation” is not what is felt. So please use the agreed labels precisely, and then look beneath them:
What is actually present before thought explains the relationship between seeing, hearing, sensation, and thought?

One more important clarification.

Before naming begins, there is experience.

What does the word “experience” point to?
Can an entity, container, field, realm, or process called “experience” actually be found?
Is “experience” seen, heard, tasted, smelled, felt, or thought? Or is it another useful label referring broadly to whatever is happening?
The same applies to “experiencing.”
Does adding “-ing” make an actual process appear?
Can a process called experiencing be found separately from colour, sound, sensation, taste, smell, and thought? Or is “experiencing” simply another description?
Earlier I used the word THIS.
I do not mean that THIS is a substance, state, field, awareness, oneness, or special kind of experience.
It is only a pointing word, like pointing with a finger at whatever is happening now, stripped of the labels. I don’t want you to turn THIS into an answer.
Look. Without the labels: experience, experiencing, realm, space, attention, focus, seeing, hearing, sensation, thought,… is any underlying thing found that holds or contains what is happening?
"Experience/experiencing" is a loaded word for two reasons - first it supposes experiencer and second, it creates separation...
Is there “experience” plus its contents?
Is there an experiencer and an experience?
Or is “experience” simply a word used afterward to talk about what cannot be captured by the word?
You also wrote that things “appear.”
Appear to what? Appear in what? Can a place of appearance be found?
Can anything receiving the appearance be found?
Or is “appearing” another thought-description?
Please don’t answer, “There is just THIS.”
Look at what that sentence points toward, and report whether anything called THIS can actually be found.

Now back to the inquiry…Let’s look more carefully at these phrases:

I can focus on one of them.

Focus makes it stand out.

Something becomes prominent.

What is actually found here?
Take the rubbing-hands exercise again. There is what thought calls sound, seeing, and bodily sensation. Now watch closely.
Does an entity called “focus” arrive and alter one of them?
Can an act of focusing be found apart from: a thought such as “listen to the sound,” what thought calls sound, and another thought saying “the sound stood out”?
Does the thought “focus on the sound” cause anything?
Can the causal link be directly found?
Or are thought, sound, sensation, and the description “it stood out” simply happening?
Now examine “prominent.”
Can prominence itself be heard, seen, or felt?
Does the sound announce that it is more prominent?
Or is “prominent” a later comparison made by thought? Compared with what?
Is that comparison possible without memory/thought of what was noticed a moment ago?
So don’t say that focus moves or makes something prominent. Look for the actual event.
Is anything moving?
Is anything selecting?
Is anything enhancing one experience?
Or is there simply what is happening, conditioned exactly as it is, followed by thought describing it as: “I focused,” “attention moved,” or “this became prominent”?
Without the conditioned inclination to see one pattern as more important (thought "chosing" to comment/"focus"), is the importance/prominence anything directly experienced? Is prominence universal or conditioned? Also, is pattern something universal or conditioned - cutting out/grouping from the whole in a certain way/labelling?

We’ll look at some point at time and memories in more detail…
Love
Rali

[Storienie]

Hi Rali,

Here is my reply to the first clarification. I will continue with the rest later today!

the word “_**sensations**_” is being used too broadly

I see what you mean. I will stick to our shared labels as best as I can!

I sometimes describe things less accurately because it feels like I can get my thoughts across more quickly (not as much effort goes into finding the right words). I get impatient or tired. Sometimes I don’t find words that explain my experience well. But I will pay attention to stick to the terms we have been using whenever possible.

The paragraph above is a good example of explaining what is going on less accurately (not breaking down what is thought, using “I”). Let me know if it’s unhelpful to write like this at all.

Can “superimposed” actually be found? Does seeing sit on top of sensation? Does sound overlap with seeing?

There is no distinct sound/colour/smell/taste/feeling/thought that I can point to that is ‘superimposed’. It’s a label for how sounds/colour/etc. appear in relation to each other.

Or are seeing, hearing, sensation, and thought simply the agreed labels used to communicate what is happening, while “superimposed” is an additional explanation?

”superimposed” is indeed an additional explanation, and perhaps unnecessary as we already have seeing, hearing, sensation, and thought.

What is actually present before thought explains the relationship between seeing, hearing, sensation, and thought?

Just the colour, sound, feeling and thought itself. We agreed that these labels are not what they point toward, but whatever it is that they point toward, is found before thought labels or explains it

[Storienie]

Hi Rali,

These are the answers to the other clarification. I didn’t get to the inquiry yet, will send some answers to that tomorrow!

What does the word “_**experience**_” point to?

“Experience” points to all the sound, colour, smell, taste, feeling and/or thought that is there at a given moment.

Can an entity, container, field, realm, or process called “experience” actually be found?

No, just the individual sounds, colors etc.

Is “experience” seen, heard, tasted, smelled, felt, or thought? Or is it another useful label referring broadly to whatever is happening?

Yes, just another label referring broadly to what is happening.

Does adding “-ing” make an actual process appear?

No.

Can a process called experiencing be found separately from colour, sound, sensation, taste, smell, and thought? Or is “experiencing” simply another description?

Yes, it’s almost the same as “experience”, a label for all that is happening and relating it to the label “I” and the feelings and thoughts that come up with that label.

Earlier I used the word _**THIS**_.
I do not mean that _**THIS**_ is a substance, state, field, awareness, oneness, or special kind of experience.
It is only a **pointing word**, like pointing with a _**finger**_ at whatever is happening now, stripped of the labels.

THIS makes complete sense to me as a pointer. Before labels, there is just whatever is there.

Without the labels: _experience, experiencing, realm, space, attention, focus, seeing, hearing, sensation, thought_,… is any underlying thing found that holds or contains what is happening?

I don’t understand the question too well. Without the labels, there is just what is there. There is no ‘thing’ containing the rest, nothing standing out as being different from the seeing/hearing/sensation or thought.

Is there “experience” plus its contents?

No, just the contents.

Is there an experiencer and an experience?

No, both are just labels.

Or is “experience” simply a word used afterward to talk about what cannot be captured by the word?

Don’t fully understand this, but it’s a label for the all the thoughts, colours, sounds etc. that are there.

You also wrote that things “_**appear**_.”
Appear to what? Appear in what? Can a place of appearance be found?

“Place”, “to what” and “in what” are all pointing to thoughts. Things (i.e. colours, thoughts, sounds etc.) “appear” as in “are there”.

Can anything receiving the appearance be found?

No, there are just more thoughts and feelings, but they don’t “receive”, they are also “appearances”

Or is “appearing” another thought-description?

Yes

Please don’t answer, “There is just _**THIS**_.”
Look at what that sentence points toward, and report whether anything called THIS can actually be found.

I don’t understand this sentence. THIS is also a pointer, just like “table” or “I”. There will never be something called “THIS” actually found. But it points to whatever is there, which is colour, sound, feeling etc. Of course, those are also labels pointing, but we have to use some kind of pointer to describe what is being pointed at.

[Storienie]

Hi Rali,

I got this far this morning, just the last few questions left that I will look at after work.

What is actually found here?
Take the rubbing-hands exercise again. There is **what thought calls** sound, seeing, and bodily sensation. Now watch closely.
Does an entity called “focus” arrive and alter one of them?

No. They change by themselves just like they “appear” by themselves.

Can an act of focusing be found apart from: a thought such as “listen to the sound,” what thought calls sound, and another thought saying “the sound stood out”?

No

Does the thought “focus on the sound” cause anything?

No, it’s just a thought.

Can the causal link be directly found?

No, there is nothing that shows that thought causes things to change.

Or are thought, sound, sensation, and the description “it stood out” simply happening?

Yes.

Can prominence itself be heard, seen, or felt?

No, it’s just sound or feeling being there differently and thought labeling it as being “prominent”

Does the sound announce that it is more prominent?

No, it’s just there.

Or is “prominent” a later comparison made by thought?

Yes

Compared with what?

Compared to the memory of another feeling or sound being labeled. For example, I rub my hands together and “sound” is labeled. Then “feeling” is labeled and then “seeing”, or the 3 switch fast from one to the other. While “feeling” is labeled by thought, thought gives an explanation that “feeling is more prominent now”. It’s actually similar to just labeling “thought”, but relating it to the thought that is questioning “what is becoming prominent”

Is that comparison possible without memory/thought of what was noticed a moment ago?

No.

Is anything moving?

There are thoughts saying “attention is moving” “eyes are moving” “here and there”. Colours change, thoughts change. Thought makes a “mental map” of the room and says “attention shifts from here to there”. There is no thing called ‘focus’ or ‘attention’ that moves.

[poppyseed]

Hi Irene
Wonderful looking!!
First, ordinary language is not a problem. You can say: “I looked.” , “I became impatient.”, “I focused on the sound.”
We need conventional language to communicate. You do not have to rewrite every sentence as “a thought appeared” or remove every use of “I.” The question is simply whether, when looking, an actual entity corresponding to that “I” can be found.
Let’s look closely at these sentences:

Just the individual sounds, colours, etc.

There is no distinct sound, colour, smell, taste, feeling, or thought that I can point to as superimposed. It is a label for how sounds, colour, etc. appear in relation to each other.

You have seen that “superimposed” is an explanation. I don’t know if it’s just language or there is still belief in individual senses with relationships, so please indulge me with the questions below:
What makes them “individual”? Before thought distinguishes and names them, do separate units announce themselves?
Is there really a relationships among sounds, colour, etc.?
Let’s test this directly rather than reason about whether the senses are separate.
1.Sit comfortably and close your eyes. Lift one leg. Attend only to what we conventionally call the sensation of “leg lifted.” Without thought or mental imagery:
Is a leg actually found?
Does the sensation itself have the shape, size, or location of a leg?
2.Open your eyes and look at the leg. Attend only to what we conventionally call seeing.
Does the seen image itself say “leg”?
Does it contain sensation?
3.While looking at the leg, notice both what we call seeing and what we call sensation. Now look carefully:
Is there a direct link between them?
Does the seen image produce the sensation?
Does the sensation occur inside the image?
Does either one contain the other?
Do they announce themselves as two separate streams?
Or are there simply what we label seeing and sensation, while thought links them and says: “This sensation belongs to that leg.”
Look for the connection itself.
Can it be found anywhere apart from thought or mental imagery?
And look at the words “simultaneously” and “separately.”
Can simultaneity itself be seen or felt?
Can separation itself be located?
Or are those also descriptions added afterward?

Let’s test this with thought, sound, and colour.
Close your eyes and allow a thought, or a series of thoughts, to appear. For a few moments, attend to what we conventionally call thought. With your eyes still closed, listen to whatever sound is present. Now let noticing move between what we call thought and what we call sound. Look closely:
Can an actual line, wall, gap, or boundary be found dividing thought from sound? Where exactly does thought end and sound begin?
Does either announce itself as belonging to a separate category? Or is the division supplied by thought and labelling?
Now open your eyes and notice what we conventionally call colour. Look again.
Can an actual boundary be found dividing colour, sound, and thought?
Can separation itself be seen, heard, or felt? Or are “colour,” “sound,” and “thought” agreed labels used to describe distinctions that thought makes?
Is the separation as individual senses directly experienced or it is an illusion created by labels? In DE is there anything more than just THIS always?

When the labels “thought,” “sound,” “colour,” “separate,” and “together” are not followed, what actual boundary remains?

Love
Rali