Can you see me?

[HaHo]

Hi Vivien,

How do you know that there is anything prior to DE?

Previously it has seemed that I am not experiencing something unless my attention is focussed upon it and that there can be occasions where attention is not upon anything. If the mind is blank and attention is not upon anything then it has felt there is no experiencing. And yet that was a feeling which is an experience.

How do you know (that there is anything prior to DE) if you have no experience of it? Do you really know that? or maybe this is just a thought assumption?

This is a head scratcher, haha. To know this, there would need to be something other than experiencing. Something outside of it. Non-experiencing. I haven’t experienced that, lol. In fact when I look at the thought memory, “I wasn’t experiencing anything just then.”, I recall there had been vision, just simply without attention to it or thought about it.

from what I see, there can be looking without DE

How can there be looking without having an experience?

This question was skipped over as I struggled to find an answer. I went back to it at the end and the answer is: There can’t be looking without experience.

Look at the display before you.
Can seeing happen without experiencing colors?

No.

Is seeing and the color two separate things?

No, there is just colour. There is no seeing.

Can you find seeing independent of colors?

No.

There can be hearing without hearing something.

Are you sure? Would you put your life on it? :)

There is not even hearing, there is just the sound. That is DE.

How could you know that there is a hearing without hearing something?

You can’t. There was simply the false assumption that stuff was going on “behind the scenes”. Hearing is just a concept.

Is this really what experience show, or is this just an unquestioned assumption/thought?

It was an unquestioned assumption.

Notice any sound in the room.
Can there be hearing without experiencing the sound?

No.

Is hearing and the sound two separate things?

No.

Can you find hearing independent of sounds?

I can’t find hearing at all. Only sound.

[Vivien]

Hi HaHo,

You did a nice investigation.
Yes, this unexperienced thing was just an unquestioned assumption.
Reality is simple and everything is directly known.
If it seems that there are unknown or hidden parts, that seeming thing only ever appear as a thought content, never as reality.
And yes, even seeing and hearing are just concepts, nice catch :) there is only the experience of sound and color.


Just notice thoughts; how much narration is going on. Whatever is happening, thought has something to say about it. It’s constantly weaving stories about everything and everyone.

The story is so well run; the mechanisms are all in place. Thoughts have the tendency to appear as solid truths and it is so enticing to believe each and every one of them.

But are all of our thoughts depicting what is?

Some thoughts point to something, like ‘seeing something’ but other thoughts just point to more thoughts, exploding in a thought merry-go-round. :)

What if instead of thoughts offering solid truths, those explanations are nothing but assumptions? Theories at best?

Can you see how intricate the story is around this apparent entity, called HaHo?

Just notice how much detail thoughts provide… but these are just add-ons… just more narrations, explanation, assumptions… in the name of ‘truth’. What do you find?

Vivien

[HaHo]

But are all of our thoughts depicting what is?

Far from it. Very few thoughts point to what’s happening when compared with the rest of thinking.

What if instead of thoughts offering solid truths, those explanations are nothing but assumptions? Theories at best?

Yes, I can see that with so few thoughts being about direct experience the rest have to be a fabrication. A story. Even a crystal clear memory has to be an assumption that what is being recalled is accurate. “I remember clearly” or “I remember vividly” are merely proclamations but in no way prove the “truth” of the memory. Thought assumptions prevent thinking from stalling and allow there to be a flow so that a conclusion can be reached and thus a theory is born. Once there’s a theory it solidifies the “truth” of the previous assumptions.

Can you see how intricate the story is around this apparent entity, called HaHo?

Oh yes. Just by scratching at the surface and simply examining the story behind the name there is lots of content. All of it reinforcing the realness of the self. And I don’t even know if any of it is true. Are these apparent memories simply created at the moment I am doing this exercise, I wonder. Perhaps there is a hint of an old memory about why my parents called me the name they did and I polish it up, add content and present it to myself as being true. If I am unsure of it’s validity perhaps I just leave that memory alone and the next time I visit it, I may recall it as being true, “Yeah, I’ve thought this through before so it's true”, or “I’m still not 100% on this but it’s the best I’ve got so I’ll go with it being true.”. These two phrases aren’t “conscious thought” that is considered and debated in the mind, they are mental assumptions that happen rapidly.

Once you look further it is extraordinary how much content and story seems to be available, so perhaps it is created on the fly. When thinking about this last night I had an image of all these thoughts being strips of bandage. And then there was an image of the last bandage of the Invisible Man being applied to him. The analogy isn’t perfect by any stretch because in the Invisible Man he is real, yet invisible. But here the bandages are simply creating the outline of the human form, representing the Self. There is nothing inside or outside those bandages.

Just notice how much detail thoughts provide… but these are just add-ons… just more narrations, explanation, assumptions… in the name of ‘truth’. What do you find?

One of the biggest “untruths” I can find in thought is how the self conveniently creates reasons and explanations for things being the way they are and does so after the fact. An example of this is: I bought a new Xbox and a new game that had been really hyped, a month ago or so. I was so excited about playing the game I was convinced I would be playing it for hours every day. That turned out not to be what happened. I initially played for about three hours and haven’t played it since. There is no explanation for this other than, other things have been happening instead. When speaking with a friend about this I said, “I’ve not played it because I am waiting until they release software updates in the coming months”. I already knew I’d give this answer because I had already adopted this false narrative. I can see that playing the game didn’t happen and in the absence of a valid reason, the Self got busy and fabricated a story afterwards.

This self deception can be justification for behaviour as well, after the event. So there is the behaviour, then analysis and judgement, and if required, a re-writing of why I acted a certain way. A justification. The self is more than happy to accept this falsehood as truth.

[Vivien]

Hi HaHo,

Even a crystal clear memory has to be an assumption that what is being recalled is accurate. “I remember clearly” or “I remember vividly” are merely proclamations but in no way prove the “truth” of the memory.

Yes, nice observation.

Once you look further it is extraordinary how much content and story seems to be available, so perhaps it is created on the fly. When thinking about this last night I had an image of all these thoughts being strips of bandage. And then there was an image of the last bandage of the Invisible Man being applied to him. The analogy isn’t perfect by any stretch because in the Invisible Man he is real, yet invisible. But here the bandages are simply creating the outline of the human form, representing the Self. There is nothing inside or outside those bandages.

Yes, there is a quite good analogy. There is nothing else to the self/me other than story :)

This self deception can be justification for behaviour as well, after the event. So there is the behaviour, then analysis and judgement, and if required, a re-writing of why I acted a certain way. A justification.

Yes :)

Just notice, how much thoughts add. Likes and dislikes are added, judgments are added, opinions are added, interpretation is added, and so on.

Thoughts claim everything and connect it to an I, a self. This is something easily observed. Chocolate becomes ' I love chocolate and want some now", a car becomes "This is my car", and so on.

The thing can be any object (like cat, house, table, food), but it can also be a concept (love, freedom, job, emotion, etc).
Notice how many thoughts are in a day that make a thing into MY thing, or that thing is being related to ME or are about ME, or I have an opinion or judgement about that thing.

Let me know what you find.

Vivien

[HaHo]

Let me know what you find.

Yes, stuff gets added such as likes... Earlier I was having fun and giving my dog a hairstyle and there was a thought, “I like giving my dog hairstyles”. Then I noticed that I had been doing the same yesterday. It seems like there was a behavioural pattern recognised which was accompanied by a pleasant feeling and the Me took ownership of that, after the event. This is interesting because there was a recognition that “From now on I will always like this”, and “I have just learned something new about myself which is, I like…..”.

Unrelated to the above, earlier there was thinking (Can't remember the context), and I noticed the thought, “But how do I know this?”, and the answer came, “Because it’s coming from Me.” and the chat stopped right there. The Me assumes absolute authority. What is interesting about that is that the question was just “put out there” as an exploratory question looking for inspiration, and not directed necessarily towards myself, or at least that’s how it seemed in hindsight. Then very quickly and with the final word on it, so to speak, the response came “Because it's coming from Me. I have no idea how I spotted this because this sort of thing isn’t usually recognised or given significance, but what I will say is that it’s quite worrying if that’s how this is all working because there seems to be a supreme leader at the helm, haha.

On another occasion, there was a decision to move to a new location in my vehicle. There wasn’t the thought, “I’ll move over there.”. The thought wasn't in the spoken word, it was too fast for that. If I look closer at that thought, there was a sense of this location and that location and a decision to go to that location. The implication is that there is an “I” hidden in there if you pick it all apart, but there may not be. I couldn’t see one.

Similar to that and on another occasion, “Right, coffee.” was a thought that may not have had an “I” involved. It cannot be said with certainty that “I” made the decision for coffee in this instance so the possibility of this having simply been a decision for coffee, which did not involve the “I”, is plausible.

I didn’t have the following thought, but am familiar with it, “I really feel like having a coffee right now. I’m looking forward to this!”. The thought to do something nice and imagine how that will be and planning to make the experience even better by doing something else nice with the coffee like relaxing. This is all “I” thinking.

So the “I” can seem to appear absent/quiet or make itself centre stage.

“How am I feeling now?” is common. Like the Self asking for a situation report. If it hasn’t been very active for a while then out of the blue that question can appear. “Do I feel good. If not, why not?”, or “Do I feel good? Yeah, great! Okay, what next?”.

Earlier there was a Zoom meeting, and while talking, there was a familiar internal dialogue while I was talking, “I hope I don’t go blank while publicly talking. I can feel it about to happen again. It’s up to me to concentrate and fight this. If I just ignore it. ...Phew I managed to avert an embarrassing situation of having to say, “Sorry, my mind went blank”.

It feels like a bit of self sabotage going on here. That is the story I have created around this familiar situation while talking publicly. There is a feeling of something bad impending which the Me doesn’t have control of, followed by an internal struggle that the Me will win or lose, then the experience will pass. There are lots of layers added which the Me takes ownership of. The Me thinks it’s doing the talking and is being distracted and has to save the situation but really there's just sound, sensation, colour and thought.

And if the Me hasn’t had enough, it can always enjoy the defrief later!

[Vivien]

Hi HaHo,

It seems like there was a behavioural pattern recognised which was accompanied by a pleasant feeling and the Me took ownership of that, after the event.

Are you sure that there is a me that is taking ownerships after the even? Yes, there is a claim of ownership after the event, but is it done by a me? By an entity?
Or it’s just a thoughts saying “I did that”?

The Me assumes absolute authority.

Are you sure that there is a real me assuming absolute authority?
Where is this ME?
What is it exactly that is claiming authority?

On another occasion, there was a decision to move to a new location in my vehicle. There wasn’t the thought, “I’ll move over there.”. The thought wasn't in the spoken word, it was too fast for that. If I look closer at that thought, there was a sense of this location and that location and a decision to go to that location. The implication is that there is an “I” hidden in there if you pick it all apart, but there may not be. I couldn’t see one

Almost every single thought (in one way or another), is ABOUT a me.

But just because there are THOUGHTS ABOUT a me, does this mean that there is a REAL me in the background? Where?

Similar to that and on another occasion, “Right, coffee.” was a thought that may not have had an “I” involved. It cannot be said with certainty that “I” made the decision for coffee in this instance so the possibility of this having simply been a decision for coffee, which did not involve the “I”, is plausible.

Do you think that there is an I behind actions and decision?
Look for this I. Where is it?
Is it inside the body somewhere? Where?

This is all “I” thinking.

Are you saying that there is a real I thinking thoughts?
Is this what experience show?
What is the experiential proof that there is an I or a me thinking thoughts?

“How am I feeling now?” is common. Like the Self asking for a situation report.

Are you sure?
Yes, there are thoughts with the word “I” in them…. But is there a real I talking and asking questions?

It feels like a bit of self sabotage going on here.

Is there really such thing as self-sabotage? Or.. there is only a thought story ABOUT a self-sabotage?

There are lots of layers added which the Me takes ownership of. The Me thinks it’s doing the talking and is being distracted and has to save the situation but really there's just sound, sensation, colour and thought.

You are talking about this me, as if it were a real entity, a real agency, with all sorts of powers, like the ability to think, control, make decisions, ask questions, feel emotions. But is that so?

Vivien

[HaHo]

Hi Vivien,

Are you sure that there is a me that is taking ownerships after the event? Yes, there is a claim of ownership after the event, but is it done by a me? By an entity?
Or it’s just a thoughts saying “I did that”?

In this instance there was a thought about an unquestioned assumption. The thought was, “I have learned something new about myself” and the unquestioned assumption is the subject of that thought, the “I”. I can’t find an entity and the claiming ownership is merely thought content.

Are you sure that there is a real me assuming absolute authority?
Where is this ME?
What is it exactly that is claiming authority?

No, I am not sure there is a real me assuming absolute authority. That thought, “Because it’s coming from Me.” is the end of the road. It’s like running into a hollow container and bouncing off and assuming it’s solid behind the outer shell. I can’t see anything behind the thought, “Because it's coming from Me.”. There isn’t anything claiming absolute authority, it is just a thought. A Me can’t be found in this example.

But just because there are THOUGHTS ABOUT a me, does this mean that there is a REAL me in the background? Where?

100% and with confidence I can agree that thoughts about a Me doesn’t mean there is or has to be a Me. This feels like a big discovery and yet very simple. Thanks!

Do you think that there is an I behind actions and decisions?
Look for this I. Where is it?
Is it inside the body somewhere? Where?

Upon looking for the I, it can’t be found in the body or outside the body. If it were anywhere, it would be in thought, but not as an entity, more as an assumed presence.

Are you saying that there is a real I thinking thoughts?
Is this what experience show?
What is the experiential proof that there is an I or a me thinking thoughts?

No, what I meant by saying, “This is all “I” thinking” was “This is all “I” focussed thinking.”. So thinking where there “I” takes centre stage.
There can be thinking without consideration of an I and then there can be a thought “I was deep in thought”. Neither prove the existence of an I doing it.

“How am I feeling now?” is common. Like the Self asking for a situation report.

Are you sure?
Yes, there are thoughts with the word “I” in them…. But is there a real I talking and asking questions?

There is internal talking and asking questions and the question, “How am I feeling now?” can happen. But I see what I did here. I made a leap of faith in assuming that thoughts about “I” infer the existence of a self. In my above quote where I say, “...Like the Self…”, that is the very moment where I make that jump in assumption.

Is there really such thing as self-sabotage? Or.. there is only a thought story ABOUT a self-sabotage?

It’s a story and an attempt to explain a pattern which has been observed. Self-sabotage is a superstition. This is all thought.

You are talking about this me, as if it were a real entity, a real agency, with all sorts of powers, like the ability to think, control, make decisions, ask questions, feel emotions. But is that so?

I haven’t found an entity whatsoever. I absolutely agree that I was talking from a place where an assumption of there being an actual Me was occuring. I can see that an “I” is not required to think, control, make decisions, ask questions, feel emotions.

[Vivien]

Hi HaHo,

Upon looking for the I, it can’t be found in the body or outside the body. If it were anywhere, it would be in thought, but not as an entity, more as an assumed presence.

OK, please look again. This investigation is about repeated looking and looking at the same thing again. This is what brings about the realization.

Is there an I anywhere else in reality (anywhere in the body)?

Is there anything else to the I other than the letter/word in a sentence /thought?

But I see what I did here. I made a leap of faith in assuming that thoughts about “I” infer the existence of a self.

Yes. so this is what we are investigating. We test our thoughts against experience/reality, to see if are thoughts actually telling the truth :)

Self-sabotage is a superstition. This is all thought.

Yes, it’s a superstition :) I like that label.

I haven’t found an entity whatsoever. I absolutely agree that I was talking from a place where an assumption of there being an actual Me was occuring. I can see that an “I” is not required to think, control, make decisions, ask questions, feel emotions.

Ok, so you have a good understanding of this. We are going to test it in reality (from several different angles), to see if this really the case.


Here is an exercise which examines the way in which the thoughts labels experience - it takes about 20 minutes and you will need a pen and paper.
This exercise is broken into 10 minute lots. For each 10-minute period pay attention to any bodily sensation, i.e. is there any tightening, or any relaxing?

For the first ten minutes write down what you are experiencing right now using the word “I”.
For example: I am sitting on a chair, I am hearing a clock ticking, I am looking at a computer screen, I am feeling hungry. Get right to the point, no past or future fantasy, just a plain description of your experience right here and now.

Then for the next ten minutes continue writing down what you are experiencing but this time without using the word “I”. Just describe the experience as it is happening using verbs. For example: sitting on a chair, typing, breathing, blinking, hearing the clock. (Again, watch what is happening in the body.)

At the end of the twenty minutes compare the two ways in which the experience was labelled and answer the following four questions:

Is one truer than the other, and If so, which one?
What is here without labels?
Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?
Did you notice any differences in the body?

Look during the day if the label I changes the experience, what is actually happening, or the label itself is part of experience/what is happening.

Vivien

[HaHo]

Is there an I anywhere else in reality (anywhere in the body)?

My initial response may be semantics but no, there isn’t an I anywhere else in reality. Not that I have found. There is an experience of being an I which takes place in thought. Also, that experience can have a physical quality, a sensation of a centre. For me, that centre is to be found in the centreline of the chest just above the heart and near the surface.

Is there anything else to the I other than the letter/word in a sentence /thought?

Yes, the experience of being an I is associated with a sensation in the body.

At the end of the twenty minutes compare the two ways in which the experience was labelled and answer the following four questions:

Is one truer than the other, and If so, which one?

Yes, one is truer. The second one, without the word “I” is truer. The first one where “I” was used is riddled with assumptions, for example, “I hear a bird outside”. How do I know it’s a bird that is being heard? Whereas, “Sound” is true to the experience of there being sound.

What is here without labels?

If I understand the question correctly, to answer that I would have to remove both ways in which experience is labelled. My answer is, there is just what is happening without any experience of it. The way I see it is that the labelling of what is here (happening), regardless of the addition of an I or not, is experience. So to remove labels removes experience.

Even in the second list without the “I”, “Sitting, feeling, hearing, looking” are the labels. If they are removed, there is still “Sitting, feeling, hearing, looking” just no experiencing, only the happening.

Without the labels there is no concept of what's happening so there can’t be an experience of what's happening, even though it doesn’t change the fact that there is seeing happening, hearing happening, etc.

Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?

Labels are the experience. When “I” is used it feels more involved like there is a doing of everything whereas without an “I” it feels more like observing. Both are experiences.

In the first list with an “I” there is the description which embellishes the experiencing and in the second list there is no describing, just observation of stuff going on. I guess you could argue that even a one worded observation is a description of an experience.

Did you notice any differences in the body?

There was more relaxation during the second 10 mins and a sense of calm as if there was less stuff happening.

Interestingly there were 32 in the first list and 55 in the second list so not what I expected. This will be due to the first list with “I” being written as phrases and the second list being single words.

Look during the day if the label I changes the experience, what is actually happening, or the label itself is part of experience/what is happening.

I believe I have answered this question in my above comments but what I can say is that occasionally, when “I” is used in thought, there is a sensation in the chest which feels like “my” centre. As if it is activated sometimes when there are thoughts about “myself”. This is the physicalization of the experience of a location of a Me. It’s not there all the time and is more prevalent or noticeable when there are strong emotions such as anger. These emotions come with their own sensations. So it’s easy to see them being connected and reinforcing the sense of a person experiencing things if they happen simultaneously.

I definitely need to continue looking at this as the above is written on limited experience from today.

[Vivien]

Hi HaHo,

My answer is, there is just what is happening without any experience of it.

It seems that you are denying the only thing that actually exists, experience itself.

So either you use the word experience very differently than how we use in this inquiry, or you are missing something.
Only that is considered real which can be experienced directly.

Experience (reality) is what is left when you stop thinking about it.
Experience = Reality

DE (direct experience): color, sound, taste, smell, sensation – Can you see this?
Everything else is ADDED as a thought (which is just a fiction).

We are making a distinction between what can be experienced in the moment - via the senses - and what is content of thought, meaning added (just a fantasy).

There is an experience of being an I which takes place in thought.

Is a thought content ever an experience?

This is important: A thought is DE (direct experience), it can be noticed right now, but its content isn't DE.

Think of yesterday’s dinner. There can be a picture brought up, smell and taste remembered, all content of a thought, but you won't be able to eat it right now.

And why? Since the dinner is not experienced, it’s not real.
Imagination is real, but not the dinner. Can you see this?

My answer is, there is just what is happening without any experience of it.

What is happening = Experience

All the thoughts story ABOUT what is happening is NOT a direct experience, since it’s just a thoughts story, a conceptual overlay and the raw immediate experience.

The way I see it is that the labelling of what is here (happening), regardless of the addition of an I or not, is experience. So to remove labels removes experience.

The label is never ever the experience.

It seems that you mistake thought contents with experience.

Label is just a thought, not experience.

Experience is what is directly available through the senses PRIOR TO any thoughts about them.

Look at the wall:
Isn’t the color (what is seen) is directly experience BEFORE any thought calling it ‘wall’?

Go to the sensations of the hands.
Isn’t the experience of the sensation there BEFORE any thought labelling it as ‘hand’?

Can you see that the only real thing is experience itself (color, sound, taste, smell, sensation)?
And everything else is just a fictional thoughts story that is ADDED to experience (to the real thing)?

Vivien

[HaHo]

Hi Vivien,

I think I should explain why I went off on a tangent. What led to my answer, “...there is just what is happening without any experience of it” was as a result of having interpreted the question as being, “What is there without experience?” when I read your question, “What is there without labels?”. I struggled to understand what you were meaning by the word labels. Previously you had referenced there being labels in both parts of the 10 minute test when you said, “...compare the two ways in which the experience was labelled.” Now in the second part of the test nearly all the experiences listed were a single word, “..swallowing, exhaling, scratching..” I concluded that they were also what was meant by the term labels. When I got the question, “What is here without labels?” I read, “What is here without those single worded experiences as well as the phrases which include an I?”.

With the word “experience”, I have long understood it to be something that can be “had”. So, “To have an experience.”. That makes it personal and is something the apparent self carries like a possession, be it a memory of a good experience or wanting to forget a bad experience. This is a longtime ingrained understanding of the word and although I am not at all against the prospect of “relearning” by looking, I can see how easy this can trip me up. Here is a good example which demonstrates the issue… For some reason, when I was young and learned the Planet’s names, I got confused and mixed up the planets Jupiter and Saturn. I had associated the name Jupiter with the image of Saturn and vice versa. Decades later this came to light and years after that, even now, I still get mixed up.

Experience = Reality.

I like this. I think I just need to pause each time I read or write or think of the word “experience” and gently remind myself of what it doesn’t mean, until I stop getting caught up on the word.

DE (direct experience): color, sound, taste, smell, sensation – Can you see this? Everything else is ADDED as a thought (which is just a fiction).

Yes, I can see this.

Is a thought content ever an experience?

No.

There is no such thing as the experience of being an “I”. The only experience there, is that of there being a thought. There can be a thought which contains the content, “I am”. Thought content is an interpretation of reality and that can only be a fiction.

Imagination is real, but not the dinner. Can you see this?

Yes. Thoughts of the past are real thoughts but that doesn’t make the past real. It is a memory which is a real memory but what is being remembered isn’t being experienced, isn’t real, isn’t actual.

My answer is, there is just what is happening without any experience of it.

What is happening = Experience

Can we brush this one under the carpet please? haha
I’m confident my initial remarks explain how I reached this conclusion. I thought the question meant, “What is there without experience?”. I misunderstood the question and I was not clear on the definition of the word “experience”, which didn’t help.

Isn’t the color (what is seen) is directly experience BEFORE any thought calling it ‘wall’?

Yes.

Isn’t the experience of the sensation there BEFORE any thought labelling it as ‘hand’?

Yes.

Can you see that the only real thing is experience itself (color, sound, taste, smell, sensation)?

Yes.

And everything else is just a fictional thoughts story that is ADDED to experience (to the real thing)?

Yes.

[HaHo]

I now understand how the word “labels” was being used. So thought creates labels which are applied to DE.

e.g. The DE could be colour and shape. That comes first and is the reality/experience. Then there is a thought which occurs. That is also reality/experience. The content of the thought may be, “red bus”. That is the label applied to DE and is not reality/experience. It is fiction. A story.

[Vivien]

Hi HaHo,

Thank you for your explanation. Now we both know what went amiss :)

There is no such thing as the experience of being an “I”. The only experience there, is that of there being a thought. There can be a thought which contains the content, “I am”. Thought content is an interpretation of reality and that can only be a fiction.

Yes, and this is what we are investigating here.

I now understand how the word “labels” was being used. So thought creates labels which are applied to DE.

A label is nothing else than a thought. For example…

There is the unnameable experience what we call ‘sensation’…. so the experience is there without any name, without any characteristics, and then a thought appears and label it ‘sensation’.

The word ‘sensation’ is a label on the raw experience.
Then another thought arise and might label that sensation as an ‘itch’.
Both the words/thoughts ‘sensation’ and ‘itch’ are just labels/thoughts, although one thought/label is closer to reality (sensation). Itch is a step further away from describing the raw experience, since the thought/label ‘itch’ ADDS something extra.
Is this clear?

e.g. The DE could be colour and shape. That comes first and is the reality/experience. Then there is a thought which occurs. That is also reality/experience. The content of the thought may be, “red bus”. That is the label applied to DE and is not reality/experience. It is fiction. A story.

Yes, that is an excellent description :)

All words are symbols. All symbols are conceptual. They are not reality.
Reality is what actually is, regardless of the absence or the presence of any symbol / word.
Reality is what still exists after we stopped thinking about it.

Now we can look together what is taken as the self, the I. What we will do is learn how the story of the self is built and woven and how it gets its strong credibility. We will check all actions and what this idea of a self is supposed to be able to do, and then to check if these are myths or reality.

Do have a look:

What makes HaHo? Does he/she has components and if yes, what are they?
If you would point to HaHo where would you point to?
What makes the special HaHo-ness?

Vivien

[HaHo]

Is this clear?

Yes, very clear.

What makes HaHo? Does he/she has components and if yes, what are they?

The predictability of behavioural patterns and reactions makes HaHo, along with the list below.

HaHo has an identity.

HaHo has a character.

HaHo has a personality.

HaHo has a reputation.

HaHo is associated with a physical body.

HaHo is a product of his social conditioning.

HaHo has a history.

HaHo is his future dreams and aspirations.

If you would point to HaHo where would you point to?

The centre of the chest, just above the heart.

What makes the special HaHo-ness?

That is the uniqueness of the list above compared with other people.

[Vivien]

Hi HaHo,

The centre of the chest, just above the heart.

Please put your attention to the sensations of the center of the chest, and just FEEL it.

If you ignore all thoughts and stories, what can you discover about this feeling, as a feeling only?

Please spend a whole day feeling the center of the chest… again and again (as often as possible) just stay with it and FEEL it… and notice what it is that actually felt there.

We will come back to your other comments later.

Vivien