Letting go

[Anastacia42]

Hi!

You've mostly got it. Yes.

3. Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?
Effect it. Dropping the 'I' puts some space between, so it becomes a bit like looking at someone else's hands for example.

Affect ... and yes, it does tend to give us a sense of dropping back, some space

This question is asking whether the label changes it. In other words does just putting a name on something change it?

I've noticed how action and movement consist of mostly images and sensations. Speaking consists of mostly sensations and sounds. Eating consists of mostly of sensations and tastes.

Yes! Good!

It's now appearing like typing is doing itself. Which is in line with what I've read on LU, but now it's starting to actually appear. This is really fascinating!

It is. And yes, it is easy to get drawn back into the story. It's just a habit.

Mostly for both exercises I noticed tension arising,

Usually, there's tension, heaviness & contraction when we lie or bear or read a lie. This is mostly in the gut or heart.

The second list, without "I" is likely to have less of this.

When we tell, read or hear something true. it's the opposite: relaxed, light, expansive.

Don't just believe me. Test some lies. Test some things you think are true.

You have very good awareness of sensory detail. This will help.

2. What is here without labels?
Awareness and experience

Perfect. Yes.

One note about awareness - don't try to make it into a new version of a "self. "

So, now try this:

Actual/Direct Experience - Apple

Have a look at an apple (or any fruit you like.) If you have a ‘real’ apple, you can use it for this exercise. Google for a picture of an apple if this one doesn't show up.



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

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

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?

Actual experience does not refer to thoughts ABOUT something…because that is only just more thought.

Actual experience is sound, thought, color, smell, taste, sensation and the fact of thought arising, but not its content.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only color and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?

Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in actual experience.

This is what is meant by "looking in actual experience." What you know for sure, and, is always here.

Taste labeled ‘apple’ is known
Color labeled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labeled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labeled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known

However, is an apple actually known?

Have fun and let me know what you find out.

Loving,

[Padmasukha]

Good Morning. Many thanks for your replies. I have work all day today, so will be replying at about 9.00 pm here, which I think is 2.00 pm there? Have a good day. Love and thanks :-) xxxx

[Anastacia42]

Beautiful! An apple for the "teacher?"

Have a fun day. I'll look for replies later

Loving,

[Padmasukha]

Hi Stacy. I had to do something else for much of this evening, so I'm doing this later than I would have chosen.
I feel my head is a bit mashed by this today.
When I look for the apple, it's not there. I can't find it. I find I have no solid proof of its existence, because all that is there are sense perceptions and thoughts, and none of those things is an apple or makes up an apple. The 'apple' is mere appearance. But when I conclude that it exists only as appearance to senses and thought, I remember Elena, in an exchange in Gateless Gatecrashers, contending that the body is real:

Charles: I looked around in the room to see what I see, what is real.
I saw many real things, then I looked at myself in the mirror, and a
thought came to me: “this is real, my body is real”.
I realised then, yes, the body is real, but the statement that my body is
real is a lie.
Elena: Yes.
Where is this “my” that claims the body? There is only this body. It is
real, but where is that part which the thoughts label as “My Body”?
The body is real, yes. It exists. “Mine” is just a label—but unlike the
label “body”, the label “mine” doesn’t refer to anything that is real.
See if this is true. Find “you”. Find out if “you” is real, if it exists or if it’s
just a label we wear so long that we forget it’s not there. Look.

Do you think that objects are real, or not real? Do you think they have a reality independent of the perceptions/thoughts/mind/awareness which apprehends them? If we are here to negate the 'I', how is the body not equally lacking in inherent existence? I feel I'm being pointed in two different directions. Oh wait, - is it that a body or apple has a conventional existence whereas the 'I' has no existence at all?
I have most of tomorrow free and will come back to this, and reconsider the apple with a clearer mind, and less philosophising, sorry!
With love and thanks xxx

Here are my mental ramblings that came out of the exercise this evening:

Taste labeled ‘apple’ is known
Color labeled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labeled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labeled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known

However, is an apple actually known?

I feel like I'm getting closer to this. What is known is a collection of different sense perceptions. Each sense is a different means for apprehending what appears to be an object. They bear little relation to each other, - the taste and the colour for instance. If you could only taste and smell it, you would never know what the colour was, or the shape, or what sound it might make when you bit it or dropped it.
Whatever is there could likely also be apprehended in many more ways which we don't have access to. It's much more multi-dimensional than we know. Or maybe it's not there at all? I realise I've fallen into the kind of philosophising I've been told not to get into here!
Just see what is actually there in experience. The apple eludes me. Or rather the lack of apple eludes me. But if the apple doesn't elude me, what do I think I've apprehended? Or rather, what is apprehended, as there is no 'I' to apprehend?
It sits on the arm of the sofa, and onto it I project a stoic persistence. It's appearance persists. It's lack of inherent existence defies me. But I will win. But there is no me to win. No apple. No me. No I. No Steph. No apple.
It's still there. On the lack of sofa.
What I'm looking for, is for the apple to elude me.
Amitayus, please lend your wisdom eye here.
The apple is not the taste of apple. The taste of apple is not an apple.
The apple is not the colour of apple. The colour of apple is not an apple.
The apple is not the smell of apple. The smell of apple is not an apple.
The apple is not the sensation of apple. The sensation of apple is not an apple.
The apple is not the sound of an apple being bitten. The sound of apple being bitten is not an apple.
The apple is not a thought of 'apple'. The thought 'apple' is not an apple.
None of these things is an apple, the collection of these things is not an apple, because none of these things is an apple, and there is nothing other than these things which is an apple, therefore an apple does not exist anywhere.
I think I do actually properly understand this intellectually now.
I used to think the apple was the collection of it's parts, but now I see it doesn't have any parts.
This way of looking is so much clearer than 'an apple isn't the stalk, the skin, the flesh, the core, the seeds'. Because the stalk, the skin, etc., have conventional reality, and when we're considering the conventional parts, of course the conventional apple is the collection of it's conventional parts. But here the appearances that make up the appearance of the apple clearly have no inherent existence, the sensations exist only moment by moment, dependent on their stimuli, so how can the apple be any more than that? The product of momentary and insubstantial perceptions?
I can't believe no-one has spelled this out to me like this before.
Could the apple be in existence, independent of my sense perceptions and thoughts? I guess I think it is, because Julian can see the same apple, or at least the same illusion of an apple in the same place, conventionally speaking. But how does that tie together, when all his perceived apple consists of is also a bunch of insubstantial perceptions and thoughts? And actually, I have no substantial evidence that Julian is real either?! Julian and myself also have no more substantial existence than the apple. We're also just appearances to a set of sense perceptions and thought.
So what I perceive is appearing to something which itself has no substantial existence.

[Anastacia42]

Hi Steph,

Good! "Mashed head" is good!

When I look for the apple, it's not there. I can't find it.

Correct!

I think I do actually properly understand this intellectually now.

Yes, you seem to.

I can't believe no-one has spelled this out to me like this before.

Pretty obvious, isn't it? It gets more so.

About the confusion:

This comes up a lot. "Real" is a slippery word & I usually don't use it. To me, no apple, no body is far more "real" than the imagination saying there is.

All of your confusion comes from something that can be called "level confusion." That's pretty much just confusing the relative (the world you're used to) with the absolute. Those words aren't perfect - no words can ever be - but that can help.

You have been living your life in the "relative."

You came here to see the "absolute " for lack of any word that really explains anything at all. :)

Don't belive your thinking on anything. LOOK. as explained in Colored Socks above.

I'll wait for your reply before giving you anything more to look into.

Much love,

[Padmasukha]

Hello again.
Thank you so much for all your kind replies.
In my rambling post yesterday I didn't respond to everything you wrote in the previous message; I just got lost in the apple exercise, so I'll go back to that now.

3. Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?
Effect it. Dropping the 'I' puts some space between, so it becomes a bit like looking at someone else's hands for example.

Affect ... and yes, it does tend to give us a sense of dropping back, some space

This question is asking whether the label changes it. In other words does just putting a name on something change it?

I feel like I answered this question, but you've put it in blue again, so I guess you are looking for more?
By labelling things - experiences, objects, etc, - as 'I am' doing this, and as 'my' this or that, we're putting a sense of ownership on it. This is 'my' experience, 'my' cup, my apple, my hands, my laptop, my concentration, my house, my village, etc., as if we had some kind of ownership of them; as if there were a me to whom all these things are somehow attached. Like the 'me' and 'mine' kind of holds them all together like a big cloud of invisible glue. Or like a huge invisible being with countless tentacles, desperately trying to hold onto everything and hold it together, grasping at everything as mine, mine, mine, in case it all slips away or slips into chaos.
Thinking 'I am' sitting seems like a kind of control thing now. Mentally grasping at this body, these activities, as 'mine'. There is (conventionally speaking) a body, it is (conventionally) sitting. There is no 'I' that sits.

It's now appearing like typing is doing itself. Which is in line with what I've read on LU, but now it's starting to actually appear. This is really fascinating!

It is. And yes, it is easy to get drawn back into the story. It's just a habit.

I can only imagine that breaking this habit is going to be a long old road! But the one that is most worth travelling.

Mostly for both exercises I noticed tension arising

Usually, there's tension, heaviness & contraction when we lie or bear or read a lie. This is mostly in the gut or heart.
The second list, without "I" is likely to have less of this.
When we tell, read or hear something true. it's the opposite: relaxed, light, expansive.
Don't just believe me. Test some lies. Test some things you think are true.

I have tried this, but I don't notice a difference in bodily tension.

One note about awareness - don't try to make it into a new version of a "self."

This does happen. When I negate anything else which could be labelled as a self, all that's left is awareness. And although I know that awareness couldn't possibly be called 'mine', I have confusion still about there being awareness that seems to be within this head, moving around the world in this body, looking out through these eyes. Although I know it's wrong, it's still appearing that way.

Actual/Direct Experience - Apple
What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?
...a thought saying ‘apple’; and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."

They refer to something which is (perceived as) inherently existent. A 'real' object, that is 'an apple' and could not be otherwise. Something that appears to have its own existence, independent of its surroundings and of a viewer. The thoughts describe something illusory as though it were real.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only color and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?

There isn't a real 'apple' here. Only sensations that appear to sense perceptions, and thoughts which arise habitually because of the way we've been trained to view conventional reality.

Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

No. An appearance of an independently existing object, conventionally labelled as 'apple', is appearing to an experience of seeing (or smelling, etc), and thought labels what's appearing as 'apple'.

Beautiful! An apple for the "teacher?"

A "This is not an apple" for the teacher :-D

It's so amazing to be able to have this conversation xxx

I'll reply to your latest message in another post this afternoon...

[Anastacia42]

Good morning,

You're welcome!

There's not a lot to reply to in the Friday 5:47 pm post, (I'll certainly address whatever you reply) but there's some clarification to do about the not-an-apple. :)

As to whether thoughts affect the thing or not, let's do a pointer on just that. See what is found here:

Label-Reality Correlation

There is a belief that labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’. But there isn’t. Just like it is a generally accepted belief that labels like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inherent characteristics of ‘things’. But actually, they are not.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN' , what is the actual experience?

Is the color red ‘experienced’, or is the color green ‘experienced’ as the label suggests?

Does the label ‘GREEN’ have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’? Or does the label suggest something else other than what is here now (red colour)?

Is 'green' associated in any way with the experience of the colour red; or is green just a label that overlays the actual experience of red?

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’ , is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no affect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

Let me know what is SEEN.

I have tried this, but I don't notice a difference in bodily tension.

I guarantee it's there. We'll go into this more shortly. Look inthe heart & gut areas.

Also,

Thinking 'I am' sitting seems like a kind of control thing now. Mentally grasping at this body, these activities, as 'mine'. There is (conventionally speaking) a body, it is (conventionally) sitting. There is no 'I' that sits.

Yes, it is an ILLUSION of control. We'll get to that shortly.

I can only imagine that breaking this habit is going to be a long old road!

It may take a little while to get there, but when it happens, it is often instantaneous. It was for me. Not for everyone, though. Sometimes it's gradual.

The more you're willing to question your thinking, the better.

Loving,

[Anastacia42]

Slight note: whether thoughts affect a thing = whether labels (which are just thoughts) affect a thing.

[Padmasukha]

Label-Reality Correlation

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN', what is the actual experience?

When I looked at the word on the page, the experience was a thought of the word label 'green' within the context of the sentence. Weirdly, on first reading, I didn't really notice that the word was in red. I only processed the word as the word 'green'. But the colour green didn't appear.

Is the color red ‘experienced’, or is the color green ‘experienced’ as the label suggests?
Now, the colour red is experienced.

Does the label ‘GREEN’ have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’? Or does the label suggest something else other than what is here now (red colour)?

The label GREEN has no correspondence to reality. When I see it, I read 'green', and register it as a word I know a meaning for, but I experience red. The subsequent thoughts of green that the label gives rise to, out of habit, are generic images of grass, trees, areas of flat green colour, the green colours available for typeface and so on. The relationship to reality is just learned.

Is 'green' associated in any way with the experience of the colour red; or is green just a label that overlays the actual experience of red?

Green is a label for something other than red, that subtly confuses the experience of red in this context, which I think is why I didn't notice straight away that you'd typed it in red. I just read the words, and was confused by the question :-D
When I now read the word green and it's red, it looks wrong, it looks like a piece of conceptual art, deliberately 'wrong' to make you think.

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’ , is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

Because there are memories of the words' meanings and associations, the words have a kind of flavour about them as they are read, even without actually bringing to mind any 'good' or 'bad' things, but the colour doesn't seem to be affected by this.

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no affect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

The redness does not become 'good' or 'bad'. It's just red.

With love and gratitude xxx

[Padmasukha]

... Thinking more generally though, I think labelling things does affect how we perceive them. One of our (adult) children changed their name to a gender-neutral one, and the name - and the 'they' - does affect how I view them. If I saw something I wasn't familiar with, and didn't know whether it was a fruit or a vegetable, naming it one or the other would affect how I viewed it...

[Anastacia42]

Hi again,

I'm not surprised at your initial replies. You're one of those people who puts language above experience. You're going to have to unlearn that in order to see that there is no self. Self only exists in language. In labels.

We're gonna have to work on that. I love it!

In psychology this is called being language bound. You are stuck in the words.

I think labelling things does affect how we perceive them.

Right... you "THINK" - and what have we started to learn about "content of thinking?" We made it up! It overlays experience but it is not experienced. It could even be said to be LIES... STORIES.

Go back and read Colored Socks, the first exercise I gave you. It was first for a reason.

This is essential to learn... well, more UNLEARN.

Don't worry I was that way, too. But I had done a lot of body centered work, too. You weren't feeling your body's responses. You will.

Loving,

[Padmasukha]

You are stuck in the words.

This is very much my problem! This is why I need this conversation!
I feel so encouraged by your sympathetic understanding.
I find writing often leads to understanding for me. As I write, new understanding comes about things.
But here we are at a boundary where language ceases to be useful.
You bring me to the boundary with words, and that is where I need to let go of them.
I have a book on my desk right now: Sangharakshita's 'Wisdom Beyond Words.' It's full of words!
In Tibetan Buddhism, the first lesson is in how to rely upon a spiritual guide. I appreciate that more than ever now. Endless studying is no substitute for a real conversation with someone who has already made the journey you want to take.
Please imagine a row of hands-in-prayer emojis here :-) xxxx

[Anastacia42]

Thank you. That's very sweet.

You can do this!

Loving,

[Anastacia42]

I would like you to revisit The GREEN exercise, please. Staying out of memories, definitions, associations, etc. as much as possible just being right here, right now IN the experience, go through and give simple answers to that exercise. Then we will move on to a similar one that expands on that one.

Okay? Okay.

Much love to you,

[Padmasukha]

Good Morning.
Thank you for your understanding, patience and persistence.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN', what is the actual experience?

Seeing, image/colour, thoughts arising.

Is the color red ‘experienced’, or is the color green ‘experienced’ as the label suggests?

The colour red is experienced.
Subsequent thoughts and mental images of greenness are just the content of thoughts.

Does the label ‘GREEN’ have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’? Or does the label suggest something else other than what is here now (red colour)?

The word label has no correspondence to reality.
The label 'green' prompts thoughts, their content, associations, mental images, etc, about the colour green, which have nothing to do with this experience of red.

Is 'green' associated in any way with the experience of the colour red; or is green just a label that overlays the actual experience of red?

It is not associated with the experience of the colour red.
I'm not clear on exactly what you mean here by 'overlays.' If you mean it adds another layer over the experience of red, then yes.
The name label points to something which is not present in actual experience, and adds layers of thoughts that have nothing to do with what is actually seen directly.
I think I see where this is going now!
The overlay is such that on first reading I didn't even acknowledge the presence of the redness.
It obscured my view of what was there in actual experience (redness).

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

The redness is not affected.
It's just different labels pointing to more things that aren't present, and leading to more layers of thoughts, associations, etc.

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no affect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

The labels have no affect whatsoever on 'reality'.
Red is still just red.
They point to things that aren't there.
But the labels distract from/obscure the direct experience of what is actually there.

Much love and thanks :-) xxx