Into the great wide open...

[warissem]

Good evening

Yes for what is observed but there is a need to report as it is said in the example of the post :

Whatever is seen, report it like this :
Seeing ......... (whatever is seen), simply= image/colour

Whatever is heard, report it like this :
Hearing ......... (whatever is heard), simply= sound

Etc, ... do the same thing with other senses and thoughts.

This exercise is helping to maintain a focus on direct experience.

Warissem

[whiterabbit]

Your instructions seem to be the same as I'm currently practicing. I need more clarification.

I'm using 6 words: color, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought. These are the only six words I'm using. When something appears to happen, one of these 6 words are used. That's all that is focused on saying within here during times of practice.

The observations I stated in the previous post are from practicing like this for 2 days.

[warissem]

Good morning

I am not here to argue with you. This is what you wrote :

Some observations:
At times, labeling is easy. Especially, when there's not much happening around me; like after waking up.
At times, labeling is hard. When I'm in the kitchen preparing food, taking out dishes, opening the fridge, ... there's so much happening in quick succession that I can't keep up with labeling, and frequently mislabel. There is concentration though.
Sound, color, and sensation are the three labelings cycled through a lot. Smell and taste are rarely recognized.
Thought, when it happens, seems to be less recognized. It either happens so fast that I don't notice it amongst the other labelings, or it lasts so long, that I forget about labeling and later "wake up" to that I was thinking.
Labeling seems to keep me in a state of peace and concentration. Sensations that might otherwise trigger me, like certain sounds or thoughts, don't. The focus is kept on the labeling.

This text is NOT about DIRECT experience, it is about your THOUGHTS about what is happening. Now, i am still waiting for your answers in the form I have given to you in my post. I want you to leave your thoughts and come to the ground of experience. You said "the focus is kept on the labeling" : the exercise is put to maintain the focus on direct experience not on labeling.
Example : seeing the screen, simply = color
my fingers on the keyboard, simply = sensation

It is not a "thinking" exercise but you have to live the experience of seeing only color (without the label screen). I wish this will help.

Warissem

[whiterabbit]

Dear warissem,

My intention with the post was to get clarification, not to argue. I am trying to understand the directions and the type feedback you are expecting, but it isn't clear to me. I will reread your posts a couple of times.

[whiterabbit]

I have a guess what you might want... Would you like me to write a post from the now, like so?

sound
sound
sound
color
sound
sound
sound
color
sound

(this is what just appeared to happen)

[warissem]

Hi

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.

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 at direct 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?

NB : quote each question and answer to it.

Best for you

Warissem

[whiterabbit]

Thank you. I intend to respond as soon as possible today, Friday.

[whiterabbit]

Thank you for your patience. Something about what you wrote needed time before an answer came.

Have a look at an apple (or any fruit you like.) If you have a ‘real’ apple, you can use it for this exercise.

I have a 'real' apple in front of me now.

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.

When you say known, do you mean recognized (remembered)? When I look at the apple, the color is recognized and the smell is recognized. The color and smell is familiar; it is not new. I experience no thoughts looking at the apple, but there is a sense of familiarity with what is seen. If somebody asked me: "what is that?", then the thought "an apple" seems likely to appear.

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?

I don't know what an "apple" is. There is a familiar sequence of letters (a-p-p-l-e) and an associated spoken sound which is somehow linked together with the experience of certain familiar colors, smells, and so on. The thought has no reality in itself. It is a sign, a code, a pointer.

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’?

There is color and smell. If somebody were to ask me "what is that?", then there might be a thought "apple".

Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

I can't find the thought "apple" in actual experience. If I put an apple, a pear, and an orange in a line... and below a card with the word "apple"... then I suspect the card and the apple would be seen as belonging together. I don't know why, but that's what would seem to happen 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?

What is an apple? I don't know anything about this thing in front of me... except a familiarity with its taste (I tasted it), color (I saw it), touch (I touched it), smell (I smelled it), and thought (I wrote the word "apple" multiple times in this post). There also appear to be various other familiar thought forms somehow connected to the thought "apple": "red", "sweet", "tree", etc.

I hope this helps. I'm happy to answer more questions or consider other examples.

[warissem]

Hi

I don't know what an "apple" is. There is a familiar sequence of letters (a-p-p-l-e) and an associated spoken sound which is somehow linked together with the experience of certain familiar colors, smells, and so on. The thought has no reality in itself. It is a sign, a code, a pointer.

I like what is written here, you understand that the label "apple" is only a pointer. Now, if I put a label "apple" before an orange, does it change something to the orange ?

When I use the word "know", "knowing", it means generally "being aware". There is knowing of an apple = there is awareness (being aware) of an apple. As you ca see, there is knowing of all experiences (five senses appearances) and the knowing of thoughts. Where is "I", where are you, where is a separate self in all of this stuff ?

Best for you

Warissem

[whiterabbit]

Now, if I put a label "apple" before an orange, does it change something to the orange ?

No, there is still an appearance of an orange. The label "apple" is a thought appearing there too.

There is knowing of an apple = there is awareness (being aware) of an apple. As you can see, there is knowing of all experiences (five senses appearances) and the knowing of thoughts. Where is "I", where are you, where is a separate self in all of this stuff ?

It seems like the "I" is this thing that arises when I return from daydreaming: I've been lost in thought and some daydream happens, there is no I... and then suddenly I am "here" again. Getting back to "here" is getting back to I. A sort of witnessing presence behind the eyes. It also seems to be able to weigh different options, and then decide.

[warissem]

Good morning

It seems like the "I" is this thing that arises when I return from daydreaming: I've been lost in thought and some daydream happens, there is no I... and then suddenly I am "here" again. Getting back to "here" is getting back to I. A sort of witnessing presence behind the eyes. It also seems to be able to weigh different options, and then decide.

yes, there is a presence, being aware but are you 100% sure that it is behind the eyes ? I invite you to do this investigation.

Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.
Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

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?

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

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?

What is the actual experience of a head, an eye ?
Is there a witness somewhere ?

best for you

Warissem

[whiterabbit]

Thank you. I recorded your questions as audio and listened to them with eyes closed.

I want to first state a general observation and then answer your questions individually.

General observation

Without encouraging color (or mental color), there were two dominant experiences: sound and sensation.

However, I cannot seem to not experience mental color. Sound and sensation arrive together with a map in space. For example: this sound ("breathing") is experienced as closer to that other sound ("distant traffic"). This sensation ("heart pumping") is experienced as between those two other sensations ("foot on floor" and "blood pumping in head").

For sound, the center of this map seems to be exactly between the ears: left, right, front, back, up, down.
For sensation, I don't know if a center is perceived, but there is a relative map perceived: up, down, and between.

Investigative questions

Can it be known how tall the body is?

If there's no color (or mental color), then the word tall seems to point to nothing. If there is only sensation, sound, smell, or taste, then no difference in "tallness" is perceived here.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

If there's no color (or mental color), then no "volume" seems to be perceived here.
I can experience "weight" through sensation; for example, a heavy backpack seems to "press" more on the shoulders. So there seems to be some concept of difference in "weight" as sensed in the shoulders. I also notice a difference in "weight" of the "body" when I'm immersed in water or when I'm on land.

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

If there's no color (or mental color), then there's no shape or form of body here.

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

There is a sensation of "clothing" and "chair". However, "boundary" only has meaning here when there's color (or mental color).

Is there an inside or an outside?

Sensation seems to be of two different kinds: "inside" and "outside". When there's "blood pumping" sensation, it seems to be "inside". When there's "chair" sensation, then it seems to be "outside". However, it is not clear to me whether this is a learned association formed through (mental) color or if it always was there.

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

I don't know what the "what exactly" is. There is sensation. There are labels "inside" and "outside" that are used to separate sensations... inside: "blood pulsating", "tension"... outside: "air", "chair", "floor". However, I don't know what the "what exactly" is. There is sensation and the sensations seem to be of two different types.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
What is the actual experience of a head, an eye ?

Here, without color and mental color, I would say "body", "head", and "eye" refer to certain familiar continuous sensations and sounds: "blood pumping" sensations, and in contrast to "other" changing things like "chair sensation", "floor sensation", "air sensation". Familiar "body" sounds include various forms of breathing, yawning, singing, etc.; "other" sounds include "traffic", "birds", "rain".

Is there a witness somewhere ?

I don't know. Without color or mental color, there is sensation and sound... it's not clear to me if there is any witness there.
With mental color there is location in space of sensation and sound, and thereby also a sound center and relative position of sensation.

[warissem]

Hi

Without encouraging color (or mental color), there were two dominant experiences: sound and sensation.

Yes, good observation.

However, I cannot seem to not experience mental color. Sound and sensation arrive together with a map in space. For example: this sound ("breathing") is experienced as closer to that other sound ("distant traffic"). This sensation ("heart pumping") is experienced as between those two other sensations ("foot on floor" and "blood pumping in head").

Yes, sensations and sounds arise in the same awareness.
Is there separation between sensations and the knowing of them ?
Is there separation between sounds and the knowing of them?
Is there separation between thoughts (or mental color) and the knowing of them?

For sound, the center of this map seems to be exactly between the ears: left, right, front, back, up, down.
For sensation, I don't know if a center is perceived, but there is a relative map perceived: up, down, and between.

These answers are given through imagination : is the map seen as the screen is seen ? or does it exist only as a thought, a mental image ?
There is a difference between Direct experience and imagination, thought stories. When doing the exercises, lean only on direct experience and disregard thoughts and mental images.


You have done good observations about the body exercise but you introduced a condition : “if there is no mental color" (imagination, thoughts). Once again, during our dialog we go to direct experience (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching or sensations). Thoughts are used to communicate. During the investigation of the body, eyes closed, you noticed sensations and sounds. It is OK but you always refer to the mental image of the body to answer some questions (like inside and outside of the body, etc…).
Question : you are sitting on a chair : is there a frontier between the body and the chair ? Are there two sensations or one sensation ? Don’t go to the mental image of the body.

Best for you

Warissem

[whiterabbit]

Is there separation between sensations and the knowing of them ?
Is there separation between sounds and the knowing of them?

In direct experience, there is no such separation. Sensations and sounds happen.

Is there separation between thoughts (or mental color) and the knowing of them?

In direct experience, there is no such separation. Mental color happens.

For sound, the center of this map seems to be exactly between the ears: left, right, front, back, up, down.
For sensation, I don't know if a center is perceived, but there is a relative map perceived: up, down, and between.

These answers are given through imagination : is the map seen as the screen is seen ? or does it exist only as a thought, a mental image ?
There is a difference between Direct experience and imagination, thought stories. When doing the exercises, lean only on direct experience and disregard thoughts and mental images.

Yes, the map is mental color. I intended to communicate that sound and sensation co-arise with the map here. From now on, per your instruction, I will disregard this mental color even if it's there. (The experiment I did in my current environment, and later also with binaural audio with headphones, was to point my finger where sound came from: thus, for a sound right next to my ear my hand automatically pointed there and for a sound far away it pointed over there. Similarly, I could point with my finger to the location of sensations.)

You have done good observations about the body exercise but you introduced a condition : “if there is no mental color" (imagination, thoughts). Once again, during our dialog we go to direct experience (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching or sensations). Thoughts are used to communicate. During the investigation of the body, eyes closed, you noticed sensations and sounds. It is OK but you always refer to the mental image of the body to answer some questions (like inside and outside of the body, etc…).
Question : you are sitting on a chair : is there a frontier between the body and the chair ? Are there two sensations or one sensation ? Don’t go to the mental image of the body.

In direct experience, there is no frontier. There is just sensation.
(I believe I brought up mental colors, because mental color is involved in translating the expression frontier between body and the chair into what it may mean in direct experience. I found meaning with mental colors, but I didn't find meaning in sensation.)

[warissem]

Hi

Yes, look at direct experience all along the day, during your activities and see if there is a separate self involved.
Example : is there a you seeing or seeing is just happening ?
Are you washing dishes or washing dishes is happening ?
Look at direct experience and see that there is no you, no separate self, there never was, it will never be.

Warissem