The Gate

Hi Shreyash

Is everything OK? It's been a week with no sign of you. Are we still doing this?

Love
Rali

HI Rali,

Yes we are still doing this. The questions this time felt like they needed a bit more attention to do justice to and I wasn't able to get around to it in the last few days :)

You say there are sensations. Are those sensations somehow linked to the thinking or are they simply appearing together with thinking?

These sensations don't have any inherent linkage to the thoughts other than co-dependent arising. They come into my experience when I look for that "me".

There is aliveness, there are sensations (“heart beating”, “breathing”) but what in these sensation suggests “thinker” or a “me”?

When I observe these physical sensations, nothing about them suggests a me, they are just existing of their own accord.
However when I look for "me", then certain thoughts and sensations come up in response, and those get associated.

Also when you say silence is this the lack of an answer or the fact that there is nothing separate from thought doing the thinking?

It is a lack of an answer - when I continue to recursively look for "me" or the "observer" of everything that comes up, I find nothing coming up in my AE/DE in response.

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts? Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?

No, I cannot ensure that only pleasants thought arise. Nor can I guarantee that I will be free from painful thoughts at any moment.

Can you choose to have only happy thoughts all the time? If it happens that sometimes you have happy thoughts and sometimes you have sad thoughts doesn’t this suggest that they just happen on their own?

True, there are moments that "should" be happy where there is sadness and moments that "should" be sad where there is happiness. It does suggest that I am not in total control of my thoughts. And there is another thought that arises - the thought that I can partially direct my thoughts.

Look at the clouds in the sky. Are they moving according to anyone's direction? How is the movement of thoughts different from the movement of clouds?

In the past there have been experiences where - for example - while trying to work on a project I have noticed the mind is a bit busy and chaotic so I have made the decision to sit and meditate and then I have been able to keep the mind focused on the project better. This, to me, feels distinctly different from the idea that the thoughts are like clouds completely out of my control because there was some direction that I was able to provide to the clouds.
While I have evidence of thoughts not totally being in my control, there is still the thought that they can at least be partially guided in some direction by actions.

Why did you choose that number? Why not the previous number, or the next one? Do you know? If not, why don’t you know?

I do not know why I chose the number that I did. It simply arose. I cannot say why that specific number arose, but is there not still some agency there? Ultimately it was a number that came up, and not a color or a smell or an object. Which number specifically wasn't consciously directed by me, but the fact that only a number should come up seems intentional or 'controlled' on my part.

Maybe repeat the questions with your favourite team vs eating chocolate. Why did you choose to think of the team? Did it come out of the blue or you planned to think of your team? Did you plan about this yesterday and you named the time and place when it will happen?

Yes, in my example I gave the idea of a sports team and that choice was quite random (perhaps influenced by the fact that I was reading a blog article about a sports team before writing that post). I had not planned it explicitly.

Also, it seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence. Or is it just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that "one thought follows another thought"?

Yes, even the thought/belief that I have some control or that I am directing the thoughts is in itself another thought.

How did you bring awareness to thoughts?

Hmmm.. "bringing awareness" to a thought simply just felt like that thought coming into my AE/DE more prominently. If I had lost track of the exercise then there was a process of
"oh I have lost track" -> "I should bring my attention back to the exercise" -> (the exercise of observation and related thoughts are back at the forefront of my experience).

Can there be thoughts without awareness?

No.. if I am not aware of a thought and it never enters my AE/DE then it is like it never existed.

Can there be awareness without thoughts (object of awareness)?

This is something that I experience at times during meditation when there is simply awareness and the flow of thoughts has reduced - there are moments where there is awareness and no prominent object. I might be missing something there but to me it is as if there is awareness without thought (briefly).
Or perhaps what I am experiencing in that moment is a thought about awareness.

Are they separate entities? Is awareness like a container for thoughts, are there solid thoughts floating around? Can awareness see, speak, hear…? Are you awareness?

Conceptually they are separate to me in that awareness is like the space in which the thoughts arise, or the thing that directs itself towards different things and results in different thoughts arising. But I understand this may just be a learning or abstraction.

Practically I cannot see any evidence of that space of 'awareness' in my AE/DE, anything that comes up as a response to looking for awareness is just a thought that is itself in that space of awareness.
Because I cannot find awareness anywhere in my direct experience, it does not have any ability to see, speak, hear, etc. I don't think "I" am awareness because if the idea of "I" can be contained in my awareness as a thought or a sensation, then awareness must be "larger" than I, or encompassing it.

Focus on focusing, attention itself.
Do you move it, or it moves by itself?
Hold focus on breath - see how it moves to thoughts, sensations, feelings, sounds.
Is this something you control?

The attention moves by itself. When trying to keep the attention on the breath, different thoughts become the center of attention on their own.
When you ask "is this something you can control", my answer would be no in response to the random thoughts arising as I try to focus on the breath. But when I realize I am distracted and I bring the breath back into focus, is that not an intentional or controlled act? Even in that situation actually it unfolds as if the breath was sort of brought back into focus on its own and any sensations related to the negativity of having realized I am distracted arise on their own, there is just a thought present that "I" have done this.

What moves attention? Can anything be found that moves attention, or does attention/focus move on its own?
Is thought in control of attention?

Attention moves on its own, I cannot find anything in my direct experience that is moving the attention. Only a remnant thought that "I" have moved it after the task is done, and perhaps some physical sensations connected to that thought - situationally positive or negative.
Since this thought comes after the attention actually moves, it leads me to believe that thought is not controlling the attention, rather that thought is justifying the movement that attention did on its own.

Are there two things – focus and objects of focus (experiencing) or one indivisible knowing_seeing_tasting_hearing_sensing_smelling_thinking (THIS)?

There is only the experience (knowing_seeing_tasting_hearing_sensing_smelling_thinking). Any thought/idea of the self or a physical response to looking for the self also falls within THIS. If I look for someone doing the focusing then that thought or response becomes the THIS experience, and if I look for what is focusing on that, then that also becomes the THIS experience.

This video might be helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lm3G0_ ... ex=17&t=8s

Yes this video was helpful in understanding the idea of being stuck on finding a 'pilot for the ship' so to speak, and that the seeker and knowledge are just appearances or constructs.

We are talking on a fundamental level. But also how many times your thought even when not checked with DE have been wrong? Back to the inquiry…Think of it in terms of the “apple” exercise. Your thought says that there is an object called “apple” with certain characteristics. Your DE says a different story – there is only seeing, tasting… labelled “apple”.
So which one is correct?

Thoughts are wrong all the time even from the relative level without looking through AE/DE. When observed empirically, the apple only exists to me as the elements of DE - seeing, tasting, labelling/thought etc. But these happen fast enough and quickly enough together that they are not picked apart or constructed if the effort is not applied, and the illusion of the 'apple' as a separate entity continues.

Does the label "I" contain an actual I...does it contain an actual person?

No there is no actual tangible separate person in that label, it is a combination of thoughts and sensations in DE that are being bundled as I.

Does the label "I" itself, suggest in any way that it is an I? Does the label "I" know anything about an I?

Unsure what these questions mean, the label "I" is just an idea or a thought. How can a thought suggest anything or know anything about something else?

What does the label "I" point to? In other words, what does the word/label "I" actually refer to?

All the thoughts, sensations, etc. that arise in DE arise and are experienced by some"thing". If this something is looked for then more thoughts and sensations are found in DE. There is a thought that "there is something experiencing all of this".
The word "I" refers to the space or vessel experiencing all the elements of THIS, though I cannot find evidence of it directly in my DE. For example, if "I" prick my finger then the sensation of pain is arising in my DE, but not in yours. So there is some sense of me having "my" own unique DE and you having yours. "My" "THIS" is being labelled as "I".

HI Rali,

Yes we are still doing this. The questions this time felt like they needed a bit more attention to do justice to and I wasn't able to get around to it in the last few days :)

You say there are sensations. Are those sensations somehow linked to the thinking or are they simply appearing together with thinking?

These sensations don't have any inherent linkage to the thoughts other than co-dependent arising. They come into my experience when I look for that "me".

There is aliveness, there are sensations (“heart beating”, “breathing”) but what in these sensation suggests “thinker” or a “me”?

When I observe these physical sensations, nothing about them suggests a me, they are just existing of their own accord.
However when I look for "me", then certain thoughts and sensations come up in response, and those get associated.

Also when you say silence is this the lack of an answer or the fact that there is nothing separate from thought doing the thinking?

It is a lack of an answer - when I continue to recursively look for "me" or the "observer" of everything that comes up, I find nothing coming up in my AE/DE in response.

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts? Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?

No, I cannot ensure that only pleasants thought arise. Nor can I guarantee that I will be free from painful thoughts at any moment.

Can you choose to have only happy thoughts all the time? If it happens that sometimes you have happy thoughts and sometimes you have sad thoughts doesn’t this suggest that they just happen on their own?

True, there are moments that "should" be happy where there is sadness and moments that "should" be sad where there is happiness. It does suggest that I am not in total control of my thoughts. And there is another thought that arises - the thought that I can partially direct my thoughts.

Look at the clouds in the sky. Are they moving according to anyone's direction? How is the movement of thoughts different from the movement of clouds?

In the past there have been experiences where - for example - while trying to work on a project I have noticed the mind is a bit busy and chaotic so I have made the decision to sit and meditate and then I have been able to keep the mind focused on the project better. This, to me, feels distinctly different from the idea that the thoughts are like clouds completely out of my control because there was some direction that I was able to provide to the clouds.
While I have evidence of thoughts not totally being in my control, there is still the thought that they can at least be partially guided in some direction by actions.

Why did you choose that number? Why not the previous number, or the next one? Do you know? If not, why don’t you know?

I do not know why I chose the number that I did. It simply arose. I cannot say why that specific number arose, but is there not still some agency there? Ultimately it was a number that came up, and not a color or a smell or an object. Which number specifically wasn't consciously directed by me, but the fact that only a number should come up seems intentional or 'controlled' on my part.

Maybe repeat the questions with your favourite team vs eating chocolate. Why did you choose to think of the team? Did it come out of the blue or you planned to think of your team? Did you plan about this yesterday and you named the time and place when it will happen?

Yes, in my example I gave the idea of a sports team and that choice was quite random (perhaps influenced by the fact that I was reading a blog article about a sports team before writing that post). I had not planned it explicitly.

Also, it seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence. Or is it just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that "one thought follows another thought"?

Yes, even the thought/belief that I have some control or that I am directing the thoughts is in itself another thought.

How did you bring awareness to thoughts?

Hmmm.. "bringing awareness" to a thought simply just felt like that thought coming into my AE/DE more prominently. If I had lost track of the exercise then there was a process of
"oh I have lost track" -> "I should bring my attention back to the exercise" -> (the exercise of observation and related thoughts are back at the forefront of my experience).

Can there be thoughts without awareness?

No.. if I am not aware of a thought and it never enters my AE/DE then it is like it never existed.

Can there be awareness without thoughts (object of awareness)?

This is something that I experience at times during meditation when there is simply awareness and the flow of thoughts has reduced - there are moments where there is awareness and no prominent object. I might be missing something there but to me it is as if there is awareness without thought (briefly).
Or perhaps what I am experiencing in that moment is a thought about awareness.

Are they separate entities? Is awareness like a container for thoughts, are there solid thoughts floating around? Can awareness see, speak, hear…? Are you awareness?

Conceptually they are separate to me in that awareness is like the space in which the thoughts arise, or the thing that directs itself towards different things and results in different thoughts arising. But I understand this may just be a learning or abstraction.

Practically I cannot see any evidence of that space of 'awareness' in my AE/DE, anything that comes up as a response to looking for awareness is just a thought that is itself in that space of awareness.
Because I cannot find awareness anywhere in my direct experience, it does not have any ability to see, speak, hear, etc. I don't think "I" am awareness because if the idea of "I" can be contained in my awareness as a thought or a sensation, then awareness must be "larger" than I, or encompassing it.

Focus on focusing, attention itself.
Do you move it, or it moves by itself?
Hold focus on breath - see how it moves to thoughts, sensations, feelings, sounds.
Is this something you control?

The attention moves by itself. When trying to keep the attention on the breath, different thoughts become the center of attention on their own.
When you ask "is this something you can control", my answer would be no in response to the random thoughts arising as I try to focus on the breath. But when I realize I am distracted and I bring the breath back into focus, is that not an intentional or controlled act? Even in that situation actually it unfolds as if the breath was sort of brought back into focus on its own and any sensations related to the negativity of having realized I am distracted arise on their own, there is just a thought present that "I" have done this.

What moves attention? Can anything be found that moves attention, or does attention/focus move on its own?
Is thought in control of attention?

Attention moves on its own, I cannot find anything in my direct experience that is moving the attention. Only a remnant thought that "I" have moved it after the task is done, and perhaps some physical sensations connected to that thought - situationally positive or negative.
Since this thought comes after the attention actually moves, it leads me to believe that thought is not controlling the attention, rather that thought is justifying the movement that attention did on its own.

Are there two things – focus and objects of focus (experiencing) or one indivisible knowing_seeing_tasting_hearing_sensing_smelling_thinking (THIS)?

There is only the experience (knowing_seeing_tasting_hearing_sensing_smelling_thinking). Any thought/idea of the self or a physical response to looking for the self also falls within THIS. If I look for someone doing the focusing then that thought or response becomes the THIS experience, and if I look for what is focusing on that, then that also becomes the THIS experience.

This video might be helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lm3G0_ ... ex=17&t=8s

Yes this video was helpful in understanding the idea of being stuck on finding a 'pilot for the ship' so to speak, and that the seeker and knowledge are just appearances or constructs.

We are talking on a fundamental level. But also how many times your thought even when not checked with DE have been wrong? Back to the inquiry…Think of it in terms of the “apple” exercise. Your thought says that there is an object called “apple” with certain characteristics. Your DE says a different story – there is only seeing, tasting… labelled “apple”.
So which one is correct?

Thoughts are wrong all the time even from the relative level without looking through AE/DE. When observed empirically, the apple only exists to me as the elements of DE - seeing, tasting, labelling/thought etc. But these happen fast enough and quickly enough together that they are not picked apart or constructed if the effort is not applied, and the illusion of the 'apple' as a separate entity continues.

Does the label "I" contain an actual I...does it contain an actual person?

No there is no actual tangible separate person in that label, it is a combination of thoughts and sensations in DE that are being bundled as I.

Does the label "I" itself, suggest in any way that it is an I? Does the label "I" know anything about an I?

Unsure what these questions mean, the label "I" is just an idea or a thought. How can a thought suggest anything or know anything about something else?

What does the label "I" point to? In other words, what does the word/label "I" actually refer to?

All the thoughts, sensations, etc. that arise in DE arise and are experienced by some"thing". If this something is looked for then more thoughts and sensations are found in DE. There is a thought that "there is something experiencing all of this".
The word "I" refers to the space or vessel experiencing all the elements of THIS, though I cannot find evidence of it directly in my DE. For example, if "I" prick my finger then the sensation of pain is arising in my DE, but not in yours. So there is some sense of me having "my" own unique DE and you having yours. "My" "THIS" is being labelled as "I".

Accidentally posted a duplicate reply, please ignore.

Hi Shreyash

When I observe these physical sensations, nothing about them suggests a me, they are just existing of their own accord.
However when I look for "me", then certain thoughts and sensations come up in response, and those get associated.

What is a “physical” sensation? Is there a non-physical in contrast?
How are these thoughts and sensations associated with a “me”? Is there an entity outside of thoughts and sensations that does the association? What identifies with these thoughts and sensations?

It is a lack of an answer - when I continue to recursively look for "me" or the "observer" of everything that comes up, I find nothing coming up in my AE/DE in response.

How many times do you need to look so the answer appears? Is the thinker playing hide and seek? Or is it just thought persisting that there is one? LOOK again!

It does suggest that I am not in total control of my thoughts. And there is another thought that arises - the thought that I can partially direct my thoughts.

So you are in partial control? What is stopping you from full control? Why are you in control of some and not all? What makes one thought (one that you are in control) different from another (one that you are not)? LOOK!

In the past there have been experiences where - for example - while trying to work on a project I have noticed the mind is a bit busy and chaotic so I have made the decision to sit and meditate and then I have been able to keep the mind focused on the project better. This, to me, feels distinctly different from the idea that the thoughts are like clouds completely out of my control because there was some direction that I was able to provide to the clouds.
While I have evidence of thoughts not totally being in my control, there is still the thought that they can at least be partially guided in some direction by actions.

Do you want to say that you have a “successful” meditation all the time? Yes, mediation shifts the focus on DE (not thinking content) and it breaks the chain of thoughts, but you already said that you are not in charge of focus. We’ll examine decision making a bit later

I do not know why I chose the number that I did. It simply arose. I cannot say why that specific number arose, but is there not still some agency there? Ultimately it was a number that came up, and not a colour or a smell or an object. Which number specifically wasn't consciously directed by me, but the fact that only a number should come up seems intentional or 'controlled' on my part.

What exactly suggests an agency? Yes, a number appeared, but that is how thoughts work. They build on each other. If there is a thought about a number, a number will appear. Thoughts are self-organising - built on concepts, which in turn are built on more concepts. For some people actually when asked, colours appear – you can check it out, it’s called synesthesia :). Does that mean that there is something wrong with their agency :)?

Yes, in my example I gave the idea of a sports team and that choice was quite random (perhaps influenced by the fact that I was reading a blog article about a sports team before writing that post). I had not planned it explicitly.

Exactly! The point is that with reason or not, a thought appears without planning.

Yes, even the thought/belief that I have some control or that I am directing the thoughts is in itself another thought.

A very good observation!!!

This is something that I experience at times during meditation when there is simply awareness and the flow of thoughts has reduced - there are moments where there is awareness and no prominent object. I might be missing something there but to me it is as if there is awareness without thought (briefly).
Or perhaps what I am experiencing in that moment is a thought about awareness.

Well, let’s look at this…
There is awareness of nothing (not even aliveness though, no breathing and heart beat?). But isn’t awareness of nothing still something? If you think of it in a binary way – it’s a “0” and a “1”, but there is still an object that can be described, right (in this case as the opposite of full)? Or read how Alan Watts describes it:
“We forget that trough implies crest, and crest implies trough. There is no such thing as pure sound—sound is sound/silence. Light is light/darkness. Light is pulsation—between every light pulse there is the dark pulse.”― Alan W. Watts, Out of Your Mind: Tricksters, Interdependence, and the Cosmic Game of Hide and Seek
Or in Buddhism (The Heart Sutra): form is emptiness and emptiness is form :)
Bottom line is, there is still awareness of something even if it appears as a nothing. Or to put it differently nothing exists only in contrast of something describing the same thing.

Practically I cannot see any evidence of that space of 'awareness' in my AE/DE, anything that comes up as a response to looking for awareness is just a thought that is itself in that space of awareness.
Because I cannot find awareness anywhere in my direct experience, it does not have any ability to see, speak, hear, etc.

Very good looking and observation!

I don't think "I" am awareness because if the idea of "I" can be contained in my awareness as a thought or a sensation, then awareness must be "larger" than I, or encompassing it.

You went astray here – thought content material/deduction.

Thoughts are wrong all the time even from the relative level without looking through AE/DE. When observed empirically, the apple only exists to me as the elements of DE - seeing, tasting, labelling/thought etc. But these happen fast enough and quickly enough together that they are not picked apart or constructed if the effort is not applied, and the illusion of the 'apple' as a separate entity continues.

There is a difference between an illusion and a delusion. Can you guess what it is?

Does the label "I" itself, suggest in any way that it is an I? Does the label "I" know anything about an I?

Unsure what these questions mean, the label "I" is just an idea or a thought. How can a thought suggest anything or know anything about something else?

Exactly! The word “I” doesn’t have any kind of “i-ness” in it – it is just a word/thought.

What does the label "I" point to? In other words, what does the word/label "I" actually refer to?

All the thoughts, sensations, etc. that arise in DE arise and are experienced by some"thing". If this something is looked for then more thoughts and sensations are found in DE. There is a thought that "there is something experiencing all of this".
The word "I" refers to the space or vessel experiencing all the elements of THIS, though I cannot find evidence of it directly in my DE.

What is this space/vessel experiencing THIS? Is there such a thing? Please describe it with the senses. You said : "There is only the experience (knowing_seeing_tasting_hearing_sensing_smelling_thinking). " Where is this experiencer?

The label “I” points to nothing really existing (only to thought content). There are thinking, seeing,… , but there is no entity doing these. It’s the same as the label “Santa” – it points to nothing that exists outside of thought content.

For example, if "I" prick my finger then the sensation of pain is arising in my DE, but not in yours. So there is some sense of me having "my" own unique DE and you having yours. "My" "THIS" is being labelled as "I".

How is this known in DE? Is it because thought say so? What are “others” in DE? How is it known that “I” have an experience or is it deducted because “you” have one?
Is THIS personal?
Focus on the feeling of am-ness/being, aliveness.
Can you tell if there is a being or just being?
Is life happening to a being or as being?
Is that “aliveness” any kind of object or subject? Is it even a human?
Is it what you've taken as "you"?
Please don’t answer automatically! Allow the questions to work their magic :)

Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

I am currently travelling and will get around to this response soon in the next 1-2 days, thanks for waiting!

Love,
Shreyash

Hi Shreyash
Thank you for letting me know! Enjoy your travels!

Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

Thanks, had a great time travelling! My trip was extended a bit but I am back now and ready to return to daily correspondence.

What is a “physical” sensation? Is there a non-physical in contrast?

Hmm - I am using the word 'physical' for sensations that can be explicitly located in the body and through the senses. The temptation is to label certain abstract emotions are non-physical but if I consider it, then they are just a combination of thoughts and physical sensations in the body (that might be hard to locate and hence incorrectly considered as non-physical but are ultimately just thought + physical sensation).

How are these thoughts and sensations associated with a “me”? Is there an entity outside of thoughts and sensations that does the association? What identifies with these thoughts and sensations?

The only thing that arises when I try to answer this question is even more thoughts and sensations. The thoughts like to say "oh there has to be some entity experiencing this, since "my" DE is uniquely different from "your" DE at any given moment", but it is true that this is also another thought. So there is nothing that can be found outside thoughts and sensation 'experiencing' them when the response to that question is more thoughts and sensation. No external entity is making these associations, it is just that the meta thoughts (like the sample one I just gave) create stronger physical sensations and mental activity and are perceived to be true by me.

How many times do you need to look so the answer appears? Is the thinker playing hide and seek? Or is it just thought persisting that there is one? LOOK again!

Right, there is thought and sensation persisting that there is a thinker. There is no thinker to be found directly.

So you are in partial control? What is stopping you from full control? Why are you in control of some and not all? What makes one thought (one that you are in control) different from another (one that you are not)? LOOK!

Initial answer to this question is that the thoughts that I think I am in 'control' of came up after other thoughts that involved a "me" deciding to try and make my thoughts a certain way. So if a thought 2 was preceded by another thought 1 whose content was related to making thought 2 happen, then thought 2 feels like it was in my control. But if I ask what made thought 1 come up in the first place, then the answer is that it was random/spontaneous/out of my control. An external event could have triggered it, but from the perspective of my DE, the thoughts and sensations arose spontaneously.
So the thing that makes a 'controlled' thought seem different from an uncontrolled one is just a sense of memory of thought 1 - and memory is more thought.
As you have mentioned later in your answer, thoughts are self-organizing and spontaneous, it is just that if I am finding a link between the intention of one thought and arising of another, then there is another thought of 'control' arising. But all of it was spontaneous and out of my 'control' anyways. The thought 2 could have not come up too.
The "I have done this" thought is what makes any thought seem like it is in my control, but that thought arises when a link of intention is spotted between two thoughts/processes that happened spontaneously.

Do you want to say that you have a “successful” meditation all the time?

I do not. The intention of keeping my focus on my DE is not enough to ensure that it stays. Thoughts still arise randomly.

What exactly suggests an agency? Yes, a number appeared, but that is how thoughts work. They build on each other.

Hmm yes I see. There was still no entity or 'thing' in my DE that made the number come up, it arose spontaneously because the topic of the discussion (i.e. the previous thoughts that were structuring this one) had 'number' in it.

There is awareness of nothing (not even aliveness though, no breathing and heart beat?). But isn’t awareness of nothing still something? If you think of it in a binary way – it’s a “0” and a “1”, but there is still an object that can be described, right (in this case as the opposite of full)?

Yes.. awareness of nothing is still something. It may just be that the 'nothing' I am being aware of is not having any thought content or language linked to it immediately and is difficult to describe hence I call it a nothing, but it is still 'something' that is being perceived.

Or to put it differently nothing exists only in contrast of something describing the same thing.

Yes I understand.

There is a difference between an illusion and a delusion. Can you guess what it is?

An illusion, when believed to be true, becomes a delusion. So the illusion of the apple becomes a delusion when there is a thought that there is actually some 'apple' outside of just its DE components. Am I right in saying this?

What is this space/vessel experiencing THIS? Is there such a thing? Please describe it with the senses. You said : "There is only the experience (knowing_seeing_tasting_hearing_sensing_smelling_thinking). " Where is this experiencer?

I cannot describe or locate this vessel with the senses, it exists only in thought content. (this must be an example of a delusion :) . Upon looking for the vessel there are only more thoughts & sensations, i.e. content of the vessel, not the vessel itself.

The label “I” points to nothing really existing (only to thought content). There are thinking, seeing,… , but there is no entity doing these. It’s the same as the label “Santa” – it points to nothing that exists outside of thought content.

Right.

For example, if "I" prick my finger then the sensation of pain is arising in my DE, but not in yours. So there is some sense of me having "my" own unique DE and you having yours. "My" "THIS" is being labelled as "I".

How is this known in DE? Is it because thought say so?

In DE it is known only through thought. There is nothing about 'your' DE that is currently being experienced by me in my DE other than the thought that it exists.

What are “others” in DE? How is it known that “I” have an experience or is it deducted because “you” have one?

"Others" in DE are much like the apple. Other beings are experienced through the senses (visual, audio, touch) and through thoughts about them. These are generalized into labels like 'apple'. "You" exist only in my DE as the thoughts and sensations that have been grouped up as you.
It is not known that you have your own experience, it is only deducted because I have one.

Is THIS personal?

"THIS" ... is not personal inherently. It does not belong to anything. THIS does contain thoughts that believe it is personal on some level, as mentioned previously with the thought that there is a separation between my DE and yours, but outside thought content there is nothing personal about the THIS.

Focus on the feeling of am-ness/being, aliveness.
Can you tell if there is a being or just being?

This feeling of am-ness or aliveness is much like the 'nothing' I mentioned earlier that comes up in meditation - the lack of thought being something in itself.
This being is just .. being. It is not a being or a thing or person or entity, does not have definable characteristics, it just is. There can be certain colors or sensations that arise when I focus on this being, but I do not think they are this being, they are arising spontaneously during the process of me focusing on it.

Is life happening to a being or as being?

Life happening to a being implies life and being are separate, but all of life IS the being. Life and all experience happens as being, not separate from it.

Is that “aliveness” any kind of object or subject? Is it even a human?

The nature of that aliveness is unclear to me. It definitely isn't "human", since "human" is another label like "apple" that has certain visual and sensory associations and this aliveness does not fit that description.
"It" is an object/subject in the sense that it is being talked about and discussed by us as a separate entity, and "it" was brought into focus during this exercise. But looking for specifics of "it" that was brought into focus yielded more sensation and thought. In looking for 'aliveness', there was a noticing of a general buzz throughout the physical body - a subtle feeling of existence. Rather.. that sensation is always there, it just came into focus as part of this exercise. It not aliveness itself, it is an associated sensation. The general aliveness is not clear as an object or subject.

Is it what you've taken as "you"?

Yes I think, this specific experience of aliveness is what I have assumed to be me. The continuous, pervasive, experience of life and the sensations and thoughts it contains is what I have associated to 'me'.

Hi Shreyash

It’s good to “have” you back!
Thank you for your perseverance and hard work!

No external entity is making these associations, it is just that the meta thoughts (like the sample one I just gave) create stronger physical sensations and mental activity and are perceived to be true by me.

Can thoughts do anything, but “describe” what is happening? Can they hear, see,…? Are sensations somehow “interpreting” the content of thoughts and acting accordingly?

An illusion, when believed to be true, becomes a delusion. So the illusion of the apple becomes a delusion when there is a thought that there is actually some 'apple' outside of just its DE components. Am I right in saying this?

Yes!! Illusions can be seen as that even after the truth behind them is known. Have you ever seen a Kanizsa Triangle?



Delusion is not knowing that an illusion is not what it looks like. When you say “it is believed to be true” – is there anything that is outside of thoughts and believes them, gets stuck in thoughts? Or are there just more thoughts about believing?

It not aliveness itself, it is an associated sensation. The general aliveness is not clear as an object or subject.

It’s only language that sees everything as objects and subjects. Reality is actually closer to verbs – a constant flux.
Thoughts are never the real deal. Ideas are not objects or subjects themselves. Groups of concepts, taken for truth of how things are, become beliefs upon which new ideas land and stick, creating an even bigger, more magnificent castle of concepts. What seems to be “my world,” the totality of my experience of all that is happening, is a creation of language, and words are the building blocks that create the story about it. Truth or reality is not an idea or a belief. It cannot be grasped by thoughts. It does not need to be understood by the intellect. Actually, it is impossible to understand through thoughts. It is inconceivable, ungraspable.
And yet, it can be directly seen.

Yes I think, this specific experience of aliveness is what I have assumed to be me. The continuous, pervasive, experience of life and the sensations and thoughts it contains is what I have associated to 'me'.

How does that make you feel?

Hmm - I am using the word 'physical' for sensations that can be explicitly located in the body and through the senses.

Let’s explore “body” in a bit more detail…
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?
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?
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?
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.

Love
Rali

Can thoughts do anything, but “describe” what is happening? Can they hear, see,…? Are sensations somehow “interpreting” the content of thoughts and acting accordingly?

Thoughts do not 'do' anything on their own. They are not hearing or seeing, but in my experience they are simply arising, often having content that is connected to either prior thoughts or physical stimuli.
Sensations also are simply arising, they are not entities that can "look" at thought and then appear, they appear on their own. Certain sensations arise codependently with certain thought content (I'm not sure how this mechanism occurs, it used to make it seem like there was some unseen linkage there!) though there is no visible link seen in my DE, simply concurrent arising. There is a correlation between the nature of sensation that arises and what kind of thought the focus is on.

Yes!! Illusions can be seen as that even after the truth behind them is known. Have you ever seen a Kanizsa Triangle?

Yes, I have seen this illusion. We see triangles and edges where there are none.

When you say “it is believed to be true” – is there anything that is outside of thoughts and believes them, gets stuck in thoughts? Or are there just more thoughts about believing?

Hah there is still the initial 'delusion' of seeing some"thing" as outside of the thoughts and believing them or not believing them, but again that thing does not exist in DE, only as more thought and sensation.
In direct experience, "believing" in a thought just means engaging with it, which in turn just means that there are more thoughts related to the content of that one coming up, and relevant reactions/sensations to that thought appearing. There isn't anything believing them per se, just the phenomenon of connected post-belief thoughts and sensations coming up.

It’s only language that sees everything as objects and subjects. Reality is actually closer to verbs – a constant flux.
Thoughts are never the real deal. Ideas are not objects or subjects themselves. Groups of concepts, taken for truth of how things are, become beliefs upon which new ideas land and stick, creating an even bigger, more magnificent castle of concepts. What seems to be “my world,” the totality of my experience of all that is happening, is a creation of language, and words are the building blocks that create the story about it. Truth or reality is not an idea or a belief. It cannot be grasped by thoughts. It does not need to be understood by the intellect. Actually, it is impossible to understand through thoughts. It is inconceivable, ungraspable.
And yet, it can be directly seen.

Got it.

How does that make you feel?

There are thoughts about this realization, some thoughts say that it is clearer now that there is nothing outside the direct thoughts and sensations, and that the 'I' is a constructed structure. Some thoughts are around trying to make this understanding stick and have an impact in my day to day life (the ol' expectations coming in). Some thoughts are questioning all the other thoughts that come up and looking for ownership or a false 'I' in them. Sensations are pretty mixed up depending on the thought in focus.

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

The latter is more accurate. There are no "fingers" or "can" in my direct experience, just a sensation. With eyes closed, there is a sense of location or direction of that sensation. This sense of direction takes a moment to solidify though, initially there is just sensation.

Can it be known how tall the body is?

No, there is no specified end to the top of the head. There is a sensation at the crown if I focus on it, but this sensation tells me nothing about the height of the body.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

Weight is experienced more as the sensation of the body pushing against the chair or floor below it, and not an intrinsic quality. Volume is also not a directly existing metric, rather there is a directionality to various sensations that appear and their bounds tend to roughly define an imagined volume.

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

No, not one that can be perceived from the raw experience of sensations themselves. Sensations simply arise in random locations and do not seem to confine to some specific shape.
They do feel like they have a direction with respect to each other though, giving some rough imagined shape as a thought/mental image. There is a "center" location around where the eyes are and everything happening to parts above the eyes is perceived as 'above' directionally, and everything happening below is perceived as such. Basically the way that the eyes need to point to see the location of a body part where a sensation is happening is considered the 'direction' of that sensation.
This is the thought/visualization that is happening. This thought is weaker and the sensations 'feel' less localized the deeper I focus on them - and they all begin to shift towards 'center' itself.

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

Nothing about this experience suggests ownership. There is just body and sensation, the ownership idea is a thought that comes up afterwards.

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?

There is no 'inside' or 'outside' witnessed directly when observing the sensations. On a thought level, there is an idea of inside being inside the skin and outside being outside the skin - and there is also the thought that things happening in regions outside the skin are not arising in my DE hence they must be outside ME (the idea we discussed earlier of "my" DE being equated to "me"). This is all on the thought level. Directly, there is only sensation.

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

The label 'body' refers to everything to which if something happens, it is experienced as a sensation in my DE. This is the idea based on which the label "my" body and not "my" body is given. If there is a table in front of me, anything can be done to the table and it will not arise in my DE (except sight/sound). If I am away from the table, then even those will not arise. Hence there is an idea that this table is not "my" body.

The actual experience of the body is just sensations arising and passing, nothing more.

Can the 'body' do things?

What does 'do' mean? From direct experience, the body is just sensations arising and passing. And the act of 'doing' or any 'doer' are stemming from thought, which as discussed earlier are also randomly arising and passing without anyone's control. So if everything is an uncontrolled stream of thoughts and sensations arising after one another, there is no body 'doing' something in my direct experience.

Hi Shreyash

In direct experience, "believing" in a thought just means engaging with it, which in turn just means that there are more thoughts related to the content of that one coming up, and relevant reactions/sensations to that thought appearing. There isn't anything believing them per se, just the phenomenon of connected post-belief thoughts and sensations coming up.

Very good!

Some thoughts are around trying to make this understanding stick and have an impact in my day to day life (the ol' expectations coming in). Some thoughts are questioning all the other thoughts that come up and looking for ownership or a false 'I' in them. Sensations are pretty mixed up depending on the thought in focus.

Thoughts say the funniest things, once you start to notice :). The thing is that thoughts really don’t have the capacity to grasp reality. They are in a way a mix and match of old and new learned stuff…

Weight is experienced more as the sensation of the body pushing against the chair or floor below it, and not an intrinsic quality. Volume is also not a directly existing metric, rather there is a directionality to various sensations that appear and their bounds tend to roughly define an imagined volume.

So ‘body weight’ is basically another label for sensation, right? But when you say that “there is a directionality to various sensations that appear and their bounds tend to roughly define an imagined volume”, do sensations have a direction, do they have a border separating one sensation from another? Are there solid sensations or just sensing (verb)? Without thought what makes one sensation different from another?

They do feel like they have a direction with respect to each other though, giving some rough imagined shape as a thought/mental image. There is a "center" location around where the eyes are and everything happening to parts above the eyes is perceived as 'above' directionally, and everything happening below is perceived as such. Basically the way that the eyes need to point to see the location of a body part where a sensation is happening is considered the 'direction' of that sensation.
This is the thought/visualization that is happening. This thought is weaker and the sensations 'feel' less localized the deeper I focus on them - and they all begin to shift towards 'center' itself.

Remember, “feels like” and “seems like” point to thought content, as nothing in DE is seems like – it’s either there or not!
What does this “center” look like? Is it some kind of reference point? Is it similar to the sense of self?

Usually, sense of self is linked to the sensation 'of the eyes'. Furthermore, it's also believed that 'visual sights' are coming from the eyes, because when it's investigated the attention automatically goes to the sensation 'of the eyes', and at the same time the mental image or idea 'of the eyes' appear with it. Let’s explore this…
Please IGNORE all thoughts and mental images of ‘eyes’ and just answer from actual experience. Close your eyes and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and keeping your eyes closed...

What are the eyes in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image + thoughts about eyes, right?
Can a sensation see?
Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)?
Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation?

Gently touch your eyes. Notice what is actually present.
Are there eyes, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT eyes?
Are fingers actually found, or are there just sensations again?
And is there anything between the pressure points, or are there just thoughts about something being in between them?

Without thought (mental image), how big are your eyes?
Without thought, do they have ‘in front’ or ‘behind’, ‘above’ or ‘below’?
Without thought, do they have a location?
Do thoughts have a location?
Do sensations labelled “body parts” have a location without thought? Or the location is a label?
Does experience have a location? If it does, where, exactly, is it located?

The label 'body' refers to everything to which if something happens, it is experienced as a sensation in my DE.

The actual experience of the body is thought. Thought points to sensation and labels it a ‘body’, but an actual body cannot be found as DE, only thoughts about a body. Same label points to seeing (colours), smelling :), tasting ;). (similarly to the "apple")

If there is a table in front of me, anything can be done to the table and it will not arise in my DE (except sight/sound). If I am away from the table, then even those will not arise. Hence there is an idea that this table is not "my" body.

Well, table is experienced directly as a thought. The thought point to seeing (colours) – think of the apple example. If you touch the table, there are sensations labelled “table”, ”hard”, etc., but all that is there are sensations, colours and thoughts – there is no actual table there, right? Things being done to the table is a story (thoughts) pointing to seeing, hearing, feeling… Similarly to "others", what "table" experiences is assumed by thought. Is that clear?

Love
Rali

Hi Shreyash
Is everything OK? Are we still doing this? This inquiry requires certain intensity to be potent.
Remember we agreed on daily communication. If there are external circumstances, it would be nice to let me know.
Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

Yes, apologies! I was in the process of writing a reply as you sent this. I read your response the day you sent it and have kept the questions in mind regularly since, just haven't gotten the chance to sit down and reply as I was travelling with family again. I have gotten back home today and expect no more delays in daily communication.

So ‘body weight’ is basically another label for sensation, right?

Yes.

do sensations have a direction, do they have a border separating one sensation from another?

No there are no concrete borders.

Are there solid sensations or just sensing (verb)?

"Sensation" is just a label with associated thought, in my DE there is only the ongoing experience of whatever is happening that I am labelling and bundling as sensation.

Without thought what makes one sensation different from another?

Hmmm, without thought I see no difference in anything occurring. There is only the experience of sensation. There are quick thoughts that appear regarding its location and nature (painfulness, direction, visualization, etc.) but since you ask to ignore those thoughts, there is nothing about one sensation that is different from another that I can express without the use of thoughts.

What does this “center” look like? Is it some kind of reference point? Is it similar to the sense of self?

This center has no existence in my DE, it exists as a thought of 'there is a central reference point'. It is similar to the self in that it is not observed directly but there are thoughts about it and sensations arising when searching for it (in this case around the eyes).

What are the eyes in the actual experience?

Nothing. There are no 'eyes', only the label 'eyes'.

A sensation + a mental image + thoughts about eyes, right?

Yes, this is what first comes to mind when I focus on 'eyes.

Can a sensation see?

No, nothing about a sensation suggest it can see.
Sight cannot come from an image.

Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation?

'Mental images' (which you described earlier as just more thoughts I believe) do not come 'from' sensations. They can arise alongside sensation though, but with no direct visible link.

Are there eyes, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT eyes?

There is only sensation and a label.

Are fingers actually found, or are there just sensations again?

There are no fingers to be experienced, only sensation.

And is there anything between the pressure points, or are there just thoughts about something being in between them?

There is only the thought of 'skin' between the pressure points but in experience it is one unified sensation.

Without thought (mental image), how big are your eyes?

Without thought, I cannot find what is 'eyes' so there is no sense of size to it anyways.

Without thought, do they have ‘in front’ or ‘behind’, ‘above’ or ‘below’?
Without thought, do they have a location?

Eyes (or rather the sensation that might come up when thinking 'eyes') themselves do not have location without thought. If I try to locate something around me with my eyes open, then there is quickly a thought about its location like 'above', 'below', etc, and this is in reference to the thought/sensation of 'I' (being where my 'body' is). But without any of this thought there is no more a relative location with an object, simply seeing.

Do thoughts have a location?

Not in my experience. They just are.

Do sensations labelled “body parts” have a location without thought? Or the location is a label?

No, location pre-supposes some 'knowledge'/visualization of the body and the 'thought' of the 'I'. Without thought about the body, there is no location to sensation.

Does experience have a location? If it does, where, exactly, is it located?

Experience just is, I cannot find a location to it.

The actual experience of the body is thought. Thought points to sensation and labels it a ‘body’, but an actual body cannot be found as DE, only thoughts about a body. Same label points to seeing (colours), smelling :), tasting ;). (similarly to the "apple")

Right.

Well, table is experienced directly as a thought. The thought point to seeing (colours) – think of the apple example. If you touch the table, there are sensations labelled “table”, ”hard”, etc., but all that is there are sensations, colours and thoughts – there is no actual table there, right? Things being done to the table is a story (thoughts) pointing to seeing, hearing, feeling… Similarly to "others", what "table" experiences is assumed by thought. Is that clear?

Yes. So you are saying when there is no 'table' itself to speak of (and 'table is a thought/label), then anything being done to the table is also just a continuation of that thought/story. What a table would experience is not in my experience, it is an assumption of thought. So the table being separate is also a thought, with no direct 'proof' outside of thought.

Hi Shreyash

I have gotten back home today and expect no more delays in daily communication.

Great! Let’s continue

"Sensation" is just a label with associated thought, in my DE there is only the ongoing experience of whatever is happening that I am labelling and bundling as sensation.

Good observation!

'Mental images' (which you described earlier as just more thoughts I believe) do not come 'from' sensations.

Yes, you call them visualisation but anything that can’t be directly experienced is thought.

Eyes (or rather the sensation that might come up when thinking 'eyes') themselves do not have location without thought. If I try to locate something around me with my eyes open, then there is quickly a thought about its location like 'above', 'below', etc, and this is in reference to the thought/sensation of 'I' (being where my 'body' is). But without any of this thought there is no more a relative location with an object, simply seeing.

That is how the illusion works. With eyes open, there are “objects” and distance between them and referenced location – it’s all built upon itself, concepts upon concepts, upon concepts.

Yes. So you are saying when there is no 'table' itself to speak of (and 'table is a thought/label), then anything being done to the table is also just a continuation of that thought/story. What a table would experience is not in my experience, it is an assumption of thought. So the table being separate is also a thought, with no direct 'proof' outside of thought.

Another example of concepts gone wild :). First there is a table and then there stuff done to it, where there is no table at all just seeing, hearing, etc.

Here is an even deeper investigation of the body. I know that you've answered some of these questions already, but it's a good exercise for some of thse insights to sync in. Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen. Repeat the exercise several times.

Stand in front of a 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?
Love
Rali

(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 there is no connection between the sensations and the image. They are independent. Only some thoughts suggest a connection.

(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?

No connection. Thoughts suggest that there is one, because the change in the visuals (hand moving) and the sensation are coinciding, but outside of this thought, there is no connection to be seen, just independent processes.

(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?

Same answer as the previous question, it didn't make much of a difference whether it was mirror hand or actual hand. Both are images. Outside of the thought that there is a connection (which is a little 'stronger' in this case, meaning there is stronger sensation when it is questioned) - there is no real link to be seen.

(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?

There are only colors 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?

Outside of thought there is no existence of the rest of the body. There is a thought that even though the rest of the body can't be seen, it can be felt as sensation and so it must exist, but this is part of the same thought process that labels the sensation as 'body'. Putting aside this thought and observing, there is no 'knowledge' of anything.

(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?

There are only sensations.

(8) Start to walk slowly.
Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?

There are only sensations.

Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?

'Walking' is just a label given in thoughts to the sensations and visuals that are unfolding. Outside of the thoughts, there is only the experience and no 'walking'.

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

No, 'walking' or 'body' cannot 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?

Only sensations and visuals appear without any sense of 'location' or correlation. There is a thought process that is associating the change in visuals with the sensations and adding a location - hence labelling it "going through the room". When this thought passes, there is nothing except the experience and the visuals.
They seem rather.. empty. Without thought there is no information about what is happening as one would traditionally infer/assume. The visuals, the room, the objects in the room, the 'walking', are just empty phenomenon. (I am aware this too is just a thought :) Just felt like a part of the experience worth sharing).