Help with Rooting out Beliefs, Habits, and Patterns

[greggieP]

Hi Rali,

Are there separate/solid thoughts or just thinking without the content?

While they may appear separate, all there is to a thought is thinking, no content.

Yes. That’s the illusion :)

Indeed :)

Is there an entity of any kind – describable or indescribable – that is separate from whatever is happening/experiencing it? Do “you” exist outside of thoughts?

No and no. Nothing is separable from "the experiencing."

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"?

Just being, not "a being."
That aliveness is not an object or subject. "Human" is just a label.

This final question is very interesting. This understanding/perception has seemed to change even further, somewhat recently. There was a while when, "I am awareness, " or, "I am experiencing" made a lot of sense. I would have said, "Yes, I'm confident that's what I am. That feels right."

But now, it doesn't feel quite right. Even saying, "I am awareness," feels a bit off in a way I can't quite describe.

Let’s explore the “body”…
Exercises:
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?

1. "b." more accurately describes the experience.

2. It cannot be known how tall the body is. In direct experience, it does not have weight, volume, shape, or form. At the point of contact, there is just sensation. In direct experience, there is not "my body," just sensation. Even "a body" is labelling sensation too much. It's impossible to find the line that would separate inside from outside.

My actual, direct experience of the label body seems to refer to a "tingly-ness" of various intensities. It can feel as if the sensations are different, or located at a distance from each other, but whenever I try to find the boundary or gap between these seemingly distinct sensations, I can't find it.

The only description that seems mostly accurate of whether "the body" can "do things" would go something like this. In a relative sense, the body can seem to be engaged in different activities. In the sense of actual, direct, lived experience, there is just sensation of seemingly varied intensities.

It is all just sensation, but, for example, holding a cold can and sitting on a soft bed don't feel like "identical" sensations.

Thanks again, I really appreciate all your wonderful questions :)

Best,
Greg

[poppyseed]

Hi Greg
Please refrain from answering in bulk. It’s much clearer if you quote each question that you are answering. Otherwise there is this going backwards and forwards. I would really appreciate your effort! Thank you!

But now, it doesn't feel quite right. Even saying, "I am awareness," feels a bit off in a way I can't quite describe.

Ha! What is “awareness”? Is it a substitute for “self”? Is there “awareness” or “aware-ing”? Can there be awareness without objects of awareness (e.g. thinking or seeing…)? How is that experienced? Can there be objects without awareness? Where is the border that separates the awareness from its objects? Are there different objects – seeing, hearing, …? Is there aware-ing/knowing/noticing/focusing AND seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling and thinking, OR knowing_seeing_hearing_selling_tasting_feeling_thinking / just THIS? Is life happening like in language where you have subjects and objects?

Here is a video that you might find interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lm3G0_ ... ex=17&t=8s

My actual, direct experience of the label body seems to refer to a "tingly-ness" of various intensities. It can feel as if the sensations are different, or located at a distance from each other, but whenever I try to find the boundary or gap between these seemingly distinct sensations, I can't find it.

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

In a relative sense, the body can seem to be engaged in different activities. In the sense of actual, direct, lived experience, there is just sensation of seemingly varied intensities.

Are there two modes of existence – “relative” and “actual”? Is DE a special mode of seeing? Or does DE refer to where to look at what really is happening – the senses (not in thought content)? Is there “relative” existence or just language, where labels are just put together?

Here is an even deeper investigation of the body. 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

[greggieP]

Hi Rali,

Please refrain from answering in bulk. It’s much clearer if you quote each question that you are answering. Otherwise there is this going backwards and forwards. I would really appreciate your effort! Thank you!

Sounds good, I'll do that from now on!

There is a lot to address in your most recent post, between the questions, video and exercise. I will get to all of it over the weekend. Hopefully tomorrow, but most likely Sunday. Thanks for your patience and understanding! :)

Kind regards,
Greg

[poppyseed]

No problem! Enjoy ;)

[greggieP]

Hi Rali,

Let’s take this bit by bit :)

What is “awareness”?

I used “awareness” as a somewhat clumsy shorthand for “experiencing.” As you astutely pointed out, “aware-ing” would be a more accurate description.

Is it a substitute for “self”?

I did not intend to convey it in that fashion. I’ll be sure to use verbs, like “experiencing” or “aware-ing” from now on :)

Can there be awareness without objects of awareness (e.g. thinking or seeing…)?

There is always experiencing; “objects” do not exist; there is just experiencing.

How is that experienced?

Just experiencing.

Can there be objects without awareness?

There is just experiencing, an “object can never be found in direct experiencing.

Where is the border that separates the awareness from its objects?

There isn’t one, because these “objects” are just labels given to seeing, tasting, touching, smelling, thinking, and hearing.

Are there different objects – seeing, hearing, …? Is there aware-ing/knowing/noticing/focusing AND seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling and thinking, OR knowing_seeing_hearing_selling_tasting_feeling_thinking / just THIS?

I don’t think I exactly understand the question as phrased, but I think my answer to the previous question covered the same basic concept. Let me know if I’m mistaken, here!

Is life happening like in language where you have subjects and objects?

Subjects, objects, and labels don’t actually exist. They’re used for ease of communication, but all that is ever experienced is experiencing.

Here is a video that you might find interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lm3G0_ ... ex=17&t=8s

The video was indeed interesting, thank you for sharing it! One key question came up. Maybe a year ago, I struggled with some of these concepts a bit. I thought that any attempt to do work of the kind we’re doing now would automatically reinforce an egoic sense of separation, superiority, autonomy, etc. That can be used as an excuse not to look at tendencies that clearly need attention.

Along these lines, I’ve read/watched videos where a number of teachers reference pupils who have said some version of the following to them, “Well there’s nothing to do because there’s no one here,” while these pupils are still clearly mentally suffering or being controlled by old thought patterns, habits, and beliefs.

What do you recommend in situations like this?

And don’t worry, I haven’t forgotten to respond to the relative/actual question or the body exercise! I’ll get to both tomorrow.

Thanks a ton,
Greg

[poppyseed]

Hi Greg

I used “awareness” as a somewhat clumsy shorthand for “experiencing.” As you astutely pointed out, “aware-ing” would be a more accurate description.

Great!

There is always experiencing; “objects” do not exist; there is just experiencing.

Great!

Are there different objects – seeing, hearing, …? Is there aware-ing/knowing/noticing/focusing AND seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling and thinking, OR knowing_seeing_hearing_selling_tasting_feeling_thinking / just THIS?

I don’t think I exactly understand the question as phrased, but I think my answer to the previous question covered the same basic concept. Let me know if I’m mistaken, here!

Well you said there is aware-ing and there is also experiencing (seeing, hearing, smelling….). Are there two separate things or one – aware-ing_experiencing. In Buddhism, "thusness" or "suchness" are used, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction. I call it just THIS or THUS or what IS.

One key question came up. Maybe a year ago, I struggled with some of these concepts a bit. I thought that any attempt to do work of the kind we’re doing now would automatically reinforce an egoic sense of separation, superiority, autonomy, etc. That can be used as an excuse not to look at tendencies that clearly need attention.

Along these lines, I’ve read/watched videos where a number of teachers reference pupils who have said some version of the following to them, “Well there’s nothing to do because there’s no one here,” while these pupils are still clearly mentally suffering or being controlled by old thought patterns, habits, and beliefs.

What do you recommend in situations like this?

Well, that would be a dilemma if there was a doer doing all of these things – examining tendencies, working on things. It would have been a problem if there was a decision maker, deciding what to do next…
Let’s not go ahead of ourselves and answer this when we finish with the inquiry, OK?

And don’t worry, I haven’t forgotten to respond to the relative/actual question or the body exercise! I’ll get to both tomorrow.

Ok. I will wait for your answer before we move on the next exercises...

Love
Rali

[greggieP]

Hi Rali,

Well you said there is aware-ing and there is also experiencing (seeing, hearing, smelling….). Are there two separate things or one – aware-ing_experiencing.

Oops! I did not intend to imply that these are different. I view "aware-ing" and "experiencing" as synonyms.

In Buddhism, "thusness" or "suchness" are used, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction. I call it just THIS or THUS or what IS.

Would this be a shorthand for "what is being experienced?" Obviously not an object, but more like, "I am experiencing." "Experiencing what?" Only "THIS."

Well, that would be a dilemma if there was a doer doing all of these things – examining tendencies, working on things. It would have been a problem if there was a decision maker, deciding what to do next…
Let’s not go ahead of ourselves and answer this when we finish with the inquiry, OK?

If you'll indulge me being difficult for a moment... :)

If there is no doer, why "do" an exercise like that deeper investigation of the body? Who is even doing it? What is even "being done?"

Best,
Greg

[poppyseed]

Hi Greg

Would this be a shorthand for "what is being experienced?" Obviously not an object, but more like, "I am experiencing." "Experiencing what?" Only "THIS."

Well too much story but more or less… It is just THIS undefinable. “Experiencing” still brings some meaning where there is none ;)

If you'll indulge me being difficult for a moment... :)

If there is no doer, why "do" an exercise like that deeper investigation of the body? Who is even doing it? What is even "being done?"

Well, technically, what is happening is that "you" are getting a virus in “your” system – “LOOK!” (with other more details) and then things are unfolding on their own, so yup still no doer :). “Reinforcing a doer” is a story as a “doer” cannot be created in reality – it never existed and it never will. What we are doing here is seeing through stories and seeing what is actually here – and by “we” I mean it happens on its own :)))) That’s the illusion

Going through the stories (thought patterns) is a self-organising process. It happens for “everyone”.

I’m still waiting for your answers so “we” can move on ;). You'll see it will all "make sense" at the end of the inquiry...
Love
Rali

[greggieP]

Hi Rali,

Well too much story but more or less… It is just THIS undefinable. “Experiencing” still brings some meaning where there is none ;)

Fair enough :)

Well, technically, what is happening is that "you" are getting a virus in “your” system – “LOOK!” (with other more details) and then things are unfolding on their own, so yup still no doer :). “Reinforcing a doer” is a story as a “doer” cannot be created in reality – it never existed and it never will. What we are doing here is seeing through stories and seeing what is actually here – and by “we” I mean it happens on its own :)))) That’s the illusion

Going through the stories (thought patterns) is a self-organising process. It happens for “everyone”.

I’m still waiting for your answers so “we” can move on ;). You'll see it will all "make sense" at the end of the inquiry...

From a broad perspective, this does make sense, thank you. And it also helps me answer this question:

Are there two modes of existence – “relative” and “actual”? Is DE a special mode of seeing? Or does DE refer to where to look at what really is happening – the senses (not in thought content)? Is there “relative” existence or just language, where labels are just put together?

I used "relative" to refer to language like the way you answered my question in the previous quote. When you say "I'm still waiting" or "we" or "you'll see," I know you're not using those terms as if we were "separate people." You can say "I" without me thinking you view yourself as a separate, distinct entity. You're simply using it and other pronouns for the ease of communication. I describe that as "relative," while "direct experience" refers to what IS. Senses, not thought stories about them.

So, yes, "relative existence" is just language and labels, while direct experience is what IS.

I’m still waiting for your answers so “we” can move on ;). You'll see it will all "make sense" at the end of the inquiry...

As far as the body investigation, I will make sure to do that tomorrow morning. Thanks for your patience!

-Greg

[poppyseed]

Hi Greg

I used "relative" to refer to language like the way you answered my question in the previous quote. When you say "I'm still waiting" or "we" or "you'll see," I know you're not using those terms as if we were "separate people." You can say "I" without me thinking you view yourself as a separate, distinct entity. You're simply using it and other pronouns for the ease of communication. I describe that as "relative," while "direct experience" refers to what IS. Senses, not thought stories about them.

So, yes, "relative existence" is just language and labels, while direct experience is what IS.

Great!!!

As far as the body investigation, I will make sure to do that tomorrow morning. Thanks for your patience!

I’m picking a resistance to the rest of the “body” exercises here :). Just have in mind that distraction and procrastination can become an obstacle to the inquiry…

Love
Rali

[greggieP]

Hi Rali,

(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?

Just thoughts that suggest there is. I suppose both the sensations and images appear "immediate," but there is nothing in the sensations or visual experience that suggests a correlation.

(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?

Nope.

(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?

As with #2, only thoughts that 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?

The image does not suggest this, only thought would suggest this. All that appears are 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?

Nothing in the visual field suggests that there must be.

(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?

Only sensations.

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

Only sensations.

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

No, "walking" would just be a thought label. Still just sensations.

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

Neither can be found. Just thoughts and sensations.

(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?

At first it seems like the sensations could be localized in space, but as I pay attention to them and try to find a border or an edge, I can't. No boundary or location can be found, so just sensations without a location.

Finally, upon running through this exercise a second time in succession, the visual field became quite "trippy" at step #7. "Borders," "edges," shapes, and colors appeared "looser" and more fluid. I suppose all of that is just different thought labels, but it was interesting, nonetheless.

And there was some resistance, yes. Thanks again for bearing with me throughout this!

Best,
Greg

[poppyseed]

Hi Greg

Finally, upon running through this exercise a second time in succession, the visual field became quite "trippy" at step #7. "Borders," "edges," shapes, and colors appeared "looser" and more fluid. I suppose all of that is just different thought labels, but it was interesting, nonetheless.

Awesome!!

And there was some resistance, yes. Thanks again for bearing with me throughout this!

My pleasure ;)! That what I’m here for

At first it seems like the sensations could be localized in space, but as I pay attention to them and try to find a border or an edge, I can't. No boundary or location can be found, so just sensations without a location.

Great! So do “head”, “right hand”, “left hand”,… , have a location, or the location is a label?

Let’s follow this up with the following experiments which look at the belief that thoughts and mental images are coming from the head, somewhere around the forehead; therefore thoughts are stored in the head. This not only seems to solidify the idea that you are the thinker of thought, but that your consciousness in also stored there, and that what you are resides in a body.

When we try to trace back the origin of a thought, it is often believed that it's coming from the forehead, because the attention automatically goes to the sensation of the forehead. Investigate this carefully as often as you can throughout the day.

Have a very deep look here... the forehead is one place we feel the ‘sense of self’ resides, or rather, the sensation that is labelled as ‘forehead’ is believed to be one of the location of the sense of self. Close your eyes and look to see what the AE of the ‘forehead’ is. Then look at the following questions.

What is the "forehead" in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image (of a forehead) + thoughts about a forehead, right?

So, can a thought come from a sensation?
Can a thought come from a mental image?
Does the mental image suggest in any that it is a ‘forehead’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘forehead’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘me’?
Other than thought, can you find anything that suggests the sensation labelled as ‘forehead’ is a forehead or a me?

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.

So another sense of self is linked to the sensation 'of the eyes'.

What are the "eyes" in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image + thoughts about eyes, right?

Can sight (colour) come from a sensation?
Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)?
Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation?
Does a mental image suggest in any way that it is eyes?

Love
Rali

[greggieP]

Hi Rali,

My pleasure ;)! That what I’m here for

:) :)

Great! So do “head”, “right hand”, “left hand”,… , have a location, or the location is a label?

The "location" is a label, but no sensation could have a location.

Have a very deep look here... the forehead is one place we feel the ‘sense of self’ resides, or rather, the sensation that is labelled as ‘forehead’ is believed to be one of the location of the sense of self. Close your eyes and look to see what the AE of the ‘forehead’ is. Then look at the following questions.

For the inquiries:

What is the "forehead" in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image (of a forehead) + thoughts about a forehead, right?

Inquiring into this right now, sensation and thoughts about a forehead, but no mental image.

So, can a thought come from a sensation?

No.

Can a thought come from a mental image?

No. Any relationship of "before or after," "coming from," etc. would just be more thoughts.

Does the mental image suggest in any that it is a ‘forehead’?

No. That would just be a label.

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘forehead’?

No.

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘me’?

No.

Other than thought, can you find anything that suggests the sensation labelled as ‘forehead’ is a forehead or a me?

Nope.

What are the "eyes" in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image + thoughts about eyes, right?

Still no mental image in this case, but yes to sensation and thoughts about eyes.

Can sight (colour) come from a sensation?

No it cannot.

Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)?

No.

Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation?

Also no.

Does a mental image suggest in any way that it is eyes?

No it does not.

Finally, I have a bit of a digression here. I'll defer to your opinion on whether this is useful presently or a distraction/"getting ahead of ourselves." Speaking relatively, of course :)

Anyway, the belief that thoughts come from the head or visual images come through the eyes has been seen to be false some time ago. Now, thoughts and images just appear. "From where?" is a question that is meaningless, and contains false assumptions baked into it. However...

A couple of weeks ago, when watching a lecture about the 7th fetter in the 10 fetters model, the speaker talked about the belief associated with this fetter. He called it "belief in perception," or something like that. He said it's a belief that you have a "thing detector."

When inquiring into this, I seemed to associate this "thing detector" with a sensation in the area of the face. Looking for a boundary associated with this sensation of course proved fruitless, but it seems like this belief may still be persisting. Can you provide guidance on how to investigate this more deeply? Would it beneficial to do the exact same inquiry as above with the eyes/image and forehead/thoughts?

Thank you,
Greg

[poppyseed]

Hi Greg
The fetters create the illusion of progress – like you are climbing steps on the ladder to enlightenment. Basically you can apply plain LOOKING to every story. But if anything they do point to stories that need to be explored.

A couple of weeks ago, when watching a lecture about the 7th fetter in the 10 fetters model, the speaker talked about the belief associated with this fetter. He called it "belief in perception," or something like that. He said it's a belief that you have a "thing detector."

There are two “aspects” here – the actual perception (the thinginess of “things”) and the perceiver. You can inquire with each sense individually.

In DE there is only seeing/hearing/etc. and thinking provides the labels (the thinginess).
Let’s explore seeing…
It’s like a picture that everything is drawn in pencil on paper – the illusion of separation is created by different colours used – otherwise it’s all paper.


Different colours in seeing create the illusion of things but all that is there is seeing.
Is there space where these things exist? What is the difference between “here” and “there” without thought content?


When looking at this picture, thought automatically divides and labels colour into many different colours, then further names those colours into specific objects.

IGNORE ALL object labels and colour labels:-
Are there many colours? Or is there simply colour?
Is there an actual gap between the ‘trees’? Or is the gap actually colour?
Where does colour begin and end? In other words, can an actual dividing line be found between where one colour ends and another begins, or is that just a mental construct? Are there many colours or just seeing (i.e. light) behaving differently?

Is seeing happening to a seer? What is outside of seeing doing it? Yes, you can try the same exercises (like the "forehead") with “face”… Is the “face” doing the seeing? Just because there is a sensation there, does that mean that it is responsible for seeing? Check!
Are there seer, seeing, and seen, or just seeing (verb)? Where are the borders that separate the seeing from the seen, and the seeing from the seer? Where does the seeing end and seen starts? Is seen outside of seeing? Where does the seer end and the seeing starts? Is the seer outside of seeing? Outside where exactly?

You can repeat these exercises with the rest of the senses…

For example, with feeling, you can touch “someone” or “something”. Are there tow sensations – one of someone/something and one of you/fingers, OR one sensation (labelled “me touching something”)? Are “others”/”things” outside of feeling? Are there a feeler, feeling, and sensations? Where are the borders? Are there “solid” sensations floating around? Floating where? Can one sensation be separated from another without thought content? Are there different sensations or just a fluctuating feeling?

With hearing… Tell me one sound that you heard when doing this. (Make sure it is a sound that you will be able to hear it for longer). Now sit quietly and listen to the sound for a minute of two and as you listen, inquire:

Without thought, how is it known that the sound heard is the ‘birds chirping' (for example)?
Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it is ‘birds chirping', or is it thought that suggests it?
What is the DE of hearing ‘birds chirping’? Is it DE of smell, taste, sensation, sound, colour or thought? Is the sound coming from a distance, or is it closer than that? Is there “here” and “there” in hearing?
Different levels of sounds create the illusion of a song but all there is, is a fluctuating hearing. Again is there a hearer/listener? You can check for borders again…

You can explore smelling and tasting in a similar manner...

SO! Is there a “thing detector” or just thinking? Is there a thinker?...(we’ve explored the thinker already)
Also do hearing, seeing, smelling, feeling, tasting and thinking appear in different places? Where exactly?

We don’t experience our senses individually. Rather, these are different aspects of experiencing. Thought tells us that our senses are separate streams of information. We see with our eyes, hear with our ears, feel with our skin, smell with our nose, taste with our tongue. In DE, though, it is seen as a one experience. Senses affect each other. Although speech is perceived through the ears, what we see can change what we hear. In this video, a man produces the same syllable over and over again. If you watch his mouth, you’ll hear the syllable “fah,” but if you look away, you’ll hear “bah.” Although your ears hear “bah,” your eyes see “fah”. This phenomenon is known as the McGurk effect. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k8fHR9jKVM )
Another example of sensory interaction is how both taste and smell are vital for savouring food (flavour). If smell is lost or impaired, for instance, the taste of food will also be impaired, even if taste receptors on the tongue are working fine.
Here is a fun video that demonstrates how a relationship between sight and touch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dphlhmt ... dex=4&t=3s

Even though it might look as there are clearly defined senses, DE shows a different story.
So even the senses are dependently originated which makes them also empty of inherent existence.

You have a lot to inquire. Please take your time and let me know when you want to continue
Love
Rali

[greggieP]

Hi Rali,

You have a lot to inquire. Please take your time and let me know when you want to continue
Love
Rali

Will do! I'll tackle it little by little.

The fetters create the illusion of progress – like you are climbing steps on the ladder to enlightenment. Basically you can apply plain LOOKING to every story. But if anything they do point to stories that need to be explored.

Fair enough!

Is there space where these things exist?

No

What is the difference between “here” and “there” without thought content?

There is no difference.

I'll start the color-specific inquiry either later or today or sometime tomorrow.

Thank you!

-Greg