Hello! I could use some help!

[poppyseed]

Hi Hawram

A memory is a thought.
It's not 'made of' anything.

Yes, like any other thought :)

I don't know when it appears.

Well does it appear yesterday or NOW? It may be ABOUT past but it appears NOW

There is no difference, just different labels.
It's not known that a memory refers to something that has happened.

Very good!

WHEN does the future thought appear?

I don't know - when prompted?

I have to guess this is the answer. Please don’t do bulk answering!
So again, does the memory thought appear tomorrow or NOW? It might be ABOUT a future but is appears NOW, right?

No border.
No solid thoughts.
They are not separate it's one thing.
No.
No.
It's an idea.

Yes! Exactly! Only thought separates THIS/what is into “knowing” and “known”, but there is just knowing_known i.e. no dividing line.

Let’s continue our exploration with 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?

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

[Danial]

Hey Rali,

So again, does the memory thought appear tomorrow or NOW?

Sorry, I misunderstood the first time. The thought appears now, always. Regardless of content.

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

B for sure. The cold simply appears, there is no "place" it appears, it's just there.

Can it be known how tall the body is?

With DE, no it can't be known.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

No, just sensations are noticed.

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

No. Again, just sensations are experienced. Pressure and stuff.

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?

No "body" or "chair" when I'm simply noticing the sensation. There is just one thing there - sensation.

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

It's 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?

No, those are just concepts. It's just energy that is being felt in the form of sensations. That's all.

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

It refers to sensations that are felt. The sensations don't experience anything - it's just sensations coming and going. When someone says "My body hurts" what is meant is that there are sensations of pain. It's kinda like saying the pain is paining.

Can the 'body' do things?

No, sensations cannot do things.Ok I think I'm pretty close here. A big one for me though is vision - it feels like I'm looking around and stuff. Can we look into that, or did you have something else in mind?

[poppyseed]

Hi Hawram
Very good looking!!!

It refers to sensations that are felt. The sensations don't experience anything - it's just sensations coming and going. When someone says "My body hurts" what is meant is that there are sensations of pain. It's kinda like saying the pain is paining.

Awesome observation!

A big one for me though is vision - it feels like I'm looking around and stuff. Can we look into that, or did you have something else in mind?

We can examine perception in general – be it what is seen, heard, smelt etc.
There are two “aspects” here – the actual perception (the thinginess of “things”) and the perceiver/seer/listener/etc. You can inquire with each sense individually.
Let’s explore seeing…
Seeing is 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?



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?
Does a colour/form have a fixed location? Where is "here?" Where is "there?" Where is the reference point?
Are there many colours or just seeing (i.e. light) behaving differently? Without thought are there many colours or one - THIS:



Is seeing happening to a seer?
What is outside of seeing doing it? At which point the seeing becomes the colour? LOOK at the screen in front of you where you reading this. Where is the seer?
Could you show from where you are looking at it, and what is there? Is there a "you" in that direction? What do you see?
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?
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?
Does the sensation "eyes" have a location?

We will continue with the other senses after that if needed, but basically you can apply the same questions. There are a lot of question to inquire so take your time and look properly, don't just guess but LOOK!
Love
Rali

[Danial]

Hey Rali,

I'm struggling with these ones - the overlay of thoughts is very very sticky. I've been at it for a few hours, and have decided to take a break for today. I will get back to you with these answers tomorrow, hopefully.

Best,
Hawram

[poppyseed]

Hey Hawram

No worries, take your time! Please let me know if you need any help or further clarification with any of them.

Love
Rali

[Danial]

Rali,

I think I do need some help. It's very difficult for me not to see things when I look at either of those images you provided. I can't seem to ignore the labeling and differentiating going on. Any tips?

Hawram

[poppyseed]

Hi Hawram

It's very difficult for me not to see things when I look at either of those images you provided. I can't seem to ignore the labeling and differentiating going on. Any tips?

It’s not like seeing will change, it’s more like a recognition that the interpretation is wrong. Noticing that only thought cuts out “things” out of the whole and “brings them into existence”. It is only language that makes the experienced appear separated. When you see the bird in the sky, there is a movement of shapes and colours, labels come up— “bird,” “sky,” “in.” Can you experience a bird without sky, outside of sky (while looking up)? It’s one indivisible whole, which can only be divided by words; words that are believed to be real things, objects.
I think you are trying too hard! If you feel tension when trying to look at what is, you are trying too hard. Stop trying. Looking is a matter of noticing what is already here, not inventing or imagining something that needs a huge amount of energy to sustain. It’s not mental gymnastics. This sort of noticing is effortless; attention moves and focuses on different perceptions, different information coming in. Thoughts rush in to label what is being noticed. No special state is required; it’s everyday ordinary business.

Let’s approach it a from another angle
In a quiet, softly lit place, look straight ahead, and notice some item just on the periphery of sight (say, a lamp).
Notice what you see and how the item is seen - it's probably more or less a blob of colour.
Slowly turn your head, and perhaps the whole body, toward the item - at what point does the item go from being a blob of colour to a distinct thing?
Continuing to turn toward it: what happens, physically and mentally, when the item is straight in front of you? Does it seem as though it is fully “real” as a “something” now? Is its shape, tangibility and/or distinctiveness now evident?
Does it seem as though something in you now recognizes it as what it really is?
How does it feel to perceive whatever it is as a “something”? For example, is there a sense of relief or accomplishment?
Now, slowly rotate your head and/or body back to where you started: does it feel like you "let go" of the item once it is no longer directly in front of you? If so, what quality or feature is let go of? And at what point does it seem to no longer be a "something"?
And as it recedes back into the periphery of vision, does it seem like a letting-go happens there as well? If so, what quality or feature is let go of?
Love
Rali

[Danial]

Hi Rali,

Can you experience a bird without sky, outside of sky (while looking up)?

Nope, they go together. It's one thing.

at what point does the item go from being a blob of colour to a distinct thing?

When it can be seen more clearly.

what happens, physically and mentally, when the item is straight in front of you? Does it seem as though it is fully “real” as a “something” now? Is its shape, tangibility and/or distinctiveness now evident?

It does feel as though it is fully "real" now. Yes, those 3 are now evident.

Does it seem as though something in you now recognizes it as what it really is?

Yes.

How does it feel to perceive whatever it is as a “something”? For example, is there a sense of relief or accomplishment?

Sense of relief.

does it feel like you "let go" of the item once it is no longer directly in front of you? If so, what quality or feature is let go of? And at what point does it seem to no longer be a "something"?

Yes. It feels like the thingy-ness of the item has been let go of. It seems to no longer be a something when it becomes blurry.

And as it recedes back into the periphery of vision, does it seem like a letting-go happens there as well? If so, what quality or feature is let go of?

Yes, it seems like a letting-go happens. It seems like a letting go of the lamp - like it's returning to blob form.

[poppyseed]

Hi Hawram

at what point does the item go from being a blob of colour to a distinct thing?

When it can be seen more clearly.

Is there a difference between a blurry “object” and a clear one without thought content? If all there is there, is seeing (colour), are there blurry seeing/colour and clear seeing/colour or is it more about shape? What makes shape?

Ok…Now let’s go further
Look at something in the room a few feet away, and experience how it appears as a "something".
Still looking at it, release your mental attention to it and/or let your vision blur until it’s indistinct or otherwise isn't "something". Blink or squint to pop it back into focus, and/or re-engage mentally with it, so that it is a “something” once again. Allowing your eyes to flit here and there on the item can also restore it as a “something”.
What changed as it became a “something”? Did it once again have solidity, unitary- ness, dimension, “is what it is-ness” again? Was it tangible, or separate? How would you describe it?
And did anything in you seem to respond to this renewal of it as a “something”? If so, where exactly is it, and what does it seem to do?
As the item once again became a “something”, did your own “body” and/or “mind” come more obviously into existence as well?
How solid or real does a lamp seem? Do it seem to have an obvious or inherent shape to it? Does it seem to have a certain "lamp-ness" that makes them what they are?
Is there any difference between the nature of a lamp and the thought about what you had for breakfast or lunch earlier today, in terms of them existing?
And whatever you perceive (see, hear, touch, think, etc.), does it seem as though there is some you that perceives, apprehends, detects, monitors, recognizes, registers, keeps track of, or otherwise knows of all these different things? LOOK!
Love
Rali

[Danial]

Rali,

I had written up answers for those after some looking, but felt like I was doing you a disservice with the answers as I was frustrated and not being patient/finding anything noteworthy.

Please give me another day to come back with something.

Best,
Hawram

[poppyseed]

Sure, no problem!
Love
Rali

[Danial]

Hey Rali,

Is there a difference between a blurry “object” and a clear one without thought content? If all there is, is seeing (colour), are there blurry seeing/colour and clear seeing/colour or is it more about shape? What makes shape?

Without thought content, there's just a field of color and shape - there's no "objects" in the field. Shape is made by the contrast of different colors.

What changed as it became a “something”? Did it once again have solidity, unitary- ness, dimension, “is what it is-ness” again? Was it tangible, or separate? How would you describe it?

It had depth - I could see the dimensions of the item and how it fit in space.

And did anything in you seem to respond to this renewal of it as a “something”? If so, where exactly is it, and what does it seem to do?

It's like a sensation in the chest - like a knowing, understanding as I observe the object.

As the item once again became a “something”, did your own “body” and/or “mind” come more obviously into existence as well?

It felt this way, yes.

How solid or real does a lamp seem? Do it seem to have an obvious or inherent shape to it? Does it seem to have a certain "lamp-ness" that makes them what they are?

With DE, it's just color and shape. I don't know how to answer these questions.

Is there any difference between the nature of a lamp and the thought about what you had for breakfast or lunch earlier today, in terms of them existing?

"Nature of a lamp" is just thought-images of lamps with a knowing sensation. What I had for breakfast this morning is also thought images of breakfast this morning with a knowing sensation. Neither exist. Alright there was a pop here.
Don't feel like I'm all the way through though.

And whatever you perceive (see, hear, touch, think, etc.), does it seem as though there is some you that perceives, apprehends, detects, monitors, recognizes, registers, keeps track of, or otherwise knows of all these different things?

Seems like it then it doesn't.

[poppyseed]

Hi Hawram

It had depth - I could see the dimensions of the item and how it fit in space.

Aren’t the dimensions also colour? What suggests that different colours have different depths? What is space made of?

It's like a sensation in the chest - like a knowing, understanding as I observe the object.

Ok … there is a sensation, labelled “chest” present, what makes that sensation the perceiver? There are sensations like “heartbeat”, “aliveness” that are always present, but does that mean that they can do stuff? Can a sensation do anything – know stuff, understand?
Remember
Feels like/seems like = thought content
Nothing in DE is seems like – it’s either here or not.
Also you say the sensation is in the chest. Where exactly is “chest”? What is “chest” in DE? Where is it located?

With DE, it's just color and shape. I don't know how to answer these questions.

Exactly! There is just colour. Nothing there inherently existing as a lamp. In fact, if you could go back in time like 500y and show it to someone they wouldn’t know what it is.

Love
Rali

[Danial]

Wassup Rali,

Aren’t the dimensions also colour? What suggests that different colours have different depths? What is space made of?

The dimensions are also color, yes. With DE, nothing suggests that there is depth at all. "Space" is simply color.

Ok … there is a sensation, labelled “chest” present, what makes that sensation the perceiver?

There's no perceiver, just the sensation. How could there be? What would that even feel like? Question - is being the observer simply being? Like, being (and within it, sensations and stuff).

There are sensations like “heartbeat”, “aliveness” that are always present, but does that mean that they can do stuff? Can a sensation do anything – know stuff, understand?

Nope, they're just sensations, sensationing. They can't do stuff, they just exist.

Where exactly is “chest”? What is “chest” in DE? Where is it located?

No chest in DE.

[poppyseed]

Hi Hawram

There's no perceiver, just the sensation. How could there be? What would that even feel like? Question - is being the observer simply being? Like, being (and within it, sensations and stuff).

Don’t ask me, look for yourself!
Yes there is being that is confused to be a being, BUT!
Is being like a container for experiences? Are there ”solid” sensations floating around in “being”- “arising, appearing and disappearing”? Is the knowing of a sensation separate from the sensation? Where is the actual border that separates one from the other? Is there pure being with nothing else, no sensations, etc.? Can there be thinking or seeing, or…, without being?

Please close your eyes and allow a thought of something to arise, or start to think of something in particular such as the last car in which you travelled. As soon as a particular thought is recognized and seems like “something”, let go of that emerging “something” and search your experience for what it is that recognizes that thought as a “something”. What in you seems to be proven or seen, that allows you to distinguish the thought as separate, distinct and real? Try this with a few thoughts, and please report back how it went.

You can also try this with your eyes open, moving from one item to another in the room and, as you start to look at a new item, notice how it quickly goes from an initial recognition of a chair (for example) to the experience of a tangible, real chair. In other words, allow the initial labelling of whatever it is, and focus “in here” on what happens next. It may help to look at something, close your eyes and then open them again in order to start fresh each time. Again, once it seems like “something”, let go of that emerging “something” and search your experience for what recognizes that as a “something”. What is there?

Furthermore, is the seeing sensory apparatus separate from the hearing apparatus?
Can you find the boundary between knowing of seeing and knowing of hearing?
Are there separate knowings?
And, more importantly, with what are you doing this looking?
Does hearing appear in a different place to thinking?
Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides thinking from hearing? Or is the line a mental construct?

Now open your eyes and notice colours.
Does seeing appear in a different place to thinking and hearing?
Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides thinking, seeing and hearing, or is that division a mental construct?

Thought names stuff into separate existence but in reality no separation can be found. It is all one inseparable being/knowing_seeing_hearing_smelling_tasting_feeling_thinking – or jus THIS. In Buddhism the term thusness or suchness is used, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction.

No chest in DE.

Yes! “Chest” is a thought pointing to sensations/feeling

So is “seeing” clearer now (please excuse the pun :) )? Are there any “objects” to be found?

As a result of no longer believing there are actual “things” which exist, nor space in which anything could exist, life looks very different, but at the same time exactly the same. For example, when we recognize “a cup on the table over there” or “a thought about breakfast this morning”, we tend to assume that there is something that really exists which corresponds to those words. This is of course not to say that we shouldn’t use words, or that once we get past this fetter we won’t be able to get through daily life because we no longer recognize what anything is. Instead, we come to realize the tangible version of the “cup” or “thought” we experienced was really just a mental interpretation, whereas all we really experience is an intangible image. We just get used to no longer believing we live in a tangible, “real” world. Experience doesn't go blank, nor does what we see squish together into an unrecognizable mess. Rather, we come to understand that our mental interpretations (“a cup on the table”) are just that: interpretations, just as they always have been. Life goes on just fine without the added layer of “somethingness” being superimposed onto everything. And if we can get rid of the belief that there is something about us that perceives actual things, we will stop assuming that we are perceiving actual or existing things.

Love
Rali