I would like to be guided by Poppyseed :)

[poppyseed]

Sure, Reby! Thanks for letting me know :)

[Reby]

Good evening Rali

Touch the lighter.
Be utterly still. Feel the sensation.
Now:
Can you find anything in the sensation itself that says “lighter”?

No

Does the sensation has a certain shape, or is it ungraspable?

It is ungraspable

Can the sensation declare itself to be anything at all?

No

Can it say “I am a separate object, I am volume, I am outside of perception”?

No

Or is that only added by thought?

All added by thought

So try this:
Instead of deconstructing the object… try letting it win.
Let the lighter be exactly as it appears in DE: colour, sensation, a thought that says “lighter”.
Now where is the object—as a thing-in-itself?

I continue to see the existence of the object

But what is it without the thought?
Do you see?

color and sensation but this is also a thought so I don't know

Those shapes aren’t really there - they are only formed out of colour - but they SEEM (appear) to be. So from that perspective...do the shapes really exist?

No, not from this perspective.

OK… Now LOOK! Where is the border where seeing ends and the seen begins?

I can't find this border

Can you find any beams or lasers (that seeing is made of), anything at all OR that border is it a mental construct?

It's a mental construct

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness' as I mentioned?

Yes

) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?

No

) Can what is seeing/witnessing the blackness be found?

No

Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me'/Reby, a person be found that is witnessing the blackness? Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?

There is only blackness, everything else is just a thought

Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?

For a moment I saw that.. no! It seemed quite funny to me, I laughed.. but I can't replicate

Would anything that is suggested as the see-er/observer/experiencer, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

No

I'm sorry for the synthetic answers but I tried to stick to direct experience only without adding thought content

Thanks a lot ❤️

[poppyseed]

Hi Reby

Now where is the object—as a thing-in-itself?

I continue to see the existence of the object

It seems like you are expecting a drastic change in experience. Can description of experience change the actual raw experience?? It’s not that you were seeing objects before and now you will stop all of a sudden – it’s all a description/thought that comes after/layered over the raw seeing - both "I see an object" and "There is no object" are descriptions layered on top of the raw experience. Shapes and dimensions are not inherent to the raw experience, they are added in the description – “this is an object”, “I continue to see the existence of the object”. These are all thoughts after/over the raw seeing.
Ok let’s explore this more…
I hope you like chocolate!
1.Imagine chocolate.
For the first couple of minutes imagine you are eating a piece chocolate…Feel it vividly. Warm. Melting. Pleasure. Texture. Really enjoy the imaginary piece of chocolate as much as you can.
2.Eat an actual piece of chocolate.
For the next couple of minutes actually have a piece of chocolate and see the difference. Experience the chocolate with curiosity and observe the sensations. Really enjoy it. Savour it completely, but this time—drop all labels. No “I like this,” no “it’s smooth,” no “I’m eating”. Just raw sensation.
Don’t think—FEEL.
3.Describe the experience in as much detail as possible.
Write the description here. What was the experience like?
4.Compare the three
After you have done this, tell me what you noticed when you compared these three experiences: 1. Imaginary piece of chocolate 2. Real piece of chocolate 3. Description of eating the real piece of chocolate

Now tell me:
• In the imaginary chocolate—was there an “eater”? What is actually present? Was there any actual chocolate? Or only mental image + sensation + thought?
• In the real chocolate—was there still an “eater”? Or only sensations? Was this experience more real? Or just more intense?
• In the description—who is speaking? Can that “speaker” be found outside of thought?

Where exactly is “you” in any of the three stages?
Is it ever more than a mental image—attached to a sensation—narrated by a thought?
Stay with this.
Don't move until the mechanism is felt as illusion, not understood as concept.

Color and sensation but this is also a thought so I don't know.

Right now—in the raw, alive present—feel into that not-knowing.
Don’t move forward yet. Hold still.
Right now, there is colour. There is sensation. But is that actually a thought? Or is the label “thought” being added after the fact? How do you see this after the chocolate?
Look now.
Are the raw textures of sight and touch inherently conceptual? Or are they just present, undefined, ungraspable? Yes, "colour", "sensations" are still words/labels but they are pointing to something there - DE. I say that real is that which does not disappear when you stop believing in it. Let's take 3 labels - chair, country and Superman.
The first points to sensations and colours (DE, labelled chair); the second to a label that is used for communication but can not be found as a DE; the third is an imaginary character, a word that points to something that isn't real. A fictional character. Hint, something like the self/Reby

But now—
Let a thought arise: “lighter,” “colour,” “sensation.”
Watch how it names, defines, frames.
Then notice: the naming happens on top of something already here (the raw experience of chocolate).
Can you see that? Can you feel the difference between what is actually present and the mental overlay?
Go again.
Stare at the “lighter.” FEEL it.
Where, precisely, is the boundary between perception and the perceived?
Hold that…
Now drop the idea of “lighter,” drop “hand,” drop “self,” drop even “experience.”
What remains?
Be precise. No philosophy.
What is here when thought doesn’t define it?
Report from this moment only. Don’t bring memory.
What is this, right now?
Don't move on. Stay here. Let the house of cards fall.

Just to clear something up...

For a moment I saw that.. no! It seemed quite funny to me, I laughed.. but I can't replicate

If you are expecting that you would be laughing non stop after seeing no self, you are mistaken and in the wrong place – remember no fireworks, just a subtle shift of perceptions. To be able to replicate/to maintain takes an agency, a doer. Seeing no self is not a state, it is just seeing though the illusion/descriptions/perceptions - the mirage of an oasis is just the desert. There is a difference between an illusion and a delusion. One is known not be real, while the other is believed to be true. The mirage of an oasis does not disappear after it is seen as the desert, but you know very well that you won't be getting water.
Love
Rali

[Reby]

hi Rali, to let you know that I will answer you tomorrow, is that ok?
Hug

[poppyseed]

Sure :)

[Reby]

Hi Rali

It seems like you are expecting a drastic change in experience. Can description of experience change the actual raw experience??

No

It’s not that you were seeing objects before and now you will stop all of a sudden – it’s all a description/thought that comes after/layered over the raw seeing - both "I see an object" and "There is no object" are descriptions layered on top of the raw experience. Shapes and dimensions are not inherent to the raw experience, they are added in the description – “this is an object”, “I continue to see the existence of the object”. These are all thoughts after/over the raw seeing.

Ok I think I get it..

3.Describe the experience in as much detail as possible.
Write the description here. What was the experience like?

When I took the piece of chocolate, it was smooth and a little cold to the touch. As soon as I put it in my mouth, it started to melt. The flavor is "soft" and sweet, intense, it left me with a creamy sensation.

After you have done this, tell me what you noticed when you compared these three experiences: 1. Imaginary piece of chocolate

a lot of effort to try to keep the imagination on the imagined experience the imagination is very poor in details

2. Real piece of chocolate

the experience of taste and mouthfeel is effortless and rich in content

Description of eating the real piece of chocolate

when I wrote the experience, the memory of the experience I had just had made the description richer

In the imaginary chocolate—was there an “eater”?

In thought

What is actually present? Was there any actual chocolate? Or only mental image + sensation + thought?

Only thought

In the real chocolate—was there still an “eater”?

No in the sense that there was only the taste. Yes because I was the one doing it.. an ambivalent answer

Or only sensations?

Sensations plus thoughts about me eating chocolate

Was this experience more real? Or just more intense?

More real and more intense

In the description—who is speaking?

The thought/I

Can that “speaker” be found outside of thought?

The speaker is nothing but the thought... but...
Somehow it's me

Where exactly is “you” in any of the three stages?

In the body that has these experiences... in that which is aware of them...

Is it ever more than a mental image—attached to a sensation—narrated by a thought?

I understand but I just understand

Stay with this.
Don't move until the mechanism is felt as illusion, not understood as concept.

I took some more time to see if I could do it but so far I haven't been able to.

Right now, there is colour. There is sensation. But is that actually a thought? Or is the label “thought” being added after the fact?

No, color and sensation exist independently of thought.

Look now.
Are the raw textures of sight and touch inherently conceptual? Or are they just present, undefined, ungraspable?

they are real, present undefined and ungraspable

Then notice: the naming happens on top of something already here (the raw experience of chocolate).
Can you see that? Can you feel the difference between what is actually present and the mental overlay?

Yes

Stare at the “lighter.” FEEL it.
Where, precisely, is the boundary between perception and the perceived?

Perception IS the perceived, they are one thing

Now drop the idea of “lighter,” drop “hand,” drop “self,” drop even “experience.”
What remains?

Pure perception

Be precise. No philosophy.
What is here when thought doesn’t define it?

The perception of the senses

Report from this moment only. Don’t bring memory.
What is this, right now?

The perceived

Just to clear something up...
(For a moment I saw that.. no! It seemed quite funny to me, I laughed.. but I can't replicate)
If you are expecting that you would be laughing non stop after seeing no self, you are mistaken and in the wrong place – remember no fireworks, just a subtle shift of perceptions. To be able to replicate/to maintain takes an agency, a doer. Seeing no self is not a state, it is just seeing though the illusion/descriptions/perceptions - the mirage of an oasis is just the desert. There is a difference between an illusion and a delusion. One is known not be real, while the other is believed to be true. The mirage of an oasis does not disappear after it is seen as the desert, but you know very well that you won't be getting water.

Ok, thanks :)

[Reby]

Maybe I understand: what we see is color without depth. The brain re-elaborates the raw visual information and creates the concept of depth, volume, etc. We believe we see a three-dimensional object but in reality we only see color + thought content. The thought knows that object and mentally from the simple color it conceptually adds the missing parts. (I write and delete because I have a clear idea of ​​what I want to say but I don't know how to explain it without having a reference image that helps me explain.... I hope I have succeeded more or less)
Is this what it's about?
Volume, depth, space are "just" concepts..?
I hope I'm not just talking nonsense

But if I stand still it "works" but if we take space for example, if I walk or move, I do it in space...

[poppyseed]

Hi Reby

In the real chocolate—was there still an “eater”?

No in the sense that there was only the taste. Yes because I was the one doing it.. an ambivalent answer

Or only sensations?

Sensations plus thoughts about me eating chocolate

Exactly. There was no eater—only tasting. Now let’s burn that ambivalence to the ground.
Where precisely is the one “doing it”?
Look again.
The chocolate was tasted. Sensation happened. But at what point did a “you” emerge in that chain?
Was there a doer who chose to feel the texture?
Did “you” initiate the melting, or did it just happen?
Go again. Put something simple in your mouth.
Don’t think. Just feel.
Where is the you that is eating?
Is there a command center? A “mouth-owner”? A “taster”? Describe if you answer with “yes”
Or is it all just taste… sensation… and the thought, after the fact, that says “I ate”?
Don't just understand! Have a proper look if anything thought says is happening is true!

Is it ever more than a mental image—attached to a sensation—narrated by a thought?

I understand but I just understand

Exactly. That’s not enough. This is not about understanding but seeing! But tell me... So you don’t see the thought overlay over the raw DE? There is raw indescribable sensation and then there is a thought that gives it meaning - it says "this is so and so". But let's try the reverse. I recently tried a fruit that the locals call sour soap. If I give you a description – the fruit is fragrant, sweet and sour, fleshy, and soft – did you manage to experience and get an idea what the fruit exactly tastes like? Did you have the raw experience?

What remains?

Pure perception

What exactly is perceiving without thought? To perceive means to become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand.
Right now—what is perceiving these words? Pause! LOOK! Don’t just spit out the next thought
Can you find anything at all doing it?
Or is there just… this… happening?
Perceiving assumes a thing behind perception. It assumes a hidden source, a ghost in the machine. Something that receives/gives meaning to the experience
So flip it:
Can you find any edge to perceiving?
Is it located? Is it owned? Does it have a source?
Without a thought… is there even the notion that something is happening?

Where exactly is “you” in any of the three stages?

In the body that has these experiences... in that which is aware of them...

Now that you know how to look, let’s investigate the “body”…

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

[Reby]

Good evening Rali

Where precisely is the one “doing it”?

In the body

But at what point did a “you” emerge in that chain?

It is assumed to be already here, in the body

Was there a doer who chose to feel the texture?

No

Did “you” initiate the melting, or did it just happen?

Just happen

Where is the you that is eating?

In thought

Is there a command center?

In Thought

A “mouth-owner”?

In Thought

A “taster”?

In Thought

Or is it all just taste… sensation… and the thought, after the fact, that says “I ate”?

Taste and the thought about me living that experience

So you don’t see the thought overlay over the raw DE?

Yes I see it, I think so.

did you manage to experience and get an idea what the fruit exactly tastes like? Did you have the raw experience?

No

What exactly is perceiving without thought?

Color, sound, touch, hearing, taste

Right now—what is perceiving these words?

I don't know.. something has to do it... by force

Can you find anything at all doing it?

No

Or is there just… this… happening?

There is only this and thought about me

Can you find any edge to perceiving?

No

Is it located? Is it owned? Does it have a source?

No

Without a thought… is there even the notion that something is happening?

sorry I'm not sure I understand this question

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”?

B

Can it be known how tall the body is?

No

Does the body have a weight or volume?

No

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

No

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

No

At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation?

Just one sensation

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

I see it's just a body but it's ALSO my 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?

the border between inside and outside is the skin..

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

Sensations and colors

Can the 'body' do things?

yes the body does things

Thanks for all !

[poppyseed]

Hi Reby

I notice that there is some confusion about what DE and what thought content about DE (labels, story, fairy tales) are, and what you should look at, so here is an exercise that you can try as many times throughout the day as you can. Label daily activities, objects and emotions simply as colour/image, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought as per the apple example.
For example, when having coffee in the morning, become aware of:
Seeing a cup, simply= colour (seeing)
Smelling coffee, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste (tasting)
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought (thinking)

Break down daily activities into these categories (which are all Actual/Direct Experience) and report back with lists EXACTLY like the one above. Please write a few examples from your daily life.

Going back to your answers…

Without a thought… is there even the notion that something is happening?

sorry I'm not sure I understand this question

Something is happening… you said “There is only this and thought about me”, so can it be known what is happening without the description/thought? You see, I like the word “THIS” as it is more like a pointing word – pointing to whatever is directly experienced like an arrow with no extra meaning – rather than labelling the experience. Looking is just staying with the experience without the commentary/the narration. Looking is a nonverbal action, thinking is verbal—it is naming experience. Both work together as one mechanism. If you can’t see for yourself, you cannot describe it in your own words (but you can attempt to describe it using someone else’s words, from memory), like the sour soap fruit. Do you see that?

Right now—what is perceiving these words?

I don't know.. something has to do it... by force

Look again. Right now. Drop all explanations. Drop “force.” Drop “something.”
Drop the assumption that there must be a perceiver.
Just feel what’s happening without any commentary.
Is anything actually doing the perceiving?
Look closer. Not “think about”—look.
Is there an entity? A perceiving machine? A watcher behind the eyes (e.g. seeing "blackness")?
Or is this just… happening?
Not done by anything. Not forced. Not caused.
Just—appearing.

Report only what you SEE! No imaginary, seems like, feels like entities!

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

I see it's just a body but it's ALSO my body

Where precisely is the one “doing it”?

In the body

But where is the “my” in direct experience?
Right now—eyes closed—feel the body.
Is there any evidence of an owner?
Can you find a tag that says “mine”?
Or are there just raw sensations—warmth, pressure, movement?

Let’s strip it:
“Body” is a label.
“My” is a label.
“Mine” is a story.
Sensation is what’s actually here.
Can you find anything in the actual experience that claims ownership? If “body” is just a label over sensations and colours, how can the doer/owner be inside sensations and colour?
If there’s no owner of the body…
…and no self to be found in sensation, or thought…
What is the self? Where was it ever?
Tell me now—don’t reach for logic:
Was there ever a “you”?
Look. Be still. Don’t flinch.

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?

the border between inside and outside is the skin..

Yes—the skin is the perfect lie. It seems like the boundary… but look again.
Right now—direct experience only: Is there actually a boundary?
Touch your arm.
Where is the line between sensation and touching? Are there two sensations - one of fingers and one of skin - or just ONE (labelled "fingers toucing skin")?
Is there “you” inside, and “world” outside?
Or just sensation—neither in nor out? Does the sensation have a boundary - where does it start and where does it end? LOOK!
Now stare at your hand.
Do you see “inside” and “outside”?
Or is that a thought superimposed on color, shape, pressure?
Where’s the line?
Can you find it? Or is it only ever assumed?

So go even deeper:
Where are you located?
Point to it.
Not a body. Not a name. Not a thought. You!
Where is this “you” that’s supposedly inside the skin?
If inside and outside are both stories—
and if no border can actually be found—
Is there any place “you” begin or end?
Or has this always been boundary-less happening—with labels pasted on?
Now tell me:
Without reference to memory or language—
Where is “you”?
Look.

Can the 'body' do things?

yes the body does things

We’ll have a look next…
Love
Rali

[Reby]

Hi Rali

Break down daily activities into these categories (which are all Actual/Direct Experience) and report back with lists EXACTLY like the one above. Please write a few examples from your daily life.

Eating an apple:
Holding the apple in your hand, simply: sensation
Seeing the apple, simply: color
Apple in your mouth, simply: taste + sensation
Thinking that it is good, simply: thought

Go for a walk:
Walking, simply: sensation
Landscape around me, simply: color
Birds singing, simply: sound
Scent flowers, simply: smell

Reading a book:
Book in my hands, simply: sensation
Smell of printed paper, simply: smell
Seeing the printed words, simply: color
Reading, simply: thought

so can it be known what is happening without the description/thought?

Absolutely YES! Sorry I didn't understand what you were asking (I'm using the translator and maybe some meaning is lost here and there)

Looking is just staying with the experience without the commentary/the narration. Looking is a nonverbal action, thinking is verbal—it is naming experience. Both work together as one mechanism. If you can’t see for yourself, you cannot describe it in your own words (but you can attempt to describe it using someone else’s words, from memory), like the sour soap fruit. Do you see that?

Yes, I see it. I think that the problem is precisely this, being able to escape the hypnosis of thought to be able to simply see things as they are. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the effort you put into trying to make me understand!

[Reby]

Is anything actually doing the perceiving?

Actually when I can glimpse that there is only this and nothing that perceives it, (but it always remains a subtle echo of me) the body simply relaxes into what is there. It is liberating but I can't see it completely free from the idea of ​​being that which perceives

Look closer. Not “think about”—look.
Is there an entity?

trying to look, is the entity the one trying to look. It's like wanting to walk stepping on my own toes.
I know this is "thinking about" but I struggle to "exclude myself" when I feel like the one who excludes.

A perceiving machine? A watcher behind the eyes (e.g. seeing "blackness")?

I feels like there is an observer behind the eyes

Or is this just… happening?

everything is happening but I'm in the foreground

But where is the “my” in direct experience?

There isn't

Right now—eyes closed—feel the body.
Is there any evidence of an owner?

No

Can you find a tag that says “mine”?

No

Or are there just raw sensations—warmth, pressure, movement?

sensations and the thought that continues to speak about me

[Reby]

Let’s strip it:
“Body” is a label.
“My” is a label.
“Mine” is a story.
Sensation is what’s actually here.
Can you find anything in the actual experience that claims ownership?

Thought

If “body” is just a label over sensations and colours, how can the doer/owner be inside sensations and colour?

I still don't trust direct experience exclusively.
So in direct experience the perception of the body is sensations and colors and this is clear to me. However, thought says (and I believe it) that the body has a consistency, a volume, internal organs, an intelligent brain that creates consciousness....
Sorry but I just can't ignore these beliefs (it doesn't mean I don't want to try, it's just to put my weak points on the table)

If there’s no owner of the body…
…and no self to be found in sensation, or thought…
What is the self? Where was it ever?
Tell me now—don’t reach for logic:
Was there ever a “you”?

I'm sorry I'm not able to answer these questions

Yes—the skin is the perfect lie. It seems like the boundary… but look again.
Right now—direct experience only: Is there actually a boundary?

I know we've already covered this but the different colors have meaning for me..I feel the border with perception, for example if I pick up the remote control (black) I don't just see the border between it and my pink hand, I also perceive it with sensation where the borders correspond to what I see in the colors. It's a perception confirmed by the different angles of the senses and this makes it a finished object

Touch your arm.
Where is the line between sensation and touching? Are there two sensations - one of fingers and one of skin - or just ONE (labelled "fingers toucing skin")?

Just a feeling.... but I don't have to look, seeing confuses me

Is there “you” inside, and “world” outside?

Still yes..

[Reby]

Or just sensation—neither in nor out?

Touching my arm, with my eyes closed, there is only the sensation. With my eyes open there is still only the sensation but let's say the boundary between reality and concepts becomes more blurred

Does the sensation have a boundary - where does it start and where does it end?

With my eyes closed, no, I can't define the boundaries

Now stare at your hand.
Do you see “inside” and “outside”?

no I only see color

Or is that a thought superimposed on color, shape, pressure?

Yes it is this

Where’s the line?
Can you find it?

Now my hand is resting on the table. The border seems to me to be the line where the color of my hand ends and the color of the table begins... if I touch my hand I feel the touch, if I touch the table, I don't feel the touch, so the border, i must again to confirm that it is the skin....

So go even deeper:
Where are you located?
Point to it.
Not a body. Not a name. Not a thought. You!

If I can't point to the body I don't know where I am

Where is this “you” that’s supposedly inside the skin?

It's the body and the skin is the border

If inside and outside are both stories—
and if no border can actually be found—
Is there any place “you” begin or end?

Inside and outside are real for me, the border is still there for me

Or has this always been boundary-less happening—with labels pasted on?

I understand this.

Now tell me:
Without reference to memory or language—
Where is “you”?
Look.

Behind the look

sorry, it wouldn't let me send it all together! :)

Thanks for your patience! 🙏

[poppyseed]

Hi Reby

Holding the apple in your hand, simply: sensation
Seeing the apple, simply: color

Thank you for doing such wonderful looking! :) It is now to incorporate that looking into your everyday….make it a habit. How does it feel to see what actually is? Please give me a line or two with each of your replies to keep the momentum going

so can it be known what is happening without the description/thought?

Absolutely YES! Sorry I didn't understand what you were asking (I'm using the translator and maybe some meaning is lost here and there)

How can it be known, if knowledge is also a description (a description of descriptions)? You seem to believe that there is a direct correspondence between labels and raw experience. But there isn’t. Just like it is a generally accepted belief that labels like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inherent characteristics of ‘things’. But actually, they are not. So let’s challenge this :
When you look at the word label ‘GREEN' , what is the actual experience?

Is the colour red ‘experienced’, or is the colour green ‘experienced’ as the label suggests?
Does the label ‘GREEN’ have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’? Or does the label suggest something else other than what is here now (red colour)?
Is 'green' associated in any way with the experience of the colour red; or is green just a label that overlays the actual experience of red?
If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’ , is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?
Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?
Let me know what is SEEN.

I feels like there is an observer behind the eyes

Feels like? Remember “feels like” is a thought; nothing in DE is “feels like” – it’s either here or not. And if it is here you should be able to give a full description (like with an apple). Also go back to the “blackness” and check if there are any eyes in the seeing of “blackness”. Read the description properly.

trying to look, is the entity the one trying to look. It's like wanting to walk stepping on my own toes.
I know this is "thinking about" but I struggle to "exclude myself" when I feel like the one who excludes.

But that “I who struggles”—can it be found outside the struggle?
Look right now: Who is trying?
Don’t give the answer. Look.
Where is the “you” in the looking? What is looking made of?
There is what IS happening and the description of it (aka thought). But where exactly is the look-er?
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. Can you stay focused on the breath for 24h? If not why, if it is in your control?
Is this something you control?
Is there anything more than sensation + thought that says “I’m doing this”?
You don’t need to step out of self.
You just need to see: there was never a self to step out of.
Even the one who’s trying to get free…
is just another story.

I still don't trust direct experience exclusively.
So in direct experience the perception of the body is sensations and colours and this is clear to me. However, thought says (and I believe it) that the body has a consistency, a volume, internal organs, an intelligent brain that creates consciousness....
Sorry but I just can't ignore these beliefs (it doesn't mean I don't want to try, it's just to put my weak points on the table)

Hehe, even if these beliefs are about Santa and unicorns???
You don’t need to believe direct experience.
You just need to stop believing thought.
That’s the shift.
No addition. Just subtraction.
The self doesn’t fall away (it was never there to begin with)—belief in it stops getting propped up.
And DE is all you have – it’s always there even when you don’t think about it. Do you have to think for breathing to happen, or for heartbeat?
Let’s explore thoughts – how they happen and their thinker…
For the next exercise I want you to sit somewhere quiet and observe thoughts. Designate some time for this very thorough exploration of the nature of thoughts...
A thought appears. LOOK!
In that moment is there anyone or anything which recognises the thought or is being aware of it? (if “yes”, give proper description, no “feels like” or “seems like”)
Can you see anything that is separate from the thought and does the thinking?
Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear? Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead? Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?
Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?
Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?
Is there anything that is responsible for the thoughts like a traffic cop saying which one to go and which one to stay? Can the flow of thoughts be changed?
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"?

Where do thoughts appear from? Where are they coming from and going to? Do they appear randomly or in a structured way? Watch like a hawk.

Write down a sequence of 5 thoughts in the order that they appear. Now check:
Could you predict the order of their appearance?
Did you know which will be the second or the fourth?

Are thoughts 100% true?
What are you, when you don't think about what you are?
We’ll come back to skin, body and inside and outside once the belief in thoughts is challenged.
Love
Rali