What is real?

[LillaLilla]

Hi Rali,

Did thoughts actually trick someone?
Is there a “me”/observer that was tricked?
Are thoughts an entity with intention?
Or did thoughts simply appear, and more thoughts claimed them as true?

No, there isn't an observer. Thoughts simply appeared.

But is the one who was tricked found?
Look again.
Was there ever a separate Lilla being fooled by thoughts?
Or was there just thought, sensation, belief, familiarity, and claiming?
And “I had not seen through the mechanism” — is that personal failure?
Or did seeing simply not happen until it did?

There were just thoughts and sensations.
Seeing didn't happen until it did.

Is there an “I” seeing?
Or is seeing happening, and thought claims it?

Seeing is happening and thought claims it to be personal. 'Me' is only thoughts and sensations. It is gradually becoming clearer. There's also enthusiasm arising to go deeper in this way of looking. 

Thought is self-organised around the experience but at some point becomes organised around itself.

I'm not sure I understand this second sentence. Do you mean that at one point the 'person' becomes conscious of thinking?

But does AI have any direct experience of what it’s talking about? Is it an entity that has intentions, or is it just a collection of algorithms?

I really like your example. AI is indeed just a collection of algorithms. Yet when engaging with it, it mirrors human thought process, therefore it feels like talking to a person. I know I'm writing concepts. If I was to describe it in DE, I would say: When talking to AI, thoughts appear, sensations appear, and a sense of familiarity appears. That sense of familiarity is a sensation, and thought says it's a person.

Where is the one doing the inquiry/looking? What is looking in DE?

Thought says 'me, me' then there are body-map sensations, then silence. No response.

Is “inside” found by itself? Or does it only make sense in relation to “outside”?
Is “self” found by itself? Or does it only make sense in relation to “other”?
Is “existence” found as a thing? Or does the word only make sense because thought contrasts it with “non-existence”?

The concepts make sense in relation to other things. They have no meaning in themselves. If there's nothing to compare them against.Thank you for the explanations :)

Can “inside” be found without thought comparing it to “outside”?
Can “outside” be found without thought comparing it to “inside”?
Or are there only sensations, sounds, thoughts?

There are only sensations, thoughts, sounds.

If neither “inside” nor “outside” is directly found, what happens to the one who was supposed to be inside?

In DE, these are just thoughts. There's no one, and no inside. Only thought, sensations, seeing, hearing.

Lots of gratitude...
Love, Lilla

[poppyseed]

Hi Lilla

Wonderful!

Seeing is happening and thought claims it to be personal. 'Me' is only thoughts and sensations. It is gradually becoming clearer. There's also enthusiasm arising to go deeper in this way of looking

Good. Keep the looking fresh. Don’t turn the discoveries into a belief. Enthusiasm is welcome. But look carefully.
Is there someone who will go deeper? Someone on a path?
Or is there enthusiasm appearing, thought saying “let’s go deeper,” and inquiry happening?
Don’t let “going deeper” become a new seeker project.
Where is the one who needs more?

Thought is self-organised around the experience but at some point becomes organised around itself.

I'm not sure I understand this second sentence. Do you mean that at one point the 'person' becomes conscious of thinking?

No. Let me try to express myself clearer. There are thoughts about what is happening (thoughts about DE) and then you have thoughts about thoughts about thoughts (thoughts organised around other thoughts). There is nothing wrong with thought. Thought is part of what is happening.
A sound appears — thought says “bird.”
Colour appears — thought says “phone.”
Sensation appears — thought says “body.”
Movement (aka sensations) appears — thought says “walking.”
This is a simple commentary – icons on your desktop. It happens. But then another layer of thought appears:
“I noticed the sound.” “I don’t like the sound, it’s too loud”. “I like this bird but I don’t like the other one”
“I was tricked by thought.” “I didn’t see this before.” “I am going deeper.” “I am doing inquiry.”
This is thought commenting on thought — and here the “I” is smuggled in.
So look carefully. A thought appears. Then another thought says, “I thought that.”
Is the “I” found? Or is that just another thought?
A belief appears. Then thought says, “I believed it.” “I got tricked”
Is the believer found? Or is that just another thought?
A shift happens. Then thought says, “I am seeing this now.” Is the seer found? Or is that just another thought about someone being enlightened and seeing clearly?
This is the trickery — but there is no one being tricked. This is where the illusion is formed. Thought appears, comments, builds a story of someone at the centre. But when looked for, that someone is not found.
So don’t try to stop thought and make it the enemy. Just notice the moment thought adds ownership.

When talking to AI, thoughts appear, sensations appear, and a sense of familiarity appears. That sense of familiarity is a sensation, and thought says it’s a person.

Exactly. This is the same mechanism. The point of this analogy was to see that thought is no different than AI forming a response. It’s based on algorithms – concepts on top of other concepts with some repeating more often than others (i.e. conditioning) forming “personalities”, “traits”, etc. But all that is there is just THIS – seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and thinking. Whatever is not in the first five is a though about these or about other thoughts.

Where is the one doing the inquiry/looking? What is looking in DE?

Thought says 'me, me' then there are body-map sensations, then silence. No response.

Good. Don’t rush past the silence.
Is a looker needed for looking? Is an experiencer needed for experience? Or are seeing, hearing, sensation, thought simply happening?
And one more precise check - don’t make “looking” into a thing.
What is actually happening? Seeing. Sound. Sensation. Thought.
Then thought says, “I am looking.”
But is “looking” found as something separate from seeing, sound, sensation, and thought?
When the question is asked, “What is looking?” — what appears?
Maybe silence. Maybe body-map sensation. Maybe thought saying “me.” Maybe no answer.
But is there an actual activity called “looking” apart from what is already happening?
Or is “looking” just a useful label for thought turning toward what is happening?
So check… Seeing happens. Thought says “I’m looking.” “I’m investigating.”
Silence appears. Thought says “no response.”
Is any of that done by someone?
Or is thought simply commenting on what is happening?
“Looking” is also a label. What is actual before the label “looking” appears?

Love
Rali

[LillaLilla]

Hi Rali,
I'm sorry about the delay.

Is there someone who will go deeper? Someone on a path?
Or is there enthusiasm appearing, thought saying “let’s go deeper,” and inquiry happening?

There is noone to go deeper. Things just appear. I find it hard not to form a belief around the discoveries. 

Where is the one who needs more?

It's just a thought.

Is the “I” found? Or is that just another thought?

There isn't an I. it's just thought and sensation. 

Is the believer found? Or is that just another thought?

It's just another thought.

Is the seer found? Or is that just another thought about someone being enlightened and seeing clearly?

The seer is also just a thought.

Is a looker needed for looking? Is an experiencer needed for experience? Or are seeing, hearing, sensation, thought simply happening?

In DE there is just looking. Just experience.

But is there an actual activity called “looking” apart from what is already happening?
Or is “looking” just a useful label for thought turning toward what is happening?

There's no looking. When I engage with what is here right now, there is a subtle shift, and looker and looking merge into one. So looking is a label for thought turning towards what is happening.

What is actual before the label “looking” appears?

Sensation, seeing, hearing and thoughts.

With gratitude,
Lilla

[poppyseed]

Hi Lilla,
Good. This is getting very precise.

There is no one to go deeper. Things just appear.

Yes!!

I find it hard not to form a belief around the discoveries.

Good honesty. Now don’t make that into a problem :)
How exactly are you doing this - forming beliefs? Are you the thinker of these thoughts? (please let me know if you need to inquire into the thinker a bit more)
What is “forming a belief” in direct experience?
A series of thought appears: “this is true”, “I understand this”, “I must remember this”…
Maybe a sensation of certainty appears. Maybe a sensation of grasping appears.
But is there someone forming the belief? Please describe the process in detail – tools used, muscles… :)
Or is belief just thought, sensation, familiarity, repetition, and ownership-claim?
When a belief forms, ask:
What is this belief made of?
Is there a believer?
Is there someone who should not believe it?
Let even “belief forming” be just another happening.

When I engage with what is here right now…

Is there an “I” that engages?
Or does a question appear, attention (thought) shifts , sensations become clearer, thought quiets, and then thought says “I engaged”? Look closely. Is “engaging” an actual thing?
Or is it another label for what is already happening?
Same with “inquiry.” Is there someone doing inquiry? Or are there questions appearing, sensations appearing, thoughts appearing, shifts in the story appearing?

looker and looking merge into one.

Careful. That still assumes there were two things that merged. Look again.
Were there ever actually two things — looker and looking?
Or were “looker” and “looking” both labels added by thought?
Before thought says “looker,” is a looker found?
Before thought says “looking,” is looking found as a separate activity?
How could these merge if they never existed in the first place?
Or is there simply seeing, hearing, sensation, thought?

One thing to say here, Lilla… It may look like I’m catching almost every word you use. That is not to make language perfect (please don't try to change it on that account), and not because you are doing anything wrong. It is because this is exactly how the illusion hides. It hides in tiny phrases: I engage / I understand / my sensation / in the body / I am looking / it happened to me / I’m forming a belief. Each phrase quietly smuggles in a doer, owner, body, location, observer, or experiencer. So we are being thorough, not picky.
Ordinary language is fine for ordinary life - icons on your desktop. But in this inquiry, every word is a clue. When a phrase suggests a self, we check whether that self is actually found - again and again, what is found?
What we find is seeing_sound_sensation_thought_taste_smell – just this. And the “I” is added by thought.
So don’t become self-conscious about wording. Speak naturally. We’ll use the wording as a doorway into seeing what thought is adding, but also seeing what is actually there. If thought says nothing, what is there?
Reports on what old thought says might be useful as clue for investigation, if there are no new thoughts replacing the old descriptions.
So far we’ve seen “body”, “believer”, “seer”, “looker”, “looking”, “inquiry”, “going deeper” are all labels. What is actual before the labels? Seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling, thinking. Anything else?
Love,
Rali

[LillaLilla]

Hi Rali :)

How exactly are you doing this - forming beliefs? Are you the thinker of these thoughts?

Sometimes it is seen, that thoughts just appear. In those moments there is some distance from thoughts and a sense of relief. But when it isn't, thoughts are responding to one-another, alongside body map sensations (feelings). In those moments, there is a sense of being one with thoughts, no distance from them. 

What is “forming a belief” in direct experience?
But is there someone forming the belief?

Thought is followed by a sensation and another thought interprets the sensation as belief as it feels familiar. What's happening is: sensation and repeating thoughts commenting on familiar sensation. There is noone forming a belief. Thoughts are responding to previous thoughts.

Or is belief just thought, sensation, familiarity, repetition, and ownership-claim?

Yes.

Is there an “I” that engages?Or does a question appear, attention (thought) shifts , sensations become clearer, thought quiets, and then thought says “I engaged”? Look closely. Is “engaging” an actual thing?
Or is it another label for what is already happening?

It is another label for what's happening.

Is there someone doing inquiry? Or are there questions appearing, sensations appearing, thoughts appearing, shifts in the story appearing?

It's all just appearing.

Were there ever actually two things — looker and looking?
Or were “looker” and “looking” both labels added by thought?
Before thought says “looker,” is a looker found?
Before thought says “looking,” is looking found as a separate activity?
How could these merge if they never existed in the first place?
Or is there simply seeing, hearing, sensation, thought?

Looker and looking are both labels added by thought. Looker isn't found. It's thought responding to sensation.Shift in perception happens when I say the word 'sight' for what is seen with the eyes, and the experience shifts immediately. Before acknowledging seeing being a direct experience, thoughts claim a looker for what is perceived through the eyes. 

What is actual before the labels? Seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling, thinking. Anything else?

The word being appeared.

Honestly, sometimes these inquiries bring up a lot of frustration. Thought says I don't understand, and another thought says it's hard to stay with the simplicity. Another thought says 'I' feel like I'm doing an exam. And so on.

Thnak you!
Love,
Lilla

[poppyseed]

Hi Lilla,
Good. This is very honest looking.
First, something important…

Honestly, sometimes these inquiries bring up a lot of frustration. Thought says I don't understand, and another thought says it's hard to stay with the simplicity. Another thought says 'I' feel like I'm doing an exam. And so on.

It may feel like every word is being inspected — because in this inquiry, language shows where thought is still smuggling in a self, a doer, an owner, a looker, or a body. That is not to make speech perfect. It is to expose how the illusion works. Ordinary language is fine. Speak naturally. We are just using the words as clues. Thoughts say a lot of stuff but what is actually true?! :)
When a phrase suggests a self, we check whether that self is actually found - that is how a new story is formed (one without a self). Now let’s look at a few places.

Sometimes it is seen that thoughts just appear. In those moments there is some distance from thoughts and a sense of relief. But when it isn’t, thoughts are responding to one another, alongside body-map sensations. In those moments, there is a sense of being one with thoughts, no distance from them.

Look very closely.
What is “one with thoughts”? Is there an actual one that becomes merged with thought?
Is there a separate Lilla who sometimes has distance from thought and sometimes loses it?
Or are there thoughts and sensations, (e.g. familiarity, intensity) — and then thought says, “I’m one with this”?
Also check “distance.”
Is distance from thoughts actually found? Do thoughts appear over there, while someone is over here?
Or is “distance” a label for less identification, less intensity, less pull - subtle sensations uncommented on before? (still language but different story - DE labels vs ordinary language)
NB!!!Remember…
Sense of, seems like, feels like = thought content (cup of coffee exercise)
So… when there is "distance,” what is actually here? Maybe subtle sensations? Maybe some thoughts about “distance”? Have thoughts shifted their “place” to come closer? “No distance”/"distance" from where – where is the center/refence point from which it is measured?
Is there someone trapped inside thought?
This inquiry is not about changing direct experience – can it be changed? Thought content (new or old) is not DE. We are not trying to create "distance" from thoughts. We are checking whether the one, who needs distance/no distance, exists.
Whether thoughts are loud or quiet, whether there is relief or frustration, distance or no distance… Is there a thinker? Is there someone identified? Someone frustrated or misunderstood in the first place? Is there someone who needs to get free from thought? Someone succeeding or failing? Or is thought simply appearing, with more thought commenting, “I’m caught,” “I’m clear,” “I need distance,” “I’m one with thoughts”?
I can assure you there are no medals or certificates at the end :)
We can explore "frustration" in a bit more depth if you want? (please answer these questions so I know what you need)

… thoughts are responding to one another

Can it actually be found that one thought responds to another?
Or is there simply thought appearing, then thought appearing, then thought saying, “this one responded to that one”?
Cause and sequence may be useful language, but in direct experience, can the mechanism be found?

Were there ever actually two things — looker and looking?
How could these merge if they never existed in the first place?

Looker and looking are both labels added by thought. Looker isn't found. It's thought responding to sensation.Shift in perception happens when I say the word 'sight' for what is seen with the eyes, and the experience shifts immediately. Before acknowledging seeing being a direct experience, thoughts claim a looker for what is perceived through the eyes.

Good observation. Now let’s separate two words carefully.
Seeing is direct experience - colour, shape, light, shadow.
Looking (in LU context) is a label thought adds. It suggests direction, effort, intention, observation, and often a looker.
The word “sight” may interrupt the usual story and bring attention/commentary to seeing. But now check:
Does seeing actually shift? Do colours change because the word “sight” appears? Does DE change if there is “looking” (the word ”sight”) involved? Or does the commentary on what is happening change?
At first thought says: “I am looking at an object. – I am over here and that is over there/ I am perceiving.”
Then the word “sight”/LOOK! appears, and the commentary may quiet or simplify to just: “seeing”/”peace”/”being”/”this” (still labels). Commentary may shift to subtle or more pleasant sensations...
But what about seeing itself? Was seeing already happening before the word “sight” / ”LOOK!”?
So is there really a change in perception? Or a change in thought’s story about perception?
Seeing does not need to become “direct.” It already is. It always has been.
What changes is the thought overlay: "object, distance, looker, body, me, doing, progress, improvement."
So check: Does the word “sight”/ “look” change anything? What is there before, what is there after the word? Did seeing itself become more seeing? Did it need to be acknowledged so it can happen? Or did thought simply stop claiming it for a moment?
Is “looking” found? Is “acknowledging” found? Is “shift” found? Is a looker found?
Or are these all labels thought adds to what is already happening?

for what is seen with the eyes

Let’s check “see with eyes”, “looker”, “seer”, “observer”, “being” and all possible entities with this exercise…
Close your eyes :)
With eyes closed, you will now experience 'blackness'. There may be other things you can find going on, sure. If you are looking at a bright light, there may be a red glow. There may be sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics. Just to make things simple, whatever you can see with eyes closed, I'm going to refer to it as 'black' or 'blackness' just for simplicity.
1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness' as I mentioned?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?
3) Can what is seeing/witnessing the blackness be found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me'/Lilla/being/emptiness/awareness/a person/anything be found that is witnessing the blackness? Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the see-er/observer/experiencer/…, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
So keep on checking...
What is actual before the story appears?
And especially:
When thought says “I am caught,” “I am clear,” “I am frustrated,” or “I understand” — is that I ever found?
Love
Rali

[LillaLilla]

Hi Rali :)

What is “one with thoughts”? Is there an actual one that becomes merged with thought?
Is there a separate Lilla who sometimes has distance from thought and sometimes loses it?
Or are there thoughts and sensations, (e.g. familiarity, intensity) — and then thought says, “I’m one with this”?

In DE, there are thoughts and sensations. There is no separate Lilla, and nobody to have distance. These are just thoughts.

Is distance from thoughts actually found? Do thoughts appear over there, while someone is over here?
Or is “distance” a label for less identification, less intensity, less pull - subtle sensations uncommented on before?

It is the latter. Distance is a label for subtle sensations uncommented on before. 

when there is "distance,” what is actually here? Maybe subtle sensations? Maybe some thoughts about “distance”? Have thoughts shifted their “place” to come closer? “No distance”/"distance" from where – where is the center/refence point from which it is measured?
Is there someone trapped inside thought?

Distance is a label for sensation followed by thought commenting on the sensation. There is no center, and nobody inside thoughts.

Is there a thinker? Is there someone identified? Someone frustrated or misunderstood in the first place? Is there someone who needs to get free from thought? Someone succeeding or failing? Or is thought simply appearing, with more thought commenting, “I’m caught,” “I’m clear,” “I need distance,” “I’m one with thoughts”?

Thoughts are simply appearing, and thoughts are commenting on sensations.

We can explore "frustration" in a bit more depth if you want?

I'm sorry I'd ignored these questions of yours. In the last few days it's been more difficult to be and stay with the direct experience. I feel like I need more of the practical exercises. I found for example explorations of where is the sound, thought, sight experienced really helpful. 

Can it actually be found that one thought responds to another?
Or is there simply thought appearing, then thought appearing, then thought saying, “this one responded to that one”?
Cause and sequence may be useful language, but in direct experience, can the mechanism be found?

There's no cause and sequence in DE. Thoughts are simply appearing.

Does seeing actually shift? Do colours change because the word “sight” appears? Does DE change if there is “looking” (the word ”sight”) involved? Or does the commentary on what is happening change?

DE doesn't change, the commentary on what is happening changes.

But what about seeing itself? Was seeing already happening before the word “sight” / ”LOOK!”?
So is there really a change in perception? Or a change in thought’s story about perception?

There is no change in perception. Thought commented on the sensation, that is all.

Does the word “sight”/ “look” change anything? What is there before, what is there after the word? Did seeing itself become more seeing? Did it need to be acknowledged so it can happen? Or did thought simply stop claiming it for a moment?
Is “looking” found? Is “acknowledging” found? Is “shift” found? Is a looker found?
Or are these all labels thought adds to what is already happening?

Thought stopped claiming sight for a moment. Wow. It wasn't easy to realise that. Concepts are labels thought adds to sensation. 

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness' as I mentioned?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?
3) Can what is seeing/witnessing the blackness be found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me'/Lilla/being/emptiness/awareness/a person/anything be found that is witnessing the blackness? Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the see-er/observer/experiencer/…, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

1. With eyes closed, there is just a sensation. Blackness is a label added by thought.
2. There's nothing else.
3. No.
4. There is just blackness found.
No seer, observer, experiencer is found, these are just concepts.
Thank you, this was a really helpful exercise.:)

I'll keep looking with the pointers you just gave me.

With gratitude,
Lilla

[poppyseed]

Hi Lilla,
Beautiful. This is very clear:

DE doesn’t change, the commentary on what is happening changes.

Yes. Exactly. This/seeing was already happening, thought appeared and claimed it/made stories about it. Then thought stopped doing it for a moment. Nothing special needed to happen to seeing. Seeing did not become “more seeing.” The overlay simply loosened.

1. With eyes closed, there is just a sensation. Blackness is a label added by thought.
2. There's nothing else.

Look carefully. Is the darkness/blackness a tactile sensation? Or is it still seeing/colour?
The word “blackness” is a label, yes. But the dark visual field with maybe reddish glow is seen. It is not a "body" sensation, it’s not "nothing". Maybe there are also subtle sensations present but that wasn’t the goal of the exploration – we were exploring seeing.
If we have to be accurate, in direct experience, with eyes closed, there may be: dark (blackish - reddish) colour / visual field, sensations, sounds, some taste and maybe usual smells, thoughts.
Does the dark visual field require a seer? Or is there simply seeing/darkness, and thought says “I see blackness”?
This distinction matters because we don’t want to turn everything into “sensation.” Direct experience includes seeing/colour, sound, sensation, taste, smell, and thought appearing.

Now, since practical exercises are useful for you, let’s do these for the next few days.
1. Sound-place exercise
Close the eyes and listen to one sound for a minute of two – let’s say ‘birds chirping’(replace with what you are actually hearing). As you listen, I would like for you to answer the following questions by looking at what you direct actual experience is and not with an intellectual answer:
Without thought, how is it known that the sound heard is the ‘birds chirping’?
Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it is ‘birds chirping’, or is it thought that suggests it?
What is the direct experience of hearing ‘birds chirping’? Is it DE of smell, taste, sensation, sound, colour or thought?
Before thought says “outside,” “inside,” “left,” “right,” “near,” or “far” — where is the sound?
Does the sound itself say where it is?
Is there a listener hearing a sound? Is there a boundary between sound and hearing?
Or is there simply sound/hearing, with thought adding direction and distance?
Then check:
Does thought appear in a different place from sound? Can an actual line be found between sound and thought?

2. Seeing-place exercise
Open the eyes and rest with colour. Choose one simple thing — wall, cup, tree, hand.
Before thought says “object,” what is here? Colour? Shape? Light? Shadow?
Does seeing itself say “cup,” “wall,” “distance,” “over there,” or “I am seeing”?
Or are those added by thought?
Then ask:
Is there a seer behind seeing? Or is there seeing, and thought says “I see”?
Look at your screen. Could show from where you are looking at it, and what is there? Is there a "you" in that direction?
Where does the seeing stop and the "screen" begin? What do you see?

Take a few relaxed breaths to let the dust settle for a while, and then:
Look on your right. Then look on your left. Finally, bring your head back to centre, close your eyes and look in front. Okay, so when you look on the right, the view on the right is seen (whatever that is). When you look on the left, the view on the left is seen (whatever that is). And then, when you look in front of you with eyes closed, the view in front is seen (i.e. ‘blackness’). So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ not to see? I’m not asking can you ‘choose’ to see something else like another view or ‘black space’ if you close your eyes. The question is, can you turn seeing off? Can you NOT see what is seen?
Same thing with the view on the left, can you NOT see the view on the left?
Same thing with the view in front with closed eyes, can you NOT see the ‘blackness’?
Can you turn off seeing?

3. Thought-place exercise
Let thoughts appear. Do not try to stop them.
Where is thought? Does thought actually appear “in the head”?
Or does thought appear, and then sensation/body-map plus thought says “head”?
Can a thinker be found? 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 the flow of thoughts be changed?

Write down a sequence of 5 thoughts in the order that they appear. Do it! Now check:
Could you predict the order of their appearance?
Did you know which will be the second or the fourth?
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle? How long does that last? Test it for the fun of exploration.
Can a place where thought comes from be found? Or is there simply thought appearing?

Love
Rali

[LillaLilla]

Hi Rali :),

Is the darkness/blackness a tactile sensation? Or is it still seeing/colour?
Does the dark visual field require a seer? Or is there simply seeing/darkness, and thought says “I see blackness”?

Darkness is seeing. It isn't a tactile sensation. When I close my eyes, there's only seeing. It doesn't need a seer. 


Thank you so much for the practical exercises. I'll be away for a few days. I'll report back with the discoveries next week. I hope it's ok with you.

With much gratitude,
Lilla