My Thread

[thursday123]

Nina,

I think this exercise gave me some real insight into the nature of what I know as 'body'. Here are my findings:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?

No. Neither. It makes it seem much more obvious that it's all relative when you take image/colour away. With eyes closed, I could be any height/weight. But really there's no real such thing as weight or height to begin with, just experience.

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

No, with eyes closed there is only sensation, and a shape/form cannot be identified.

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

No, there is just experience/sensations, and no such things as body, or clothing, or chair. Thought comes in afterwards to try to make sense of experience and starts defining boundaries and attaching labels. In truth these things just aren't there. Without image/colour this becomes very obvious.

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?

Again, no, there is only sensations/experience, and the concepts of inside and outside can't apply.

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

the actual experience of the body is just experience itself. Thought comes in afterwards and attaches the label 'body', but before that there is no body, just sensations. There's the experience of what I know as the body, but no body in and of itself.


Beanstalk

[suma]

Dear Beanstalk,

….the actual experience of the body is just experience itself.

Yes, exactly. Very nice.


Let’s have a closer look at the sensual perception now.

Usually when there is the belief that 'I am this body’
it is tied in with the belief that the body is a separate item who is responsible
or 'DOING' the senses – 'I see', 'I hear', 'I feel' etc.

We will begin with 'seeing' - Just that one sense on its own.

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 witnessing the blackness be found?

4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person 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,
be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?


Let's move on to opening the eyes now.
Again, address this very simply - The 'seeing' sense only for the moment.
With eyes open, a world of objects appears . . . a room . . . a computer screen etc
What you can specifically see isn't of interest here, and whatever it is,
I am simply going to refer to it as 'what can be seen'.
This might be a little trickier, but give it some consideration.

1) With eyes open, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'what can be seen' as I mentioned?

2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'what can be seen'?

3) Can what is witnessing 'what can be seen' be found?

4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a Beanstalk (?!) be found that is witnessing 'what can be seen'?
Or is there just simply 'what can be seen' to be found?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the see-er,
be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?



Wishing you all the best

nina

[thursday123]

Nina,

Part 1:

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

yes

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

no

3) Can what is witnessing the blackness be found?

no, there's only the blackness and then a sense of a witnesser, which when looked at is seen to be just a thought.

4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person 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,
be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

simply, no. there's nothing else there. the suggested see-er is nothing other than a thought.


part 2:

1) With eyes open, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'what can be seen' as I mentioned?

yes

2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'what can be seen'?

no

3) Can what is witnessing 'what can be seen' be found?

no. there is nothing other than what can be seen and then thought creating the sense of a see-er.

4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a Beanstalk (?!) be found that is witnessing 'what can be seen'?
Or is there just simply 'what can be seen' to be found?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the see-er,
be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

no, again there's no see-er and it could never be other than a thought. another thought that appeared suggested that the one who is capable of directing the seeing e.g. focusing on different things within what is seen, zoning in/out, could be the see-er. however when i looked there was no-one doing these things, no-one in charge of any of it. so there's no see-er at all.


Beanstalk

[suma]

Dear Beanstalk,

3) Can what is witnessing 'what can be seen' be found?

no. there is nothing other than what can be seen and then thought creating the sense of a see-er.

So there is the actual experience of two sense impression at the same time?
Sense impression of seeing and the sense impression of thought?

no, again there's no see-er and it could never be other than a thought.
another thought that appeared suggested that the one who is capable of directing the seeing e.g. focusing on
different things within what is seen, zoning in/out, could be the see-er.
however when i looked there was no-one doing these things, no-one in charge of any of it. so there's no see-er at all.

Ok. Was it something like seeing accompanied by thought?
Are you also able to see without reffering to thought?




Let’s move to hearing now.

Find somewhere quiet to sit.
Rest for a moment and listen to the sounds in the room where you are, or sounds from outside.
Whatever it is, I'll just refer to it as 'what can be heard'.

1) In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'?

2) Can what is doing the hearing be found?
Or is there only 'what can be heard'?

3) An 'I'? a 'body'? a 'person'? a brain? a pair of ears?
Can these be found doing the hearing?
Or is there just 'what can be heard'?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT HEARER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the hearer,
be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?


Warmly

nina

[thursday123]

Nina,

3) Can what is witnessing 'what can be seen' be found?

no. there is nothing other than what can be seen and then thought creating the sense of a see-er.

So there is the actual experience of two sense impression at the same time?
Sense impression of seeing and the sense impression of thought?

'what can be seen' and thoughts are both being experienced at the same time. but nothing/no-one is actually required for seeing to happen. there is no see-er, and any idea of a see-er could never be more than that - an idea.

no, again there's no see-er and it could never be other than a thought.
another thought that appeared suggested that the one who is capable of directing the seeing e.g. focusing on
different things within what is seen, zoning in/out, could be the see-er.
however when i looked there was no-one doing these things, no-one in charge of any of it. so there's no see-er at all.

Ok. Was it something like seeing accompanied by thought?
Are you also able to see without reffering to thought?

yes, seeing accompanied by thought. And I am certainly able to see without referring to thought.

1) In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'?

No

2) Can what is doing the hearing be found?
Or is there only 'what can be heard'?

No, there is only 'what can be heard'

3) An 'I'? a 'body'? a 'person'? a brain? a pair of ears?
Can these be found doing the hearing?
Or is there just 'what can be heard'?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT HEARER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the hearer,
be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

none of these things. just what can be heard. anything suggested as the hearer could be nothing other than a concept/idea/thought.



Beanstalk

[suma]

Dear Beanstalk,

'what can be seen' and thoughts are both being experienced at the same time. but nothing/no-one is actually required for seeing to happen.
there is no see-er, and any idea of a see-er could never be more than that - an idea.

Yes, very good.
Thoughts are there as a sense impression like seeing, hearing, etc but they are not necessary
to give the whole show a particular meaning.
It is very important to see the difference.

Look at a clock, a one with short-and long hand pointers, not a digital one.
Can you grasp the time without saying it mentally?

yes, seeing accompanied by thought. And I am certainly able to see without referring to thought.

Wonderful!

none of these things. just what can be heard.
anything suggested as the hearer could be nothing other than a concept/idea/thought.

Exactly.




Ok, now we’ll have a look at feeling:

Please close your eyes for this exercise, just notice any ‘mental’ images or
thoughts that may appear and put them aside.

Place a hand on a desk or table (flat surface) –

Close your eyes.
Now 'go to' the feeling/sensation which we would normally refer to as 'hand on desk'
and answer from what you can FIND.


1) How many things do you find?
Are there two things (hand and desk) or is there one thing – sensation?


2) Can a ‘feeler’ be found in 'what is being felt'?


3) Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'?
Or is there just 'a sensation'?


4) Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just 'a sensation'?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT FEELER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the feeler,
be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?



Warmly

nina

[thursday123]

Nina,

Look at a clock, a one with short-and long hand pointers, not a digital one.
Can you grasp the time without saying it mentally?

No, I don't think so. Without thought there is just an image/colour which is labelled as a clock. there's no such thing as time without thought.

1) How many things do you find?
Are there two things (hand and desk) or is there one thing – sensation?

no, there is only one thing - sensation

2) Can a ‘feeler’ be found in 'what is being felt'?

no, there is only 'what is being felt'

3) Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'?
Or is there just 'a sensation'?

there is no thing feeling another thing, there is only sensation. the mind may try to make sense of it that way, with thoughts like 'there is a hand feeling the table', but they are just ideas/concepts which don't exist outside of themselves. In reality there is only sensation.

4) Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just 'a sensation'?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT FEELER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the feeler,
be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

I find none of those things, there is only sensation which is happening on its own. Nothing that is suggested as the feeler could be anything more than a concept/idea/thought.


Beanstalk

[thursday123]

Also, do you have any exercises for looking at who/what is in charge of shifting attention/focus? I thought I was past it but I've since realised that I'm not. Thanks.

[suma]

Dear Beanstalk,

Also, do you have any exercises for looking at who/what is in charge of shifting attention/focus?
I thought I was past it but I've since realised that I'm not. Thanks.

Who could that be who’s in charge of shifting the attention?
Have a close look.
Look at whatever is in front of you.
Is it seen from the perspective of two windows
(eyes) or is it like a windscreen view?
Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing.
Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen?
Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

Can you grasp the time without saying it mentally?

No, I don't think so. Without thought there is just an image/colour which is labelled as a clock. there's no such thing as time without thought.

Ok, we may have a look at this a little later.

Can a ‘feeler’ be found in 'what is being felt'?
no, there is only 'what is being felt'

I find none of those things, there is only sensation which is happening on its own. Nothing that is suggested as the feeler could be anything more than a concept/idea/thought.

Good.



So now we may start to combine more senses - or even all, if possible:

Try it with two senses first, for example seeing and hearing.
Stay with it for some time.

Then add another, and add another,
for example add your bodily sensations and add your thoughts and images,
until you see the totality of experience.

Just go slowly into this.

Are you able to look at all sense impressions as a whole experience?

Can you see seeing-hearing-tasting-smelling-feeling-thinking just as a one-perception?
There might not be something happening to all the senses at the same time.
Just stay with what may enfold in the given moment.


Then look at the experience:
Is it necessary to divide it into different parts?

What do you see?
Let me know how you go.


Warmly

nina

[thursday123]

Nina,

Who could that be who’s in charge of shifting the attention?
Have a close look.

When I look there isn't anything there that could possibly be in charge. Attention shifts onto different things, but there's no 'shifter'.

Look at whatever is in front of you.
Is it seen from the perspective of two windows
(eyes) or is it like a windscreen view?
Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing.
Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen?
Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

it is like a windscreen view. it initially feels like the 'see-er' is located right where the eyes are/where seeing seems to originate from, but when i try to actually find it there is nothing there whatsoever, only what is being seen. there is no see-er. in the same way there is not awareness and then experience, there is just experience.

Are you able to look at all sense impressions as a whole experience?

yes, just about, although it's difficult to be aware of all of them at once

Can you see seeing-hearing-tasting-smelling-feeling-thinking just as a one-perception?

yes, it's very weird.

Is it necessary to divide it into different parts?

What do you see?

it is not necessary at all. they are all just one experience. if you take all sense impressions together they make up the totality of experience, there's nothing else, no 'I' present whatsoever. i had fleeting moments where i really felt like i was seeing it. there was nothing there whatsoever other than experience. just consciousness experiencing itself with no 'I' there at all, just emptiness


Beanstalk

[suma]

Dear Beanstalk,

it is like a windscreen view. it initially feels like the 'see-er' is located right where the eyes are/where seeing seems to originate from, but when i try to actually find it there is nothing there whatsoever, only what is being seen. there is no see-er. in the same way there is not awareness and then experience, there is just experience.

Yes, really good.

Can you see seeing-hearing-tasting-smelling-feeling-thinking just as a one-perception?

yes, it's very weird.

Wonderful!

it is not necessary at all. they are all just one experience.
if you take all sense impressions together they make up the totality of experience,
there's nothing else, no 'I' present whatsoever. i had fleeting moments where i really felt like i was seeing it. there was nothing there whatsoever other than experience.
just consciousness experiencing itself with no 'I' there at all, just emptiness

Nice.
Just continue.

Let’s have closer a look at time:

There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all)
somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future.
The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time,
or an event that is moving forward on this linear time, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

Any actual experience of one event following another?

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

How long does the ‘now’ last?

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?


Warmly

nina

[thursday123]

Nina,

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?

no. it's just there. it's not going/moving anywhere.

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

no. and there's no separation between different 'moments'. it's all just like one big moment, or an endless unfolding

Any actual experience of one event following another?

no, when I look hard and long enough I see everything seems to be occurring at once, in a weird sort of way. however the moments when I see this are quite fleeting. I'm struggling a bit with the idea that nothing occurs before or after anything else. for example with breathing, it seems indisputable that one breath occurs after the previous breath

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

it's not moving at all

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

no, there is no beginning or end. it just is

How long does the ‘now’ last?

it is always the 'now'. it doesn't last any amount of time because time doesn't come into it

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

There is no start or end, there is only ‘now’

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

It doesn’t

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

It doesn’t exist in actual experience. It’s just a thought/idea/concept

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

Time cannot be found in actual experience. There are only thoughts about ‘time’. Context e.g. things moving within appearance makes it appear as though ‘time’ is moving also, but in actual experience there is no such thing as 'time'


Beanstalk

[suma]

Dear Beanstalk,

no, when I look hard and long enough I see everything seems to be occurring at once, in a weird sort of way.
however the moments when I see this are quite fleeting. I'm struggling a bit with the idea that nothing occurs before or after anything else. for example with breathing, it seems indisputable that one breath occurs after the previous breath

Yes, it takes some ‘time’ to get used to this way of perception.
Generally any experience gets filtered through the lens of thought.
Because there is the memory of a breath - the picture of in-and-out
gets established.

Just look really close here:
Can an in-breath happen out of the now?
Similar with the out-breath.
When the in-breath is there just happening, can there be
something like an out-breath simultaneously?



Let’s have a look now at the body again:

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?


Kind regards

nina

[thursday123]

Nina,


Sorry it has taken so long for me to post back, I've been very busy. I will try to be quicker in future.

Can an in-breath happen out of the now?

no

When the in-breath is there just happening, can there be
something like an out-breath simultaneously?

no, but doesn't that support the idea that one follows the other, if they can't happen simultaneously?

Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?
Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

no, there is no connection, there only appears to be. felt sensations are just felt sensations and an image is just an image. part of the reason there seems to be a connection is because felt sensations and image appear to be in sync with each other. for example if part of the image can be labelled 'hand on a dressing gown' there will likely be a corresponding sensation which can be labelled 'hand on dressing gown'. but the connection only exists in thought. thoughts make image and sensation appear to be connected by unifying them under concepts like 'hand on dressing gown'.

(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?

again, they appear to be in sync (as the image of 'hand' moves upwards, the sensation of 'hand' also appears to), and so they appear to reinforce each other, but really there can be no connection. there is just image and sensation. the mind makes meaning out of it as always, making out that the two are connected. the mind labels the image 'hand moving' and immediately applies the same label to the sensation, but the sensation is just a sensation, it's not a sensation 'of' anything

(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?

there is no connection, only the belief that there is a connection. there is image and sensation and thought labels both as 'hand moving' and therefore suggests they part of the same thing.

(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’?

no, it's just an image. it can't belong to anybody

Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colours and shapes?

When I look at what is actually there, there are only shapes and colours. Mind comes in afterwards and labels them ‘body’. However it is still difficult to look in the mirror and not see ‘a body’.

(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?

only thoughts/mental images that suggest so. i can never really understanding anything beyond what thoughts suggest. and i have no idea if any thought is true, which means i can never know anything for sure. so i can not know for certain that there are legs beneath the mirror

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward
(don’t look directly to any body parts).

Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

there are only sensations

(8) Start to walk slowly.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?

only sensations

Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?

Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?

just thoughts about walking

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

just thoughts about a body

Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

no, just thoughts about walking


Beanstalk

[suma]

Dear Beanstalk,

Sorry it has taken so long for me to post back, I've been very busy. I will try to be quicker in future.

OK. No problem.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?
Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

no, there is no connection, there only appears to be. felt sensations are just felt sensations and an image is just an image. part of the reason there seems to be a connection is because felt sensations and image appear to be in sync with each other. for example if part of the image can be labelled 'hand on a dressing gown' there will likely be a corresponding sensation which can be labelled 'hand on dressing gown'. but the connection only exists in thought. thoughts make image and sensation
appear to be connected by unifying them under concepts like 'hand on dressing gown'.

So can you look at the image without any thought image involved?

Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colours and shapes?

When I look at what is actually there, there are only shapes and colours. Mind comes in afterwards and labels them ‘body’. However it is still difficult to look in the mirror and not see ‘a body’.

Just look for some time aimlessly into the mirror. Just look at the shapes and colours without referring to thoughts –
and notice just what can be seen. Spend some time with it.

And then look into the mirror throughout the day; randomly and/or intentionally.
When you return to the mirror each time, consider whether these 'body colours' have ever appeared before.
Is the appearance just appearing 'now' with only a thought-story claiming you've seen this body before?

When the in-breath is there just happening, can there be
something like an out-breath simultaneously?

<no, but doesn't that support the idea that one follows the other,
if they can't happen simultaneously?

And what is an idea? Does it tell anything about the truth?
Where does the idea come from?


Let’s have a practical approach here and don’t get too theoretical:


Please try to add a little meditation practice to your daily routine.
Five minutes before getting out of bed and five minutes before falling asleep would suffice.
Even two minutes will do.
You may do it while lying down however the sitting position would be even better.
See what works best for you.
So here it comes:

Just give all your attention to the breath.
Natural breath, as it comes in and as it goes out just naturally.
You might also be aware of the belly expanding and constricting with each breath.

When there are thoughts just let them be there like the chirping of birds outside.
They are there but don’t listen to them intentionally.
Just be with the breath as it comes in naturally and passes out.

It does that all the time mostly unintentionally.
Now you are there just to witness the whole process;
breathing in – breathing out.
Coming – going. In – out.

If you might get caught in a thought just see how quickly you come back to natural breathing.
You might simply note: Ah, just thought. Then again: In breath – out breath…

You might try this also during the day with open eyes; waiting somewhere, having a little break, on the toilet…


Please let me know how you go with both exercises.


Warmly

nina