Ready to cut through the BS

[Vivien]

Hi Dylan,

The process is also getting frustrating to me,

Thank you for sharing your frustration with me. It’s is normal, almost everybody experiences frustration during the inquiry. But it’s all about perseverance. If you don’t give up and honestly look, sooner or later the penny will drop.

And yes, we’ve been investigating thoughts a lot. The reason for that is two-fold; the whole illusion is created by thoughts, so it’s very important to be super clear on that a thought as a phenomenon is happening, but the content (what the thought is about) is not. And since you are more prone to intellectualization, I’ve given you lots of pointers to investigate thoughts.

Without seeing clearly the nature of thoughts, it’s really difficult to see through the self-illusion.

Thoughts are not real. What I have been thinking of as my "self" is just a bunch of thoughts, and thoughts about thoughts -- I see this very clearly now. And I also see how sensations (seeing, hearing, touch, the body sensations, etc) are real in a way that thoughts can never be.

Great that you can see these.

These sensations are happening to a body.

This is the everyday belief, but when experience looked at closely, this belief falls away.
We can come back to this topic later.

Why don't we simply say that "I am my body" and the self is nothing other than this body?

With my following questions please be very careful not to speculate or philosophize, but really investigate what is your belief/assumption about yourself.

If you were the body, then why do you say that MY body, MY hands, MY digestion, MY feet, etc.?

Which feels to be truer:
- I am the body
or
- I have a body?

Does it seem or feel that “this is my body and I am in it”?

Doesn’t it seem like that I am somewhere inside the body, probably in the head, and looking out of the eyes (from the head), and observing the word out there?

As you go along your day, and do various activities, observe where you think or feel yourself to be. Try to pin down the exact physical location of yourself in the body.
Let me know what you find.

Stay safe,
Vivien

[swimmingly]

Hi Vivien.

We have been having some adventures here but basically all is well. I hope you are well too.

Thank you for addressing my question about the body.

If you were the body, then why do you say that MY body, MY hands, MY digestion, MY feet, etc.?

My first answer is that I say it because this is how the English language works. If I were a Spanish or French speaker I think it would be more common to say THE hands, THE feet, etc. Or "the hands of me."

So maybe this is just another trick of language!

I also say MY mind, MY thoughts ... and I am no longer sure that those belong to me either.

Trying to do this without philosophizing, I say that I normally experience my body as something that I can control, so it's "mine."

But after the past few weeks of looking at thoughts, I would not say that is accurate any more. I am no longer certain that "I" can "control" my body. In fact, I'm quite certain that things don't work quite like that. It is more accurate to say that my body moves, and I then decide I'm the one controlling it!

So I don't really have a good answer for why I say "MY body" except that this is just my habit of language.

Which feels to be truer:
- I am the body
or
- I have a body?

Again, this is down to the way I'm used to speaking. "I have a body" feels more normal, more comfortable. Is it more true? I don't know.

Do you want to know what I "feel" now, or what I actually feel, with the 5 senses? There is no sense that corresponds to a sensation of truth.

There is a "feeling" of truth - which is actually a thought - that "I have a body" is right. But I don't trust that thought to be true any more. :)

One thing that is weird about "I have a body" is that it's almost implying I might have another body. That does not seem right. "I am the body" seems more true, because if my body was totally different, then I would be someone else.

Does it seem or feel that “this is my body and I am in it”?

I often feel this way, yes.

Doesn’t it seem like that I am somewhere inside the body, probably in the head, and looking out of the eyes (from the head), and observing the word out there?

As you go along your day, and do various activities, observe where you think or feel yourself to be. Try to pin down the exact physical location of yourself in the body.
Let me know what you find.

Most of the time, yes, it feels like I am somewhere inside the head, looking out.

As I went through my day, I noticed something though. This feeling is strongest when my eyes are open and I'm not doing anything in particular, just looking.

When I'm focused on doing something, like work (writing, typing, talking on the phone) there is no sense of myself at all. I am just working. Or more accurately: There is just work happening! No sense of "I" and no need for it!

When I'm meditating, which is usually with my eyes closed, I have a more spread-out sense of where I am. The physical sense of myself drops lower down, into my chest, and spreads out a bit wider. So instead of a little "me" peering out through my eyes at the world, I feel much more like my body and myself are the same thing, sitting solidly on the ground in a room surrounded by the world. It's still mostly concentrated in my chest and head but sometimes expands out.

Sometimes it even seemed like this sense of "me" was very wide, encompassing the room I'm in and even some of the outside space, where I could hear birds in the trees calling to each other, and cars on the street passing by.

Now - you are asking about how things "feel" or seem to me, so this exercise is a lot more open ended than what I have been doing for a few weeks. If I go back to looking closely at the thoughts that make up these "feelings" or "seemings" I will say that they are just thoughts.

Take care,

Dylan.

[Vivien]

Hi Dylan,

We have been having some adventures here but basically all is well. I hope you are well too.

Yes, I am.

One thing that is weird about "I have a body" is that it's almost implying I might have another body. That does not seem right. "I am the body" seems more true, because if my body was totally different, then I would be someone else.

This is logic. And sorry to say, but logic is utterly useless with this investigation. :)

When I'm focused on doing something, like work (writing, typing, talking on the phone) there is no sense of myself at all. I am just working. Or more accurately: There is just work happening! No sense of "I" and no need for it!

Exactly! Very nice observations.

So I’m going to give you two exercises, one for your daily activities, while the eyes are open, and one for your meditation sessions. If it helps, spend 2 days on these before reply.

Most of the time, yes, it feels like I am somewhere inside the head, looking out.

Look at an object. It can be anything.

And while you are looking at it, find the exact location where to looking is happening FROM.
Localize it with millimetre/quart of an inch precision.

When you’ve found the exact spot, then investigate what is actually experienced there.

Where is this location exactly?

And what do you find at that location?

Do you find an I there?
Do you find a looker?

If not, what do you find there?

Please repeat this many times before replying. Look at this repeatedly at least 20-30 different occasions.

When I'm meditating, which is usually with my eyes closed, I have a more spread-out sense of where I am. The physical sense of myself drops lower down, into my chest, and spreads out a bit wider. So instead of a little "me" peering out through my eyes at the world, I feel much more like my body and myself are the same thing, sitting solidly on the ground in a room surrounded by the world. It's still mostly concentrated in my chest and head but sometimes expands out.

For the meditation session, I would like to ask you to spend your whole session on looking and investigating this sense of self/me.

So try to localize the sense of self. It doesn’t really matter how big it is, expanded or not, just to find its location.

When you’ve localized it, just FEEL it.

And as you FEEL it, investigate that what is it that is actually felt there?

Then find a sensation that doesn’t feel like a me. Like the sensations of the sole of your feet or your butt, or your lower back.

Move the attention between the sole of your feet (or any not self sensation) and the ‘sense of me’, back and forth.

What is the difference between these two sensations experientially?

It’s very important that you don’t start to analysing them, just try to FEEL the difference between these sensations, if there is any.

And as you go back and forth, investigate:

What make the sensations in the chest into a me/I?

The sensation is there, the body is there, but what where is the I?

If a thought comes up with a statement “I am the body”, then check the validity of this thought.

Other than a thought claiming so, what makes the body into a me (experientially)?

WHERE is the I that claims that "I am the body"?


Vivien

[swimmingly]

Hi Vivien. I need a little more time with this investigation. I'll write more later, maybe on Sunday morning. (It's Friday evening here right now.)

Dylan.

[Vivien]

All right Dylan, just be thorough :)

Have a nice day,
Vivien

[swimmingly]

Hi Vivien!

Where is this location exactly?

And what do you find at that location?

Do you find an I there?
Do you find a looker?

If not, what do you find there?

Please repeat this many times before replying. Look at this repeatedly at least 20-30 different occasions.

I have done this dozens of times over the past few days, and what I found is that I have a sense of the perception "happening" or "landing" an inch or two behind my eyes, in the middle of my head. At first it does seem that I am somehow inside my skull, peering out through my eyes.

But when I look more closely, I am not so sure. This sense of the "looking" happening behind my eyes is rather vague -- I can't locate it exactly. And in any event each perception rapidly gets accompanied by a bunch of thoughts. Where exactly is the actual "looking" happening? Do I only think it's inside my head because thoughts are telling me that?

In other words, when I look more closely, it appears that I am just imagining this location. Thoughts are appearing saying "the looking is here," or there are visual thoughts indicating a location. But the actual location cannot be found.

So try to localize the sense of self. It doesn’t really matter how big it is, expanded or not, just to find its location.

When you’ve localized it, just FEEL it.

And as you FEEL it, investigate that what is it that is actually felt there?

Then find a sensation that doesn’t feel like a me. Like the sensations of the sole of your feet or your butt, or your lower back.

Move the attention between the sole of your feet (or any not self sensation) and the ‘sense of me’, back and forth.

What is the difference between these two sensations experientially?

Something different is happening in meditation with eyes closed. (I did this in a couple of meditation sessions including a long-ish one this morning.) This sensation of "self" is appears to be just body sensations, like the warm feeling inside my chest when I breathe in a relaxed way.

At first I had trouble finding any sensations that clearly felt different from this "sense of me." An itch on my back or on my eyebrow? That seems to be part of my body, part of me. Sounds of birdsong outside? OK, that's definitely "outside."

But as I looked at this kind of "outside" sensation happening I was less and less sure that there was any fundamental difference between them and the body sensations I would call "inside." They are all sensations happening to me (or to "me") and I'm not sure there's an experiential difference.

And as you go back and forth, investigate:

What make the sensations in the chest into a me/I?

The sensation is there, the body is there, but what where is the I?

I don't have good answers to these questions. What makes the sensations in the chest/body into a "me/I" is just a habit, I guess. This body is the one that I've been carrying around all my life so there is no good reason to call it anything else than "my" body - and if the "I" isn't located in the thoughts, the body is all that's left. But there is no "I" located in the body anywhere either.

I don't know what makes the body into a "me," experientially. This seems to be another thought, yes. Again, logically, I can't see any reason to call it anything else.

I suppose I would call it "me" because it's the only body I have any experience of! But that's a thought too... if I really strip it down to just experience, it's just body sensations and thoughts.

Other than a thought claiming so, what makes the body into a me (experientially)?

WHERE is the I that claims that "I am the body"?

I don't know where that "I" is. I can't find it. Maybe it is just a collection of thoughts and things that can't be defined exactly, sort of a cloud or a pile of stuff. Maybe it's like asking "where is America?" You can find it on a map. But you can't experience "America" directly except through thoughts. Does that mean it's imaginary?

Anyway: The result of all the investigation of the past two days is: Nothing. I can't find any "I" in the body experientially. And the sensation of "this body" isn't a different type of experience from any other kind of sensation.

Take care,

Dylan.

[Vivien]

Hi Dylan,

I don't know where that "I" is. I can't find it. Maybe it is just a collection of thoughts and things that can't be defined exactly, sort of a cloud or a pile of stuff. Maybe it's like asking "where is America?" You can find it on a map. But you can't experience "America" directly except through thoughts. Does that mean it's imaginary?

You are still quite drawn to speculation :) this whole above comment is just a thought speculation, and not the investigation of what actually is. But that’s all right, speculating is a conditioned habit. And ‘my job’ is to point this out, and to give you pointers to help to turn to your immediate experience and not to thought interpretations ABOUT the experience.

Let’s start to investigate the body and sensations. The illusion of the self is not just simply coming from thoughts, but also from the belief that “I am the body” or “I have a body” or that this or that sensation is ‘me’ or the location of the ‘me’, or that this or that sensation is happening to ‘me’. So the thought label ‘this is me’ and the appearing sensations are welded together, creating the seeming ‘sense of self’.

Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.
Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on verbal or visual thoughts:

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

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?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. Take your time, don’t rush. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, having a short break from work, walking, etc) before replying.

Vivien

[swimmingly]

Hi Vivien!

You are still quite drawn to speculation :) this whole above comment is just a thought speculation, and not the investigation of what actually is.

LOL, yes! I am aware. :) But thank you for pointing this out.

This is a big habit -- my thoughts can't resist adding on some speculation to whatever I am doing. Even when I am working on investigating what is really happening. :)

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?

From direct perception while my eyes are closed, no. There is no perception of height, specific weight, or exact volume.

I could use direct experience of vision to check my height, by standing next to a measuring stick. Then my eyes could give me the experience of seeing "6 feet" marked at the top of my head. But that involves thinking, too, to read the numbers - and from then on the knowledge "I am 6 feet tall" is just another bit of thought information.

From direct internal experience, I have a vague sense of the body occupying space but it is pretty shapeless. It is only when certain parts of my body feel pain, or pressure, or some sensation, that they come into more precise awareness.

For instance, there is the feeling of pressure (which thoughts tell me is "weight") from my butt pressing against the chair. But the experience itself doesn't convey "weight" (much less any specific weight) - just a sense of pressure.

Exact shape of the body is not ever known all at once. Parts of the body are only felt when in use - eg pressure on feet while walking, sense of hands when using them to type, arms when lifting something, etc. And even then the feelings are felt only to the extent of how that part of the body is being used.

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

A little harder to answer. There is definitely a sensation where the clothing touches the body, and where the body is pressing against the chair. But is this a sense of "boundary" or just "sensation of pressure"? I don't know. It is probably more accurate to say sense of pressure.

There is definitely no sense of a complete boundary - I'm not able to sense a continuous perimeter where the body and the clothes are separate, for instance. It's not a border like around a country. :) It's noticed only in the places where there's particular pressure, or if I direct attention to a particular place.

From direct sensory experience, no boundary.

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?

Much harder to answer this! It seems there is a set of sensations from "inside" the body (heartbeat, breathing, etc) that are different from sensations that come from "outside" the body (seeing, feeling things like my clothing touch me, sounds of other people, etc).

But I can't say -- without thinking about it -- what makes those "inside" sensations different from "outside" sensations.

And if I can't say from direct perception what the difference is, then I can't say inside or outside of what exactly.

The more I look at direct experience, the more undifferentiated it all is. There is just a lot of experience going on.

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

Now these questions are quite difficult. The label "body" seems to be a thought that applies to a collection of sensations, unified by a mental image (a thought) that looks like my body as seen in a mirror.

In other words, I have a *thought* about my body which is based on memories of seeing my body in the mirror, and especially my face. And that thought is also used to label sensations which seem to come from "inside" that mental image.

The ACTUAL experience of the body is much more mysterious. I don't know how to answer this! I am not getting anywhere with this (without using thoughts and speculation) except to say that the actual experience of the body is just a bunch of sensations. And those sensations are fairly continuous with all other sensations. I have learned to label some sensations "inside" and others "outside" but I'm having trouble finding a direct, experiential reason for that.

Well - that's how it looks today.

I was recently re-reading my notes from a book that talked about an ancient Native American language called Eyak, once spoken by people on the coast of Alaska. The last native speaker of Eyak died a few years ago. In the Eyak language, the word for "rain" means "something is happening."

Today it is raining here. I was meditating on the body sensations as you instructed, Vivien, and the thought came up: "Something is happening." Yes, rain is happening. But something is happening with all these sensations too.

It was a vivid moment of just realizing things are happening, and I don't have to do anything or worry about them, I can just watch them happening and listen to the rain.

Dylan.

[Vivien]

Hi Dylan,

LOL, yes! I am aware. :) But thank you for pointing this out.

And I will continue point out intellectualization :)
Like this one (but you did a nice looking in general):

I could use direct experience of vision to check my height, by standing next to a measuring stick. Then my eyes could give me the experience of seeing "6 feet" marked at the top of my head. But that involves thinking, too, to read the numbers - and from then on the knowledge "I am 6 feet tall" is just another bit of thought information.

This is coming from thinking and not looking.

From direct internal experience, I have a vague sense of the body occupying space but it is pretty shapeless.

Please close your eyes, and just feel the sensations present.

When both verbal and visual thoughts are ignored, do the raw sensations themselves suggest or communicate at any why that this or that sensation is the body or a body part?

Do the sensations communicate anything?

Do the sensations know about a body, or that they are supposed to be a body?

For instance, there is the feeling of pressure (which thoughts tell me is "weight") from my butt pressing against the chair. But the experience itself doesn't convey "weight" (much less any specific weight) - just a sense of pressure.
Are you 100% sure that the sensation communicates that it’s the sense of pressure?

Put the attention to the sensation being labelled as ‘sense of pressure’.

Where does the information of ‘pressure’ coming from?
Does the sensation saying so, “hey I’m a sense of pressure”?

There is definitely a sensation where the clothing touches the body, and where the body is pressing against the chair.
Lean back to a chair, and close your eyes.

How many sensations are present? One for the sensation of the back and another sensation for the chair or ‘pressing against the chair’?

When you ignore the visual thoughts of the body leaning to the chair, how do you know that there are two sensations there, ‘back’ and ‘chair’?

Is there ANY distinction between the sensation labelled ‘skin on the back’ and the ‘back touching the chair’?

Can you find two sensations there?
Or both labels ‘skin on the back’ and ‘back touching the chair’ are labelling the SAME sensation?

There is definitely a sensation where the clothing touches the body,

Close your eyes, and pay attention to the area of the body which is covered with clothing.

How many sensations are there? Is there one for the skin, and other one for the clothing touching the skin?
Or there is only one?

Does the sensation communicate at any way that this sensation is the result of clothing touching the skin?

The ACTUAL experience of the body is much more mysterious. I don't know how to answer this! I am not getting anywhere with this (without using thoughts and speculation) except to say that the actual experience of the body is just a bunch of sensations.

Exactly! All there is to the body is a bunch of sensations.

I have learned to label some sensations "inside" and others "outside" but I'm having trouble finding a direct, experiential reason for that.

Very good.

Vivien

[swimmingly]

Hello Vivien.

So many questions today! I have been working with these exercises all day.

When both verbal and visual thoughts are ignored, do the raw sensations themselves suggest or communicate at any why that this or that sensation is the body or a body part?

I don't quite understand. If I feel something touching my arm, the sensation comes from my arm. The feeling of the couch I'm sitting on is a pressure on my butt and thighs, not on the top of my head. It seems that the location of the touching is part of the sensation experience.

Do the sensations communicate anything?

Not really, other than the basic sensation itself: "There is a brown shape in front," "there is a high pitched sound," "there is pressure on the legs," "there is hunger," "there is a pain here," etc.

It seems to me that with some sensations, a certain amount of interpretation happens on a very basic, immediate level. Like I don't perceive a certain set of shapes and then analyze them with thoughts and then the thoughts conclude "that is my son's face." Instead, the perception is pretty immediate: I recognize him. I can break down that recognition into component sensations (color of his hair, his eyes, etc) but those individual appearances come later than the recognition.

But for the most part it is the thoughts that do the communicating, or the interpreting of what it is that the sensations are conveying, if that makes sense. For instance, the sensations don't tell me what my son's name is, or that he's playing Xbox right now. It's thoughts assembling different sensations that create that awareness.

Do the sensations know about a body, or that they are supposed to be a body?

I don't understand this question either. Sensations don't "know" anything. They are just signals.

Where does the information of ‘pressure’ coming from?
Does the sensation saying so, “hey I’m a sense of pressure”?

So, I am using thoughts and words to explain an experience that doesn't have words. There is no sensation saying in words, "here I am, a sense of pressure." The sensation just happens in experience, without words.

To describe it, and even to think about it at all, I'm labeling it. Thoughts are labeling it. But it can't have just any label. I couldn't label this sensation of pressure as "seeing the color red" without being wrong. And if I told you that when I sit on this couch I see the color red, I would not be 100% honest about the experience. And I promised I would strive to be 100% honest during this inquiry, Vivien. ;)

Are you 100% sure that the sensation communicates that it’s the sense of pressure?

I don't know what else to call it, if not pressure/touch/contact. It's certainly not a sense of color or a sense of hearing.

Does the sensation communicate "sensation of pressure"? Not in those words, of course. But the signal it's conveying is different than the signal that comes from seeing things. It's instantly recognizable as a different sense from other kinds of senses.

How many sensations are present? One for the sensation of the back and another sensation for the chair or ‘pressing against the chair’?

When you ignore the visual thoughts of the body leaning to the chair, how do you know that there are two sensations there, ‘back’ and ‘chair’?

Is there ANY distinction between the sensation labelled ‘skin on the back’ and the ‘back touching the chair’?

Can you find two sensations there?
Or both labels ‘skin on the back’ and ‘back touching the chair’ are labelling the SAME sensation?

No, there is just one sensation! This was a sudden realization for me, which I recognized as soon as I read your question, and then confirmed by examining experiences. There's not a separate sensation for the the chair and another one for the back. There's just "pressure" or "contact" feeling that arises when there's contact between my back and something else. It is my thoughts that are interpreting this as "chair" or "couch."

If I didn't already know I was sitting here, and I couldn't look with my eyes, then I wouldn't know what I was sitting on. I might not even know I was sitting.

How many sensations are there? Is there one for the skin, and other one for the clothing touching the skin?
Or there is only one?

Does the sensation communicate at any way that this sensation is the result of clothing touching the skin?

Similar to the chair, I find that there is just one sensation: "touch." This is a lighter sense of touch, in a different part of the body.

The sensation itself does not convey "clothing." Instead, it's a light touch that thoughts and memories label as "this is what the clothes I'm wearing right now feel like."

Thank you for your attention, and your patience. I hope you are well.

Dylan

[Vivien]

Hi Dylan,

So many questions today! I have been working with these exercises all day.

Yes, you’re right. Sometimes I make the mistake of giving too many questions. Sorry.

No, there is just one sensation! This was a sudden realization for me, which I recognized as soon as I read your question, and then confirmed by examining experiences. There's not a separate sensation for the the chair and another one for the back. There's just "pressure" or "contact" feeling that arises when there's contact between my back and something else. It is my thoughts that are interpreting this as "chair" or "couch."

Yes, exactly! There is only one sensation, and only thoughts label it into different things.

This was a nice looking, but most of your replies are coming from thinking and logical deductions.

I don't quite understand. If I feel something touching my arm, the sensation comes from my arm. The feeling of the couch I'm sitting on is a pressure on my butt and thighs, not on the top of my head. It seems that the location of the touching is part of the sensation experience.

Thinking, not investigating experience itself.

If I feel something touching my arm,

Close your eyes, and focus on the FEELING of ‘something touching my arm’.

Does the FEELING itself convey the meaning of ‘something touching my arm’?
Or only verbal and visual thoughts convey this meaning?

Reality is very very simple.
Much simpler than we think it is.
Only thoughts complicate, label, divide, categorise, and give meaning.

Experience itself is totally meaningless…. experience (in this case sensation) doesn’t convey anything at all.
All of these coming from thoughts.

And the trick (the illusion) is often not just coming from thinking about the answers and trying to interpret the experience, but from VISUAL THOUGHTS that are not noticed being only as thoughts, rather their contents taken as something real.

When you close your eyes, and investigate sensations, watch out for visual thoughts (visual images) of a body, or a body part, or a visual thought of a body covered by clothing, or touching a chair.

The trick lies in these unrecognized visual thoughts, not just in verbal interpretations or labelling.

It seems to me that with some sensations, a certain amount of interpretation happens on a very basic, immediate level. Like I don't perceive a certain set of shapes and then analyze them with thoughts and then the thoughts conclude "that is my son's face." Instead, the perception is pretty immediate: I recognize him. I can break down that recognition into component sensations (color of his hair, his eyes, etc) but those individual appearances come later than the recognition.

Analytical thinking.

But for the most part it is the thoughts that do the communicating, or the interpreting of what it is that the sensations are conveying, if that makes sense. For instance, the sensations don't tell me what my son's name is, or that he's playing Xbox right now. It's thoughts assembling different sensations that create that awareness.

Interpretation, logical thinking.

V: Do the sensations know about a body, or that they are supposed to be a body?

D: I don't understand this question either. Sensations don't "know" anything. They are just signals.

Yes, sensation don’t know anything, exactly.

But ‘they are just signals’ is a learned intellectual knowledge, not coming from looking.

What I was trying to point to with the above question is that in experience there are only sensations.
Only sensations can be felt, a body cannot be felt.
Since body is nothing else then a mental construct on labelling and layering over the immediate experience of sensations.

Let’s look into this.

Close your eyes, and scan through the body. Look for every sensation that is present right now. You will find, that as you scan the body, a visual thought ‘shows’ the location of attention, so to speak.

Sit quietly with closed eyes, and just feel the sensations that are present.

Are there two things there:
1. experience of sensations labelled ‘body’ PLUS
2. other sensations felt by the sensations (1) labelled ‘body’?

If you look very carefully, you’ll find that there are some parts where the sensations are really strong, but there are other areas where there is hardly any sensation going on, or even nothing. So even the sensations what are labelled as ‘body’ cannot be experienced as a whole. I mean you cannot feel all ‘parts’ of the body at the same time. There is only a constructed visual thought and with the label ‘body’, and the belief that the body is a whole unit, always present, always available. But this cannot be further from the truth. Body as such exists only as a construct.
Can you see this?

Color and shape is NOT the AE (actual experience) of body, but the AE of color only.
The visual thought labelled ‘body’ is NOT the AE of body, but the AE of a thought only.
Sensations are NOT the AE of body, but the AE of sensations only.
The appearance of movement is NOT the AE of body, but the AE of colors and sensations only.
Can you see these?

There is ZERO experience of body.
Body as such cannot be experienced.
Body is just a mental construct ( = thought), nothing else.
The body is just a conceptual overlay on the experience of colors and sensations. Can you see this?

And I promised I would strive to be 100% honest during this inquiry, Vivien. ;)

Thank you, I really appreciate that.

Thank you for your attention, and your patience. I hope you are well.

You are most welcome :) Yes, I’m well, and I hope you and your loved ones are well too.

Vivien

[swimmingly]

Yes, you’re right. Sometimes I make the mistake of giving too many questions. Sorry.

Vivien, no need to apologize! I don't mind the questions. You are helping me see some things in a completely new way and I really appreciate it. I'm happy to work through lots of questions and exercises.

I understand all the places where you're pointing out that I'm thinking and analyzing, not reporting my actual experience. I appreciate the reminders. It's just that I'm trying to dig through the thoughts to find the sensations, and I'm trying to find ways of explaining things that I don't have much practice talking about.

Also, I'm not used to noticing most of these things so I'm unsure of myself.

When you ask if I can see that the body is just a mental construct on top of all these sensations, I get a strange feeling. I can see this! Yes.

But ... the strange feeling comes from a question. Are you saying my body is not real? I mean, it's a living thing here in the real world. That's real, right?

I can see that even if it's real, I don't have direct experience of the body as a body. As soon as try to perceive "the body" or I start to think about "the body" I can see that it's all a mental construct creating this idea of a body. Any experience I have of the body is 100% thoughts trying to organize or make sense of sensations.

The actual experience - AE - is just sensations. I totally get it! I see this!

I'm answering quickly right now because I'm excited about this.

I will spend some time working on each of your questions and will reply in more detail tomorrow.

Thank you,

Dylan.

[swimmingly]

Hi Vivien.

OK, ready to work on these exercises more closely.

Close your eyes, and focus on the FEELING of ‘something touching my arm’.

Does the FEELING itself convey the meaning of ‘something touching my arm’?
Or only verbal and visual thoughts convey this meaning?

So I'm sitting at the kitchen table and noticing the feeling of my arms resting on the table. Feelings ... arms ... some kind of touch underneath them. It's a broad, diffused feeling so it's little unclear. I pick up a pen and use that to touch different points on my arm and hand, after pushing up my sleeves. But then I sense something underneath the arm. (Thought: the table is sticky.) (More thoughts: that's sugar from the kids baking cookies last night.) Before I've even really realized what I'm doing I've jumped up, grabbed a sponge, and am wiping off the table.

Sensations: No meaning in them. There are different kinds of sensations from different parts of the body, but the sensations don't come labeled "arm" "hand" "underside of arm" or even "stickiness." They're just sensations of touch coming from different directions. A visual thought appears, almost like a map of my arms, and a label applies the sensation to a specific spot on that map.

Reality is very very simple.
Much simpler than we think it is.
Only thoughts complicate, label, divide, categorise, and give meaning.

Experience itself is totally meaningless…. experience (in this case sensation) doesn’t convey anything at all.
All of these coming from thoughts.

I'm starting to see what you mean, Vivien!

When you close your eyes, and investigate sensations, watch out for visual thoughts (visual images) of a body, or a body part, or a visual thought of a body covered by clothing, or touching a chair.

YES! This is exactly accurate based on what I'm experiencing today.

I also see what you mean about the "signals" comment being analytical thinking. A signal moves from a sender to a receiver. To think of sensations as signals I have to already be thinking that they are coming from somewhere, and being received by a perceiver who is in some separate place.

Analytically, because of education, I have learned that the brain does a lot of this work (simplistically speaking). But experientially there is no separate "receiver." Sensations just happen. There's no meaning in them. Thoughts are what apply meanings, like labels or maps, over the sensations.

Close your eyes, and scan through the body. Look for every sensation that is present right now. You will find, that as you scan the body, a visual thought ‘shows’ the location of attention, so to speak.

YES. I did this and noticed sounds, sensations of pressure, sensations of warmth, sensations of breathing, sensation of heartbeat, sensation of an itch. As I noticed each one, a thought supplied a visual representation of the location.

This experience is a little bit like a searchlight scanning over the body. Except it's clear that it's not really shining a light on something. It's just thoughts of different parts of my body coming to the foreground.

BTW this explains why I feel in meditation like my sense of "the body" is more in my chest. It's because I'm focusing on my breathing more, focusing on the rising and falling of my chest! So of course I'm aware more of a sense of "my body" in my chest. DUH, DYLAN.

When I'm out doing things, attention is focused (usually) on the things I'm looking at, and the sense of the body is very minimal -- unless I'm following Vivien's instructions and trying to locate "where the looking is happening," in which case thoughts supply the image of eyes & the space in my skull right behind the eyes.

Sit quietly with closed eyes, and just feel the sensations that are present.

Are there two things there:
1. experience of sensations labelled ‘body’ PLUS
2. other sensations felt by the sensations (1) labelled ‘body’?

No. It's all just sensations. Thoughts are doing the labeling and categorizing of different kinds of sensations. There are not "sensations feeling sensations" separate from the first set of sensations. That doesn't even make sense.

If you look very carefully, you’ll find that there are some parts where the sensations are really strong, but there are other areas where there is hardly any sensation going on, or even nothing. So even the sensations what are labelled as ‘body’ cannot be experienced as a whole. I mean you cannot feel all ‘parts’ of the body at the same time. There is only a constructed visual thought and with the label ‘body’, and the belief that the body is a whole unit, always present, always available. But this cannot be further from the truth. Body as such exists only as a construct.
Can you see this?

So clearly! This is like the "roving searchlight" of attention. It's the same thing where I couldn't feel all of the places touching my clothing all at the same time. There is no continuous "border" or boundary between my skin and the rest of the world. I'm only aware of a little bit at a time, when a sensation calls attention to it, or when my thoughts specifically direct attention to it.

Color and shape is NOT the AE (actual experience) of body, but the AE of color only.
The visual thought labelled ‘body’ is NOT the AE of body, but the AE of a thought only.
Sensations are NOT the AE of body, but the AE of sensations only.
The appearance of movement is NOT the AE of body, but the AE of colors and sensations only.
Can you see these?

I am having no trouble at all seeing the first three. The appearance of movement is causing a little more difficulty because I am so used to thinking of "this body is moving now" or "now I am walking," "now I'm running," etc. Also it seems like there are a LOT more sensations happening when my eyes are open than when they are closed, and even more sensations when I'm moving around than when I'm sitting down or lying in bed. So it gets more confusing because so many sensations are happening.

It's also harder, because of these mental habits of thinking "this is my body doing X activity," to see what's really going on. But I get it! The thought is just "walking" or "running" -- or really a thought labeling a bunch of sensations as walking or running -- without an actual, direct experience of a "walking body/running body."

There is ZERO experience of body.
Body as such cannot be experienced.
Body is just a mental construct ( = thought), nothing else.
The body is just a conceptual overlay on the experience of colors and sensations. Can you see this?

Yes, it's really becoming clear now.

I'm still wondering what happened to the "real" body I mentioned last night! But I also recognize that I can't talk about that without engaging in a lot of speculation.

Thank you,

Dylan.

[swimmingly]

One more thing I am wondering about, Vivien.

You wrote that "If you look very carefully, you’ll find that there are some parts where the sensations are really strong, but there are other areas where there is hardly any sensation going on, or even nothing."

And I found this to be true in my experience!

In my earlier answer, I was talking about how these parts of the body become more visible when something happens (a sensation), or when I direct my attention to them.

But then I was wondering: Where is that attention coming from? What is "attention" anyway?

I realized that this is just another trick, a way of saying "I am paying attention" or "I am looking at something now," as if there was a looker paying attention to different parts of the body, like that searchlight metaphor I used.

Actually, it's just thoughts pointing to or labeling or presenting images of different parts of the body.

And the thoughts just happen. They cluster around a particular place, or a set of sensations, and that cluster - the thoughts that are happening right now - is what I label with the thought of "paying attention". There's actually no need for a concept of "attention" or someone "directing" that attention.

Vivien suggested "Close your eyes, and focus on the FEELING of ‘something touching my arm’." So that's where the thoughts went. A thought from Vivien appeared as a suggestion and then a thought from Dylan appeared to label the arm-sensations.

If I can make another metaphor, it seems like a school of fish. No need for a "directing fish" or some kind of "schooler" that makes fish go different places in a group - they just all go where the food is, or where the currents are, or whatever.

YES I know I am just speculating now. :)

But this all seems like a new way of experiencing things today.

Dylan.

[Vivien]

Hi Dylan,

You did an excellent investigation :) you are doing more looking and less speculation, great! :)

. A visual thought appears, almost like a map of my arms, and a label applies the sensation to a specific spot on that map.

Yes, nice observation.

I also see what you mean about the "signals" comment being analytical thinking. A signal moves from a sender to a receiver. To think of sensations as signals I have to already be thinking that they are coming from somewhere, and being received by a perceiver who is in some separate place.

Yes, this would be just a speculation. But you can test out this theory in experience.

Does this theory stand up the scrutiny of looking at experience? Is there a receiver, a feeler of sensations? Where?
Where is the I that feels sensations? – search for it and find it

This experience is a little bit like a searchlight scanning over the body. Except it's clear that it's not really shining a light on something. It's just thoughts of different parts of my body coming to the foreground.

Exactly! It’s very good that you can see this.

BTW this explains why I feel in meditation like my sense of "the body" is more in my chest. It's because I'm focusing on my breathing more, focusing on the rising and falling of my chest! So of course I'm aware more of a sense of "my body" in my chest. DUH, DYLAN.

Yes :)

It's also harder, because of these mental habits of thinking "this is my body doing X activity," to see what's really going on. But I get it! The thought is just "walking" or "running" -- or really a thought labeling a bunch of sensations as walking or running -- without an actual, direct experience of a "walking body/running body."

What I would like to emphasize here is that our goal is not to stop the illusion or thoughts of body doing X activity appearing, but rather to see (when looking) how things actually are. But we not even aiming to see how things are 24/7. It’s enough to see when looking.

I'm still wondering what happened to the "real" body I mentioned last night! But I also recognize that I can't talk about that without engaging in a lot of speculation.

Yes. I don’t really want to comment on this, since I don’t want to feed your tendency to conceptualization. But with this inquiry we are not denying the existence of the body in ‘conventional reality’. We are just investigating how things actually are compared to how we THINK things are.

But then I was wondering: Where is that attention coming from? What is "attention" anyway?

I realized that this is just another trick, a way of saying "I am paying attention" or "I am looking at something now," as if there was a looker paying attention to different parts of the body, like that searchlight metaphor I used.

Actually, it's just thoughts pointing to or labeling or presenting images of different parts of the body.

And the thoughts just happen. They cluster around a particular place, or a set of sensations, and that cluster - the thoughts that are happening right now - is what I label with the thought of "paying attention". There's actually no need for a concept of "attention" or someone "directing" that attention.

You did an amazing investigation here :) seeing through the illusion of attention is quite difficult for most. So well done.
But as you bought this topic up, let’s dig a bit deeper here, just to make sure that it’s totally clear.

Let’s take a look at the idea that there is a someone who is focusing attention.

Close your eyes and sit quietly for 10-15 minutes.
Watch what focus does.

Focus on focusing, attention itself.
Is there anything moving attention, or it moves by itself?
Is there a focus-er?

Hold focus on breath - see how it moves to thoughts, sensations, sounds.
Is there something controlling it?
What moves attention?
Is thought in control of attention?

And now try to find THE attention itself. Not just the idea of it, but the ACTUAL attention.

Where is it exactly? What is it like?

Is there really an attention that is jumping from one object to another, from a thought to a sensation, then to a sound, etc?

Are there REALLY two things there, an attention + the attended object (thought/sensation/sound)?
Or rather there is ONLY thought, then there is ONLY sensation, then there is ONLY sound?

Vivien