Seeking guidance

[Honeybear]

Lets have a look at what thoughts do again: They label everything that happens and add abstract labels which connects different experiences.
Concerning the body if we strictly keep to direct experience we could say:
Label 'body' is known as DE of thought
Image/colour 'body is known as DE of colour
Sensation labelled 'body' is known as DE of sensation
Smell labelled 'body' is known as DE of smell
Taste labelled 'body' is known as DE of taste
Sound labelled 'body' is known as DE of sound.
A bunch of different experiences are called body and it is personalised as my body.

This little review was helpful.

Have a look at what believed is self again.
Self / I is believed to be:
the thinker - which you already found isn't so
the chooser/decider - which you already have serious doubts about
the body - you didn't find a name tag
the observer
the experiencer: seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling
All this is put together under one explaining label self.

Also helpful.

Have a look if you find an observer - the one who observes life.
It might help to start from the little excercise you liked. It helps to relax and before you look for an observer you will already be achored in DE.

I did not find an observer.

I did what you said about closing my eyes and noticing floating sensations. Then I started to ask, “Who is observing this experience?” or “Who is noticing this experience?” I’d usually get a thought, like, “Me!” along with some sensations in my head and a mental image of my head. So I’d notice that the thought was just a thought and that the sensations were just sensations and that the mental image was also just a thought. I kept feeling like there was an observer (meaning, mainly that I kept having sensations of emotion related to the fact that I wasn’t finding an observer), so I had to do this over and over again, noticing how the sense of there being an observer each time was really just another moment of experience—another sensation, another verbal thought, another mental image.

At some point, I started to wonder how the sense of knowing could be happening if there’s no observer, and I saw that the awareness of the experiences was built into the experiences themselves. This is totally obvious, but for whatever reason I had to look at it to be sure.

After a while, I stopped feeling so much like there was an observer, and it was more comfortable to notice that there wasn’t. I think I will have to do this one some more.

Thanks, Jadzia!

Love,
Honeybear

[Jadzia]

So I’d notice that the thought was just a thought and that the sensations were just sensations and that the mental image was also just a thought. I kept feeling like there was an observer (meaning, mainly that I kept having sensations of emotion related to the fact that I wasn’t finding an observer), so I had to do this over and over again, noticing how the sense of there being an observer each time was really just another moment of experience—another sensation, another verbal thought, another mental image.

Beautiful! That is the way. Noticing what is what, very good. And looking and looking.
And allowing the emotion when you allow for a moment that there is not an observer, that that what you assumed, have learned, were trained to belief, simply isn't true, isn't like that.

I saw that the awareness of the experiences was built into the experiences themselves

Yes, simply experiencing.

After a while, I stopped feeling so much like there was an observer, and it was more comfortable to notice that there wasn’t. I think I will have to do this one some more.

Well done. It sounds like a gentle way of easing one out of an assumed idea and allowing what is. This takes some time, very rewarding work. So look again and again.

Do you want to stay with for another day?
Then do. If you would like to look if there is a hearer of sound or not, say when your are ready to go on. Take your own pace.

Love,
Jadzia

[Honeybear]

Do you want to stay with for another day?
Then do.

I spent some more time on this today, as well as on picking up colored pencils and looking for a chooser.

Both exercises are similar in that I don’t find an observer or a chooser, and then I keep having emotions about that that feel like confusion and/or disapproval, and so I keep looking. I think I’m ready to move on, but I would keep doing these concurrently with whatever else you have me do, unless you think I shouldn’t keep looking at them.

If you would like to look if there is a hearer of sound or not, say when your are ready to go on. Take your own pace.

I’m ready to look at whether there’s a hearer of sound. I looked at this a bit today, and there wasn’t a hearer; just hearing.

It’s interesting because I felt like when noticing hearing, seeing, and the fact that there’s no observer, there’s a sense that things are more two-dimensional or flat or something as a result of becoming aware that there’s just the experiences and not someone receiving them.

At any rate, let me know how you want me to approach hearing.

Thanks, Jadzia!

Love,
Honeybear

[Jadzia]

I think I’m ready to move on, but I would keep doing these concurrently with whatever else you have me do, unless you think I shouldn’t keep looking at them.

What would you say: Did you crack the beliefs in chooser, thinker and only need a bit of reassuring now and then or do you still have to really look.
If it it the first, rest these exercises.

I looked at this a bit today, and there wasn’t a hearer; just hearing.

Do you need an extra excercise for this? You already found the answer.
Now simply go through the other senses.
What about a someone who feels(physical sensation), who sees, tastes, smells?
Is there a someone to whom this happens to or is there just seeing, tasting, feeling, smelling.

You can do it like this, you already know the starting point well:
Close your eyes and spend some time feeling the various bodily sensations that present themselves, pay close attention to the actual experience of feeling, then allow your attention to rest on one particular sensation, the feeling of your body in contact with the chair, your feet touching the floor, rubbing your hands together perhaps, your eyes moving behind your eye lids, or the slight sensation of pain in the back of your neck (or is that just me?!)

And as you allow the experience of feeling that sensation to become the focus of your attention take a good look and see if you can determine any separate elements occurring within the actual experience - is there any evidence that there is a separate feeler that is feeling the sensation?

Is there an actual experience of a feeler? or does the actual experience only consist of feeling?

the fact that there’s no observer, there’s a sense that things are more two-dimensional or flat or something as a result of becoming aware that there’s just the experiences and not someone receiving them.

A sense or do you see things two dimensional?

Love,
Jadzia

[Honeybear]

What would you say: Did you crack the beliefs in chooser, thinker and only need a bit of reassuring now and then or do you still have to really look.

I think I still have to really look when it comes to the chooser. It’s funny because the reason why I feel like there must be a chooser applies equally to everything else we’re looking at, but somehow I’m stuck on this one. The question is how a choice can be happening if there’s no chooser. I’ve been putting two things in front of me and watching what happens when I pick one up and feeling uncomfortable about it. When I look for the chooser, it’s clear that thoughts are not the chooser. It seems like my attention goes to one object or the other by itself, so then it seems like attention is the chooser, but there’s often a delay while my attention lingers on the thing for a while before my hand finally moves to pick it up, so it’s not like attention immediately triggers the action. But, even so, why isn’t attention the chooser in that case?

Then, many choices don’t involve physical actions like picking up an object—originally what you were pointing out is that no one was choosing the words Honeybear and Friend when I decided to think of two sentences. So I tried to make other choices in my mind—for example, I picked three books I like and then decided which of those was my favorite. For that what happened is that when picking the three books, the thoughts of the titles, authors, and an image of the book came from nowhere and didn’t seem to really be a choice even, since it’s not like I was weighing them against others—they just appeared as thoughts. But then in picking which was my favorite among the three, it seemed similar to choosing between two objects on the table, in that my attention would go back and forth and then settle on one (and, in the case of the book, unlike the objects on the table, also have a positive emotion about it).

Maybe attention all by itself isn’t enough to qualify as a someone in order to constitute a chooser, but at the moment, it feels sort of like it.

Anyway, as you can see, I’m confused about the chooser.

Do you need an extra excercise for this? You already found the answer.

No. I just didn’t know if you had a particular way you wanted me to do it. But, the no hearer one seems clear and easy.

Now simply go through the other senses.
What about a someone who feels(physical sensation), who sees, tastes, smells?

Ok, I looked for all of them.

Is there a someone to whom this happens to or is there just seeing, tasting, feeling, smelling.

There’s not a someone to whom these experiences happen. There’s just seeing, tasting, feeling, and smelling.

is there any evidence that there is a separate feeler that is feeling the sensation?

No.

Is there an actual experience of a feeler?

No.

or does the actual experience only consist of feeling?

Yes, just feeling.

A sense or do you see things two dimensional?

Well, it’s definitely not that my visual field goes completely flat—or even mostly flat—or that I have no depth perception or anything. It’s more subtle than that, but it does seem to have something to do with how I’m seeing, and seems not to be just an idea. I was trying to look at it some more, and I think what it might be is that when I feel less like there’s a someone up in my head, then when I’m looking at the world, the little parts of my face and hair that I can see, along with the other parts of my body that I can see, get included as part of the visual field, whereas I might normally take them for granted as me, rather than as something I’m seeing. So I think what might be happening is that normally my mind might separate those parts of what I’m seeing as me over here, and the rest of what I’m seeing as the world out there. I think that when I have less of a perception of there being a separate self up in my head, then I don’t separate (or maybe ignore?) these parts of the image that represent me, and that including them makes the whole visual field seem a little more flat. I’m not totally positive that that’s it, though. Regardless, It’s nothing dramatic; just a little something that I noticed.

Thanks, Jadzia.

Love,
Honeybear

[Jadzia]

Beautiful work on looking at seeing hearing feeling.
Yes there is just seeing happening and same with the other ones.
No seer needed. Experiencing happens.

I think I still have to really look when it comes to the chooser. It’s funny because the reason why I feel like there must be a chooser applies equally to everything else we’re looking at, but somehow I’m stuck on this one.

We all have one which is more tricky to look through.
There is the strong belief in free will, in choosing how we live our lives. Building it up from little decisions turning into big ones and bang! there is our life. :-)

What exactly is attention? Explore it. Don't overthink it. As soon as the third explanation comes up, breathe deeply in and out and look again. Can something like attention be found? Could it be a misnomer? Is there something labeled?

So I think what might be happening is that normally my mind might separate those parts of what I’m seeing as me over here, and the rest of what I’m seeing as the world out there. I think that when I have less of a perception of there being a separate self up in my head, then I don’t separate (or maybe ignore?) these parts of the image that represent me, and that including them makes the whole visual field seem a little more flat. I’m not totally positive that that’s it, though. Regardless, It’s nothing dramatic; just a little something that I noticed.

Remember light butterfly touch when exploring something - no staring.
But yes, you onto something.
With the me here and the rest what is seen as over or out there distance is created right?
What if there is no me here and no out there?

Love,
Jadzia

[Honeybear]

There is the strong belief in free will, in choosing how we live our lives.

Yes.

What exactly is attention?

Attention is a directing or narrowing of awareness, so that awareness is more focused on one experience (or group of experiences) than on others.

Can something like attention be found?

Interesting. I can’t find attention itself; instead, what I find is whatever object the attention is on. So like if I’m paying more attention to one of two objects on the table, I only know what my attention is doing because I’m seeing one object for longer and for more consistent periods than the other one. So I guess attention isn’t a thing itself, but is instead a way of describing the fact that I’m experiencing an object in a way that is, to one degree or another, to the exclusion or at the expense of other objects.

Could it be a misnomer?

I’m not sure about this part.

Is there something labeled?

Yes.

Remember light butterfly touch when exploring something - no staring.

Good to know! I don’t think I was staring when I was noticing that things seemed a little flatter, but I might have been staring when I was trying to figure out why.

But yes, you onto something.
With the me here and the rest what is seen as over or out there distance is created right?

Yes. And it’s so interesting that thinking about something differently changes the visual perception a little bit.

What if there is no me here and no out there?

Eeek. I don’t know. That makes me nervous.

I can see how there’s not a me experiencing; there’s just experience. And in that sense, the categories of me here and something out there don’t fit what’s happening, but my mind is unwilling to go with that at the moment. (And I don’t know if that’s what you mean anyway.)

When I look, I can see that the parts of my body are not separate from the rest of my visual experience in that they’re seamlessly part of the visual field. But they are separate from other objects in the field, and can move independently of them. (Although this is where I had a question before—in direct experience as we’re using the term, is it fair to say that I can distinguish between objects in the visual field, or do I have to say that there’s just one big mass of color variation?) Then this is the same for sound—like I can hear my breathing, and that sound is seamlessly part of the field of sound, but it’s also separate from other things I can hear, like the ticking of the clock. With my eyes open, I can tell that my physical sensations are only happening in my body, and I can’t feel, for instance, what’s going on in the cup in front of me. And my thoughts are private in that other people can’t know them unless I express them directly or indirectly. So, I feel like there’s something distinct here that has some continuity and coherence, and is separate from what’s out there.

Thanks, Jadzia!

Love,
Honeybear

[Jadzia]

Attention is a directing or narrowing of awareness, so that awareness is more focused on one experience (or group of experiences) than on others.

Is this more than an assumption, an explanation to keep up what is believed in?

I can’t find attention itself; instead, what I find is whatever object the attention is on.

How is it known that attention is on something? Can this be known or is it an informing thought?

Yes. And it’s so interesting that thinking about something differently changes the visual perception a little bit.

Do you think thinking about would have been enough? Nope, dear friend, you did let go a bit. :-)

When I look, I can see that the parts of my body are not separate from the rest of my visual experience in that they’re seamlessly part of the visual field. But they are separate from other objects in the field, and can move independently of them.

What is movement in DE?

Honeybear is not the thinker. What knows HBs thoughts?

Love,
Jadzia

[Honeybear]

Is this more than an assumption, an explanation to keep up what is believed in?

It’s an assumption.

How is it known that attention is on something?

It’s just a way of describing the fact that I’m having one type of experience as opposed to another—like before I was having the experience of looking at this object on the table, and now I’m having the experience of looking at that one, and the way to describe that is to say that my attention has shifted from one to the other.

Can this be known or is it an informing thought?

It’s an informing thought—an explanation. It can’t be known.

Do you think thinking about would have been enough? Nope, dear friend, you did let go a bit. :-)

Well, that’s good. :-)

What is movement in DE?

Hmmm. This one is hard, because I still have questions about what we mean by direct experience.

If I can’t rely on memory at all, then there’s no such thing as movement in direct experience, because the idea of movement depends on knowing what happened the instant before this one, and before that, and so on.

But this is really just a guess, based on thinking about it. Sometimes I get confused, because I’m supposed to be looking at something called “direct experience,” but it seems like the thing we’re calling direct experience is a type of experience that I don’t actually have access to. Like I can’t see the colors in my visual field without automatically dividing them into objects and knowing what they are based on prior information, and I can’t move what I’ve automatically determined is my hand without remembering that some fraction of a second ago, it was someplace else. So when you asked what is movement in direct experience, I tried to do what I think I’m supposed to do and “look” directly by moving my hand, but because I automatically interpret the colors to be my hand and arm, and then automatically connect the different visual moments of what I’ve perceived as my hand as it moves from here to there, my experience as I perceive it is a hand moving. Then to arrive at what we’re calling direct experience, I have to use logic to undermine what I actually experience—I have to say ok, I know that these colors appear as my hand and appear to be moving, but if things were different and I had no concepts and no memory, then there’s just the experience of variations of color throughout the whole visual field in each moment—no objects and no movement. So this seems backwards because I have to use thought to arrive at an idea of an experience that I can’t actually have, and then I’m calling it direct experience. I know that there are people who are much better meditators than I am who perceive things quite differently than I do even when they’re not meditating, and I imagine that this is also true of some people who have never meditated, but for me, what we’re calling direct experience often requires imagination and thought. Should I be doing something differently?

Honeybear is not the thinker. What knows HBs thoughts?

Well, I could say there’s nothing, or I could say that I don’t know what to call it. If I’m understanding the question correctly, then the knowing is just the nature of experiencing—to subjectively experience something is to know that it’s happening. You don’t need something separate to know it.

This is what I was talking about when I was looking for the observer and felt confused for a bit about how there could be a sense of knowing if there was no observer. Then when I kept looking, I saw that there doesn’t need to be an observer, because the knowing is built in to the experience.

Thanks, Jadzia!

Love,
Honeybear

[Jadzia]

If I can’t rely on memory at all, then there’s no such thing as movement in direct experience, because the idea of movement depends on knowing what happened the instant before this one, and before that, and so on.

Yes.
What about time?

Sometimes I get confused, because I’m supposed to be looking at something called “direct experience,” but it seems like the thing we’re calling direct experience is a type of experience that I don’t actually have access to.

See, there is experiences, just is. Done, finish. ;-)
But as you found there are thougths flashing in almost in light speed. It is almost impossible for us to see experience just happening - being only in colour, sound and so on. For most of us this happens mostly in in certain moments, when we are relaxed and just let go.
Remember DE is a tool for us, not a catch all. It is just to find out what is here, really like in real and what is constructed, both the just being here and the being constructed are fine, not one is better than the other.

what we’re calling direct experience often requires imagination and thought

Yes. This can be a tad bewildering, investigating something by using the same something.
So, all is well. It all needs sinking in.
Still, all this hammers cracks into the belief system, since one starts getting that some stuff isn't exactly what it was thought, which in the end allows the slipping through the net.

Well, I could say there’s nothing, or I could say that I don’t know what to call it. If I’m understanding the question correctly, then the knowing is just the nature of experiencing—to subjectively experience something is to know that it’s happening. You don’t need something separate to know it.

We don't or need to have labels for everything. Experience happens and it doesn't need an experiencer or 'know-it-all' Honeybear.

Love,
Jadzia

[Honeybear]

What about time?

Oh, man. Ok, if there are no concepts or memory, then there’s no time.

Remember DE is a tool for us, not a catch all.

This is helpful.

So, all is well. It all needs sinking in.

Ok, great.

Still, all this hammers cracks into the belief system, since one starts getting that some stuff isn't exactly what it was thought, which in the end allows the slipping through the net.

Yes, I have seen this, but I was still feeling confused about it—I think because the term “direct experience” makes it sound like it won’t require any thought. Now it’s clear. Thanks!

We don't or need to have labels for everything. Experience happens and it doesn't need an experiencer or 'know-it-all' Honeybear.

Yes.

Thanks, Jadzia!

Love,
Honeybear

[Jadzia]

Oh, man. Ok, if there are no concepts or memory, then there’s no time.

One very smart person once wrote: "Time is created by thought, memory and imagination: what I was, what I am, what I will be." Toni Packer

Here is an exercise where expanding is helpful, all senses, all thoughts, all feelings, emotions - whatever is there.
Enjoy.
Go out into nature and spend some time watching the movement of the whole. See how clouds move, trees swing, leaves wiggle, grass moves, insects, birds - all move all the time.

Then move focus to sensations and see how they too are in constant motion, thoughts come and go, sounds, colours, sensations come and go.

Notice that everything is part of one movement.

Then close your eyes and see if there is a line between you and out there, between you and life itself. If yes, where is the boundary?
Is there an inside and an outside of Life?
Is there something which is not included in the movement of the whole?
Is there a witness that is watching life happening from a distance?
Is witnessing part of the one movement too?
Is there anything which is not just happening?

Go out, come back and tell me what you found.

Love,
Jadzia

[Honeybear]

Notice that everything is part of one movement.

At first I wasn’t sure about this, because sometimes I’m a little literal, and also I’m often on high alert for what I might not be doing right, so I was seeing all these things that weren’t moving, like rocks and dirt and moss and such, and thinking about how not everything is moving and how I couldn’t see it all as part of one movement. But then I decided that that’s probably not how you meant it, and that probably it was more that if I take the whole of experience, it’s in constant motion, including the fact that what’s in my visual field is moving all the time because my eyes are moving. So then I had more a sense of this totality of the visual field changing all the time.

Then close your eyes and see if there is a line between you and out there, between you and life itself. If yes, where is the boundary?

There wasn’t a boundary. For some reason I felt weird about thinking about it as life itself, so I was calling it experience. Is that an ok way to think about it?

Is there an inside and an outside of Life?

No. The categories don’t apply, or you could say that it’s all inside.

Is there something which is not included in the movement of the whole?

No.

Is there a witness that is watching life happening from a distance?

No.

Is witnessing part of the one movement too?

Yes, if by witnessing you mean the knowing or observing that we were talking about earlier that’s built into experience.

Is there anything which is not just happening?

No.

Go out, come back and tell me what you found.

I think I’m getting what you mean about nonseparation. I did this exercise yesterday and then again this morning, and when I was doing it, I felt sort of seamlessly part of the whole of experience, and then I felt like that a little bit when not doing the exercise. For some reason, it was a little poignant—like all of experience felt very close or something in a way that provoked a kind of tenderness or sadness. I’ve never been a Zen student, but I’ve heard Zen teachers use the word “intimacy” in the context of practice, and that’s what it felt like, although I don’t know if that’s what they’re referring to. I didn’t feel like everything is all one, as I’ve heard some other people say, or like I was identifying with the clouds and the birds or anything. It was just more like experience was kind of seamless and close, and the parts of experience that I think of as me were just kind of embedded in or woven into it all. I don’t think I have a better way to describe it.

Thank you, Jadzia. I continue to be grateful and amazed that you are taking the time to do this with me.

Love,
Honeybear

[Jadzia]

Trust experiencing! Does this sound odd? I hope not.
Up to now you had difficulties coming up with a HB in any way, any form or whatever and yet experiencing happens, right?
Trust it.

There wasn’t a boundary. For some reason I felt weird about thinking about it as life itself, so I was calling it experience. Is that an ok way to think about it?

All ways are ok as long as it is clear that each word we use is a mere concept/an attempt to describe what is impossible to describe in words. This is for sensing feeling - experiencing. :-)
Was there a weird feeling about the no boundary thing?
Or about anything else missing you experienced?

Yes, if by witnessing you mean the knowing or observing that we were talking about earlier that’s built into experience.

Yes.

I did this exercise yesterday and then again this morning, and when I was doing it, I felt sort of seamlessly part of the whole of experience, and then I felt like that a little bit when not doing the exercise. For some reason, it was a little poignant—like all of experience felt very close or something in a way that provoked a kind of tenderness or sadness. I’ve never been a Zen student, but I’ve heard Zen teachers use the word “intimacy” in the context of practice, and that’s what it felt like, although I don’t know if that’s what they’re referring to. I didn’t feel like everything is all one, as I’ve heard some other people say, or like I was identifying with the clouds and the birds or anything. It was just more like experience was kind of seamless and close, and the parts of experience that I think of as me were just kind of embedded in or woven into it all. I don’t think I have a better way to describe it.

You know, this is a lovely way to describe it, and how beautiful that you felt it going on a bit. Everybody describes the same experience in the kind of words one has, so there will be different ways to describe it. It seems to have a lot to do with culture and tradition. Finding ones own words is always good.
You can do the exercise anytime.

Do you have a favourite music piece, whatever genre? A piece which feels in a miraculous way close to you?
If yes, play it in as loud as it is good for you, lay down or stand if you need to move, close your eyes, breathe in and out, and allow yourself to go with the music.
Enjoy.

What did happen?

Love,
jadzia

[Honeybear]

Trust experiencing! Does this sound odd? I hope not.

It doesn’t sound odd; it sounds nice! But I’m not sure that I know what you mean.

Up to now you had difficulties coming up with a HB in any way, any form or whatever and yet experiencing happens, right?

Yes.

Trust it.

Do you mean that I should trust experiencing in the sense that I should trust that it’s happening even without a controller running the show? If so, then I do trust that.

Or do you mean that I should trust experiencing in the sense that experience itself can somehow be trusted just because it’s happening—like things are somehow ok because they are what they are? I once heard a Buddhist teacher say that no matter how bad things are, reality will always catch you. I wasn’t sure how to interpret that, but thought he was suggesting that even though we can’t get things to go our way all the time, and even though we will inevitably die, there’s something about reality or being or experiencing that’s safe, even when it’s terrible or painful. If you mean something along these lines, then I am not sure yet how to trust experiencing.

Or did you mean something else altogether?

Was there a weird feeling about the no boundary thing?

No, not weird in an uncomfortable way, although I suppose it was a little weird just because it’s not my usual way of perceiving myself.

Or about anything else missing you experienced?

I don’t think so.

You can do the exercise anytime.

Thanks! I’ll do it some more.

Do you have a favourite music piece, whatever genre?

I don’t, but there’s plenty of music that I like.

A piece which feels in a miraculous way close to you?

No.

If yes, play it in as loud as it is good for you, lay down or stand if you need to move, close your eyes, breathe in and out, and allow yourself to go with the music.
Enjoy.
What did happen?

I tried it a few times with different music, each time lying down with headphones on. It felt like the music was inside of me, or like I was kind of merged with it. I often had a subtle mental image of my body, various body sensations, and thoughts related and unrelated to the music.

Thanks, Jadzia.

Love,
Honeybear