Thanks

[poppyseed]

Hi Bill

I suspect there's something very important here that I'm missing. Can you paraphrase/elaborate/clarify? :)

Yes! The key question is: what exactly is it that could be separate from THIS?
If you believe there's a "you" that can either recognize or miss something, where exactly is that "you" located? Is it in thought? In sensation? In some awareness standing apart?
If experience is all there is, how could part of it step outside itself to hide (be deluded about itself) and then “find” itself again (what it missed)? That whole idea assumes a separate observer that is somehow distinct from experience itself—but is such an observer ever actually found? Or is it just another assumption, another story?
Look now: Is there an “I” apart from what’s happening, or is it all just THIS, unfolding as it always has been?

Such fabrications are generated, certainly. So are thoughts. They likely derive from the same place, i.e. from nowhere that I can see. (I wanna say in the brain, but that isn’t DE.)

Yes—thoughts appear, fabrications appear, but where exactly do they come from?
If you don’t assume a brain, if you don’t assume an "I" generating them—just looking in direct experience—do they arise from anywhere at all? Or do they just show up?
And if they just show up, does that mean there's an entity making them up? Or is that too just… another thought? Look closely...Are thoughts appearing in THIS/space/openness or is it THIS appearing as "thinking" (DE label)?

Where does any behavior come from … what behaves … where do actions come from … Well, there’s this living organism. I can see him in the mirror, just as I can see the lizards outside. They perform actions and so does the organism I see in the mirror. But he isn’t me.

In direct experience (DE), can you find an "action" apart from sensations and perceptions simply happening?
If you look closely:
Is there an "I" that initiates an action, or do sensations simply appear? Have a fresh look. What are actions in DE

Let’s explore the idea of a “body” and "body parts" that are capable of performing actions…
Part I:
1. Take something cold from the fridge – like a can of cooldrink. When you touch the can, what does more accurately describe your experience:
a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”? With eyes closed, where does the cold appear? Observe the order in which the details appear
2. Sit comfortably on a chair. Close your eyes and relax. Pay attention only to the feeling of your body. Just notice the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images. Keep your eyes closed and look:
Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair? At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation?
Is it "my" body, or is it just a body?
Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?
What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
Can the 'body' do things?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, walking, lying down, etc) before replying.

Love
Rali

[daytonabill]

but where exactly do they come from?
If you don’t assume a brain, if you don’t assume an "I" generating them—just looking in direct experience—do they arise from anywhere at all? Or do they just show up?

Right. From what I can perceive, they just show up out of nowhere.

And if they just show up, does that mean there's an entity making them up? Or is that too just… another thought?

Good point. There’s no real reason to claim that anything creates them.

In direct experience (DE), can you find an "action" apart from sensations and perceptions simply happening?

Language leads us to believe that verbs can be separated from the gestalt. But reality is otherwise. Verbs are strictly intangibles. (Er … right?)

what does more accurately describe your experience:
a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”? With eyes closed, where does the cold appear?

Answer a. assumes causation, which Hume pointed out is just our inference. So it can’t be the correct answer. Yes, b., I feel what I call “cold” and it seems to have been projected to the hand touching the can, but in fact it has no location.

Can it be known how tall the body is?

No.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

I can't weigh it but I can feel it with my hands and approximate volume limits.

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

Yes. I can feel it with my hands and imagine a shape.

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

Just the feeling. No boundary.

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

It’s an element of the collection I call “me”, and so in that sense it’s “my” body.

Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?

There’s the skin, but it isn’t really a boundary between outside and inside. The difference between outside and inside is often indeterminate.

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

Of course I experience the body. I can feel it and I can see it in the mirror.

Can the 'body' do things?

Who’s the agent. I think everyone would agree that it isn’t the body.

[daytonabill]

Yes—thoughts appear, fabrications appear, but where exactly do they come from?
If you don’t assume a brain, if you don’t assume an "I" generating them—just looking in direct experience—do they arise from anywhere at all? Or do they just show up?

They just show up, out of nowhere.

And if they just show up, does that mean there's an entity making them up? Or is that too just… another thought?

I have to assume they’re created somewhere. Yes, that’s a thought. But surely thoughts can be true.

Look closely...Are thoughts appearing in THIS/space/openness or is it THIS appearing as "thinking" (DE label)?

Is what appearing as thinking?

[daytonabill]

Yes! The key question is: what exactly is it that could be separate from THIS?
If you believe there's a "you" that can either recognize or miss something, where exactly is that "you" located? Is it in thought? In sensation? In some awareness standing apart?
If experience is all there is, how could part of it step outside itself to hide (be deluded about itself) and then “find” itself again (what it missed)? That whole idea assumes a separate observer that is somehow distinct from experience itself—but is such an observer ever actually found? Or is it just another assumption, another story?
Look now: Is there an “I” apart from what’s happening, or is it all just THIS, unfolding as it always has been?

Thanks so much for asking these questions, Rali. I need to spend more time on them, there's something important I'm missing. It's true that there's nothing separate from just this and that experience is all there is, but it's also true that I'm imagining an observer. And I see no solution.

[poppyseed]

Hi Bill

Language leads us to believe that verbs can be separated from the gestalt. But reality is otherwise. Verbs are strictly intangibles. (Er … right?)

Yes—verbs are just labels for what is happening, but can you ever actually find a separate "doing" apart from the seamless whole of experience?
For example, "walking"—is there a thing called walking that exists apart from the sensation of shifting weight, the visual flow of movement, the feeling of air passing by? Or is it just one fluid happening with no true separation?
Does anything actually do anything, or is language chopping up what is actually just one ongoing, indivisible unfolding?

Look closely...Are thoughts appearing in THIS/space/openness or is it THIS appearing as "thinking" (DE label)?

Is what appearing as thinking?

What I am pointing to is this… Does thoughts appears in a describable space or all that is there IS the thought? Look directly—before thought names anything—what is "thought" made of? Is there a separate "thing" called thought that appears in something else, or is there simply just... this, as it is, appearing without division?

Answer a. assumes causation, which Hume pointed out is just our inference. So it can’t be the correct answer. Yes, b., I feel what I call “cold” and it seems to have been projected to the hand touching the can, but in fact it has no location.

That sounds like a logical analysis. Are these observational reports or logical conclusions?

I can't weigh it but I can feel it with my hands and approximate volume limits.

When you say you can feel it with your hands, what exactly is present in direct experience? (Remember DE is feeling (sensations), seeing (colour), hearing (sound), smelling (smell), tasting (taste), and thinking (thought) as the presence of thought not its content)
In DE is there truly a separate "body" being felt, or just sensations—pressure, texture, temperature—appearing and disappearing?
Where is the boundary between "hand" and "body" in direct experience, or is it only a conceptual distinction?
If you have to use the cup of coffee example:
Description by thought, simply = actual experience (DE)
Feeling the body with my hand, simply = sensations (feeling)

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

Of course I experience the body. I can feel it and I can see it in the mirror.

The actual experience of the body is thought. Thought points to sensation and colour and labels it a ‘body’, but can a body be found as actual experience or only thoughts about a body?

Can the 'body' do things?

Who’s the agent. I think everyone would agree that it isn’t the body

.

Can a sensation do things or it just IS? Can a colour (image) do things or just IS?

Here is an even deeper investigation of the body. 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?
Love
Rali

[daytonabill]

but can you ever actually find a separate "doing" apart from the seamless whole of experience?

"Seamless". Yes. We rip pieces out of our seamless experience and assign labels to them. Labels that convey no information at all.

is there a thing called walking that exists apart from the sensation of shifting weight, the visual flow of movement, the feeling of air passing by? Or is it just one fluid happening with no true separation?

Yes! There are no separations other than the artificial ones we impose. Just one fluid happening. One seamless experience. Although the different senses themselves are separate, e.g. sight isn't the same as hearing.

Does anything actually do anything, or is language chopping up what is actually just one ongoing, indivisible unfolding?

Just language. Chopping up an indivisible whole. Assigning meaningless labels. You're awesome, Rali, thanks.

Does thoughts appears in a describable space or all that is there IS the thought?

Just the thought. No space in evidence.

Look directly—before thought names anything—what is "thought" made of?

There can be thoughts without naming or labelling, yes. They're made of nothing I can perceive.

Is there a separate "thing" called thought that appears in something else, or is there simply just... this, as it is, appearing without division?

Are you equating "just this" with thought? Doesn't seem right.

Are these observational reports or logical conclusions?

The feeling of cold and the sense that it's in my hand are observations, right? But the reference to Hume of course isn't. I'd have to think about causation and see what he means.

[daytonabill]

When you say you can feel it with your hands, what exactly is present in direct experience?

The feeling of touch on my hands, but I seem to sense a location as well.

In DE is there truly a separate "body" being felt, or just sensations—pressure, texture, temperature—appearing and disappearing?

Just sensations. The body is something I'm inputting.

Where is the boundary between "hand" and "body" in direct experience, or is it only a conceptual distinction?

It's not a sharp boundary, but I can tell whether or not the feeling is in my hand.

but can a body be found as actual experience or only thoughts about a body?

Just the thought.

Can a sensation do things or it just IS? Can a colour (image) do things or just IS?

No. It just is.

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?

The connection is something I'm making up. There's just feeling and thought.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

Same here. There's no real connection.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or only thoughts suggest it?

No connection, just thought. The connection is something artificial that I'm inputting.

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?

No, the image is part of the visual field that I'm separating and labelling. All that's really there are colors and shapes. Although shapes too are just something I'm labelling.

Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

No, of course not. Only thought.

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

No. Only perceptions.

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

It's a sensation that I'm familiar with and have always referred to as "walking".

Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?

It is the same feeling I've always called "walking" but that's just a label I'm giving it. Something I make up.

Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?

That's all.

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

Only thought.

Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

Not outside of my mental fabrications.

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?

There does seem to be spatial perception.

[poppyseed]

Hi Bill

Very good looking!!

"Seamless". Yes. We rip pieces out of our seamless experience and assign labels to them. Labels that convey no information at all.

Yes! Without labels, is there any separation at all? Is there a boundary anywhere in raw experience, or is it only the thought-labelling process that creates the illusion of distinct "things"?

Are you equating "just this" with thought? Doesn't seem right.

Good observation. If "just this" were thought, then it would be fleeting, conceptual, and limited. But what is it that remains even when thoughts come and go?
Without relying on thought now—what is this happening/THIS? I hope you would agree that even “thought” is just a label trying to cut out “something out of nothing”, trying to assign meaning to what is happening—just a label, a concept, an after-the-fact description. But what is actually here before any label is applied?
Without the thought "thought", what remains? In that light... without separation, where could an "I" be? Is there anything in direct experience that divides this into a self and something else?

No, the image is part of the visual field that I'm separating and labelling. All that's really there are colors and shapes. Although shapes too are just something I'm labelling.

Yes!!! THIS/seeing can be likened to an abstract painting and if you look at an abstract painting you start to see shapes etc within the painting itself. Those shapes aren’t really there…but they SEEM (appear) to be. So from that perspective...do the shapes really exist?

One seamless experience. Although the different senses themselves are separate, e.g. sight isn't the same as hearing.

Let explore that...Close your eyes and allow a thought or a series of thoughts to appear. Continue to pay attention to thoughts as they appear for a few more seconds. With your eyes still closed, listen to whatever sound is present for several moments. Now, go back and forth between thoughts and the sound.

Does the sound appear in a different place to thoughts?
Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary/channel that divides the thoughts and the sound? Or is the line a mental construct?
Do you have to overcome any obstruction in order for sound to appear in exactly the same “place” that the thoughts appear in?

Now open your eyes and notice colours.
Do the colours appear in a different “place” to thoughts and sounds?
Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides thoughts, sounds and colours, or is that division a mental construct? What remains when you strip all labels (including the DE labels)?

There does seem to be spatial perception.

Good—now look closer. What is this "spatial perception" made of in direct experience? Is there an actual three-dimensional space being perceived, or is there just raw sensation and an colour-labelling process happening? Does colour have dimensions or only "shapes" create that illusion (look at the abstact picture above)? Is space outside of seeing? Does feeling happen in seeing? What happens if you remove the assumption that sensations are "inside" a room? What is there when you remove all the labels (including the DE labels)?
Love
Rali

[daytonabill]

Without labels, is there any separation at all? Is there a boundary anywhere in raw experience, or is it only the thought-labelling process that creates the illusion of distinct "things"?

This is difficult. Can boundaries be perceived.

But what is it that remains even when thoughts come and go? Without relying on thought now—what is this happening/THIS?

There's just this. Which is beyond definition.

But what is actually here before any label is applied?

Just the whole. Again, undefinable.

Without the thought "thought", what remains?

I want to say awareness, but we've already had that discussion.

without separation, where could an "I" be? Is there anything in direct experience that divides this into a self and something else?

This is supremely important. Can you elaborate?

[daytonabill]

So from that perspective...do the shapes really exist?

No. I'm just manipulating the whole to make shapes.

Does the sound appear in a different place to thoughts?

It certainly seems to, but I know that's just a projection. I can't find a location for either with just DE.

Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary/channel that divides the thoughts and the sound? Or is the line a mental construct?

Yes, just a mental construct.

Do you have to overcome any obstruction in order for sound to appear in exactly the same “place” that the thoughts appear in?

I don't know how to move the apparent location of a sound. Do thoughts have an apparent location? Mebbe my head, or that might just be because that's where I'm assuming they are.

Do the colours appear in a different “place” to thoughts and sounds?

Same here. Yes, they seem to. But I know that's just projection.

Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides thoughts, sounds and colours, or is that division a mental construct?

I'm practically certain it's just a mental construct.

What remains when you strip all labels (including the DE labels)?

What is there when you remove all the labels (including the DE labels)?

The undefinable. Reality, I suppose.

What is this "spatial perception" made of in direct experience? Is there an actual three-dimensional space being perceived,

It seems to be, yes.

Does colour have dimensions or only "shapes" create that illusion (look at the abstact picture above)?

Colors lack dimensions.

Is space outside of seeing?

Good question. Yes.

Does feeling happen in seeing?

Of course sights can trigger feelings, but feelings aren't contained in it.

What happens if you remove the assumption that sensations are "inside" a room?

They seem so be here.

[daytonabill]

Yes!!! THIS/seeing can be likened to an abstract painting and if you look at an abstract painting you start to see shapes etc within the painting itself. Those shapes aren’t really there…but they SEEM (appear) to be. So from that perspective...do the shapes really exist?

Thanks so much, Rali. This image is not intrinsically different from what's always in front of my eyes. The individual pieces aren't really there. Just one whole. The only boundaries are those I create. This is so important. We need to see what's there, not what we make up. We overlay our perceptions with a thick layer of artificial concepts. That needs to stop.

[poppyseed]

Hi Bill

This is difficult. Can boundaries be perceived.

If they can’t be seen that would mean they are assumed, right? Otherwise, how would you know that they are there?

I want to say awareness, but we've already had that discussion.

Yes, we've had that discussion—but not as a conclusion, only as an inquiry (you can never conclude anything, it will be just another thought ;) ).
So, right now, without relying on any thought—including the thought "awareness"—what remains? Is "awareness" something that can be found as an object, like a thought or sensation? Or is it simply the undeniable fact that experience (e.g. thought or sensation) is happening? LOOK! Don’t try to remember what you’ve read or what we’ve seen already!

I don't know how to move the apparent location of a sound. Do thoughts have an apparent location? Mebbe my head, or that might just be because that's where I'm assuming they are.

Look closely—without assuming.
Where is the exact location of a thought? Can you pinpoint it anywhere, or is "in my head" itself just another thought? Close your eyes and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and keeping your eyes closed...Press a finger down onto the top of the ‘head’. Notice what is actually present.
Is it a head, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT a head? And is there anything between the pressure points, or are there just thoughts about something being in between them? Without thought, how big is your head? Without thought, does it have an inside or an outside? Without thought, does it have a location?

Is space outside of seeing?

Good question. Yes.

How is space known to be outside of seeing?
Without a thought asserting its existence, is there any direct experience of "space" apart from seeing?
Is there space(seen) and seeing or just seeing? Where is the border where seeing ends and space begins? Look at your screen right now. Is it outside of seeing (it)? If "colours lack dimensions" then what is "space" made of?

Is this a container for experience (seeing, hearing...)? Or this is what is happening right now?
I like using "this" as it is more like a pointing word (to what is happening right now, and right now). In Buddhism the term "thusness" or "suchness" is used which refers to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction.But is this separate from seeing_hearing_smelling_tasting_feeling_thinking / experiencing? Or this is what IS/experiencing?
In terms of the cup of coffee example (which reminds me that I didn't see your example ;) ):
seeing, hearing, smelling.../experiencing , simply = this
Indescribable but experienceable :)

Does feeling happen in seeing?

Of course sights can trigger feelings, but feelings aren't contained in it.

Just to clarify, I was actually referring to feeling (sensation) (i.e. sensations of "walking") not feelings as in “emotions”.
Emotion = sensation + thought

So if sensations are not contained in seeing (space), how are then sensations happening in seeing (space) as in “walking through a room” (the spatial component)? Are sensations happening in space? Or sensations are just happening simultaneously/indivisibly from colours (period)?
Furthermore … Look closely—can a sight itself cause any sensation (as in fear or feeling my fingers), or is there just the sight and the sensation appearing together?
Without the thought that one triggers the other, is there only this—a seamless unfolding, with no actual separation between "sight" and "sensation"?

1. Sit comfortably on a chair. Close your eyes. Lift your leg and pay attention to the sensation of “leg lifted”
2. Open your eyes and now pay attention to the sight of the leg only.
3. While looking at the leg, pay attention to the sensation of the leg.
Do sight and sensation appear simultaneously? Do they appear separately? Do they depend on each other? Is there a link between them?

We don’t experience our senses individually. Mind tells us that our senses are separate streams of information. We see with our eyes, hear with our ears, feel with our skin, smell with our nose, taste with our tongue. In DE, though, it is seen as a one experience. Senses seemingly affect each other. Although speech is perceived through the ears, what we see can change what we hear. In this video, a man produces the same syllable over and over again. If you watch his mouth, you’ll hear the syllable “fah,” but if you look away, you’ll hear “bah.” Although your ears hear “bah,” your eyes see “fah”. This phenomenon is known as the McGurk effect. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k8fHR9jKVM )

Another example of sensory interaction is how both taste and smell are vital for savouring food (flavour). If smell is lost or impaired, for instance, the taste of food will also be impaired, even if taste receptors on the tongue are working fine.
Here is a fun video that demonstrates how a relationship between sight and touch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DphlhmtGRqI

Even though it might look as there are clearly defined senses, DE shows a different story. Thought divides experience/what IS into different/distinct senses, but in direct experience, are there truly separate senses, or is there just this—a seamless, indivisible happening that only thought later divides into "seeing," "hearing," "feeling"?
Where exactly is the boundary between them? Can you find it?
Look through your window right now! Can you separate the “view” from the “sound of birds or cars” (or whatever you are hearing right now)? Where is the “view” appearing and where is the “sound” appearing? Where are the labels/thoughts of “view” and “sound” appearing? Do you see any boundaries between them? OR is it one indivisible experience/this?
Love
Rali

[daytonabill]

If they can’t be seen that would mean they are assumed, right? Otherwise, how would you know that they are there?

I can often see them, e.g. the boundary between two colors.

So, right now, without relying on any thought—including the thought "awareness"—what remains? Is "awareness" something that can be found as an object, like a thought or sensation?

No.

Or is it simply the undeniable fact that experience (e.g. thought or sensation) is happening?

I dunno ... mebbe it's less than that.

Where is the exact location of a thought? Can you pinpoint it anywhere, or is "in my head" itself just another thought?

RIght. I can't see where thoughts are located.

Is it a head, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT a head? And is there anything between the pressure points, or are there just thoughts about something being in between them? Without thought, how big is your head? Without thought, does it have an inside or an outside? Without thought, does it have a location?

Things exist, and have physical properties, whether or not anybody is thinking about them ... right?

How is space known to be outside of seeing?

I seem to be able to sense it too.

Without a thought asserting its existence, is there any direct experience of "space" apart from seeing?

I think my tactile sensations provide a sense of space perception as well.

Is there space(seen) and seeing or just seeing?

It seems so.

Where is the border where seeing ends and space begins?

There is no border.

Look at your screen right now. Is it outside of seeing (it)?

It's there whether or not I look at it.

If "colours lack dimensions" then what is "space" made of?

It isn't made of anything.

Thanks Rali. I seem to have done poorly on these question. Sorry. :)

Bill

[poppyseed]

Hi Bill

I seem to have done poorly on these question. Sorry. :)

No need to apologise - just this, as it is.
And that’s the hint. Look at what’s already happening, effortlessly.
Who or what is deciding that the fingers move when they do? Is there something separate from the movement itself? Or are you the thinker of these thoughts?

I dunno ... mebbe it's less than that.

Yes, experience is undeniably happening, but is there anyone it is happening to?
Does experience itself suggest an "I" apart from the flow of sensations, thoughts, and perceptions?
Or is the sense of "I" just another appearance within that flow—just another thought, just another sensation?

Is it a head, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT a head? And is there anything between the pressure points, or are there just thoughts about something being in between them? Without thought, how big is your head? Without thought, does it have an inside or an outside? Without thought, does it have a location?

Things exist, and have physical properties, whether or not anybody is thinking about them ... right?

!!!Bulk answer, which indicates thinking and not looking!!! Please answer these!!!
How do you know that?
Right now, in direct experience, what is "a thing" apart from colours, sounds, and sensations?
Can you find an object that exists independently of perception, or is "existence" itself just another thought—another label added onto raw experiencing? LOOK!!!

How is space known to be outside of seeing?

I seem to be able to sense it too.

Where is the border where seeing ends and space begins?

There is no border.

You seem to???
Seems like, feels like = thought content
Nothing in DE is seems like, it’s either here or not!
How is space sensed exactly?
Right now, in direct experience, what exactly is being sensed? Is there a "felt"/”seen” space apart from sensations/colours? Or is there simply sensation and colour, with thought constructing an idea of space around it?

Cup of coffee example
I seem to be able to sense space, simply = sensation (feeling) and colour (seeing)
Can you find this "space" itself, or only ever shifting perceptions and labels?

If "colours lack dimensions" then what is "space" made of?

It isn't made of anything.

Then what makes it existing? What makes it different from an abstraction/an idea? An illusion similar to the self?

Look at your screen right now. Is it outside of seeing (it)?

It's there whether or not I look at it.

How do you know that? If you don’t look how do you know that it is still there? Or you assume??!

If they can’t be seen that would mean they are assumed, right? Otherwise, how would you know that they are there?

I can often see them, e.g. the boundary between two colors.

When looking at this picture, thought automatically divides and labels colour into many different colours, then further names those colours into specific objects.

IGNORE ALL object labels and colour labels:-
Are there many colours? Or is there simply colour?
Is there an actual gap between the ‘trees’? Or is the gap actually colour?
Where does colour begin and end? In other words, can an actual dividing line be found between where one colour ends and another begins, or is that just a mental construct?



There are a lot of unanswered good questions from the previous reply. Please take time to answer all questions!
I will reply when you are done with all so we don't go backwards and forwards :)
Love
Rali

[daytonabill]

Is this a container for experience (seeing, hearing...)? Or this is what is happening right now? ... But is this separate from seeing_hearing_smelling_tasting_feeling_thinking / experiencing? Or this is what IS/experiencing?

I don't know that it's either.

So if sensations are not contained in seeing (space), how are then sensations happening in seeing (space) as in “walking through a room” (the spatial component)?

No, they're not contained in space. How are they happening? I dunno.

Are sensations happening in space? Or sensations are just happening simultaneously/indivisibly from colours (period)?

I wouldn't say they're indivisible from color, no.

can a sight itself cause any sensation (as in fear or feeling my fingers), or is there just the sight and the sensation appearing together?

Sight is seeing. It causes no other sensation.

Without the thought that one triggers the other, is there only this—a seamless unfolding, with no actual separation between "sight" and "sensation"?

I have to say yes, there's no separation.

Do sight and sensation appear simultaneously?

Often, yes.

Do they appear separately?

Yes.

Do they depend on each other?

Not generally.

Is there a link between them?

Not usually.

but in direct experience, are there truly separate senses, or is there just this—a seamless, indivisible happening that only thought later divides into "seeing," "hearing," "feeling"?
Where exactly is the boundary between them? Can you find it?

The senses aren't separate, apparently, not from what I've read. But they do seem to be separate.

Can you separate the “view” from the “sound of birds or cars” (or whatever you are hearing right now)?

Good question. Not really.

Where is the “view” appearing and where is the “sound” appearing?

We project locations for each, and they're often different.

Where are the labels/thoughts of “view” and “sound” appearing?

Dunno where they're located.

Do you see any boundaries between them? OR is it one indivisible experience/this?

Yes, apparently they're indivisible.