A hard case?

[poppyseed]

Hi Nelson
Just to let you know that :

During the night of Monday November 25th we will perform network maintenance in Amsterdam (AMS0) between 22:00 and 00:00 CEST. During this maintenance, we will update the network configuration in the network segment where your service(s) listed below are hosted.
that means that the messages posted in that time will or may be lost.
Love
Rali

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Ok, thank you for letting me know.

Best,
Nelson

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Hearing distant thunders = simply sounds (hearing)

The problem comes only when we identify with concepts. Bypassing is a serious consequence of that.

What do you mean with “identify with concepts” and “bypassing”?

But what makes the "body" sensations (are there not body sensations) “you”?

"Body sensations are perceptions, just like colors, sounds, etc. None of them have a 'mark' indicating that this is 'me.' What creates the appearance of a 'me' is a thought claiming that what is looking is the body - although it is impossible to find a seer, and the 'body' is just a collection of sensations and colors.

What part of them is you?

None in particular, although the feeling of being a seer is stronger in the head.

Does the body (sensations) experience sensations or the “body” is sensations (a label)?

The “body” is a collection of sensations and colors, and sensations and colors can’t experience sensations.

Can sensations think, see, feel, smell, taste or hear?

No.

There is a sensation + a mental image (of a forehead) + thoughts about a forehead, right?

Right.

Where exactly is the “I” or the “witness” or the feeler" in that sensation?

Objectively, there is nothing perceiving the sensation, just the sensation itself.

Where exactly is the “body” in that sensation?

Initially, the “body” is more like a memory, but while trying to focus exclusively on the sensation, there is no “body/memory”.

What is there without the thoughts and mental images?

Just the sensation, without calling it a sensation.

What are these of?

Initially, there is a mental image of almost the whole body touching the forehead, almost like a mask.

What is actually happening?

This (blank!).

How can you be the thinker if you cannot predict your next thought?

Yes, that doesn’t make sense, and I can’t find something doing the thoughts.

There are thoughts about an I/Nelson, but what are they pointing to?

To other thoughts, like the tought “body”, and also to this feeling of being the seer, like "I am watching the thought I", "I am watching this computer".

The tought “body” is a label to these sensations and colors.

As you pointed out earlier, there is what is happening, and our thoughts create representations of parts of it, giving the impression that these parts exist in isolation - 'body' being an example.

What is the thought body pointing to?

To sensations and colors.

There is a word: n-e-l-s-o-n . Is that word attached to anything (literarily)?

No, it just exists as a thought passing by.

Or is it just a sequencing of letters and words that creates the illusion of a separate I / mind / nelson / witness, like the frames of a movie, where rapid series of still images create the illusion of movement? When frame rate slows down all the illusion of movement is lost.

I will medidate a little more on this one.

Furthermore, even though th thought "body" is describing sensations, is the word b-o-d-y attached to anything - like a hook or glue?

No, it just exists as a thought passing by.

There are sensations, there are thoughts. Is there any arrows between them, a bridge, a safety pin, anything that might suggest in any way that the one is linked to the other?

No, there isn’t. Thoughts exist as thoughts, and sensations as sensations. There is no link. It is almost like a soup of perceptions.

On a different subject, notice that the narration sometimes seems like a dialog or an argument – two or more sides. Notice how there is more identification with one than the other. Notice also how the other one sounds like someone else (a parent, a spouse, a grandparent, a teacher, etc). There is a certain dynamic in how the “opinions” are presented. Observe! What is that? Which one is you?

I will observe this phenomenon a little more. What I’ve already noticed is that there is a 'tougher' narrator, with a deeper voice, and a 'people-pleasing' narrator, with a softer voice. I hate this people-pleasing one, and it’s the most frequent one. :)
I will continue tomorrow.

Best,
Nelson

[Sunyata1]

You can ignore this part "I will continue tomorrow.".

I guess I answered all the questions.

Thank you.

Best,
Nelson

[poppyseed]

Hi Nelson

What do you mean by emptiness of the story?

Stories are mental constructs created by thought and language. They are interpretations and narratives woven around our sensory experiences, not the experiences themselves. For example, memories, often perceived as factual accounts of the past, are actually constructed by thought, selecting and interpreting sensory experiences.
"Emptiness" does not mean the story doesn't exist; it means the story lacks inherent truth or a solid, independent existence. The story is happening, but its content is not reality.
Believing stories to be true and identifying with them is the root of suffering. When we take stories too seriously, we become attached to them and resist what is happening in the present moment, leading to unhappiness/suffering. Recognising the emptiness of stories allows us to detach from them and experience greater freedom and peace. We can still engage with stories, but we do so with a lighter touch, knowing they are not absolute truths.
There is a level of experience that is beyond thought and language, where there is no story, only DE. This is where true freedom and happiness reside.
In our previous conversation about hoping for happiness, we saw that happiness is not something to be found in the future or through acquiring external things, but rather it is present in the now, underneath the stories the mind creates. Recognizing the emptiness of the story of "lacking happiness" can free you from the pursuit of happiness and allow you to experience contentment in the present moment.
Another example is with emotions – there are sensations and labels which describe these in a certain way (fear, anger, etc). Stripped from the label, sensations are just neutral experiences, but when the story is added, it is a different story (excuse the pun). Language plays a crucial role in the formation of thoughts. Thoughts often manifest as words and mental images, and that language creates the illusion of separate objects and subjects (like the “I” and “consciousness” and “apples” and “fear” ). Groups of concepts taken for truth of how things are become beliefs upon which new ideas land and stick, creating an even bigger, more magnificent castle of concepts. What seems to be “the world,” the totality of all that is happening, is a creation of language, and words are the building blocks that create the story about it. A bubble of reality. None of this can be found in DE – there are only sensory experiences. Whatever “understanding”, you come up with, is not going to be it. I suppose the analogy with the icons on your computer desktop comes handy. They are used as a visual representation of what is actually a binary code – zeros and ones - so you can make use of them. But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it? And when the box does not want to open, do you grab the tools from the shed in order to fix it?

Here is a short video explaining emptiness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYqaWmc ... 4&index=41

Thoughts can’t know anything, they just are. Thought content can say anything. I guess why they say what they say (is this useful? to whom?).

Yes! And even their content is not true. It is a conditioned use of concepts. They can never contain a new concept that was not used before – your “knowledge” backpack. So even learning new information is interpreted within the context of the older knowledge – dependent origination. Exchange of information/description with other streams of thought (“others’ thoughts”) is not always smooth as the learned meaning of concepts changes from “person” to “person” or even in different situations.

Where exactly is "here"?

Thought say: here, inside this body’s “consciousness”, or inside this body’s field of experience. There are mental images of things outside this office, for example. But, again, objectively there is nothing like a “body”, nor “consciousness”, although the way experience is fluid really feels like consciousness.

Where is "there"?

Supposedly, “outside this body’s field of experience”. Like behind this office’s door.
First of all, I have to note that what you are reporting is thought content, not observations. This is why you put everything in “…”. We are here to LOOK remember!

Are sensations conscious? What exactly is body’s “consciousness”? Please show it to me! LOOK!
Remember:
feels like, seems like = thought content
Nothing in DE is feels like, it’s either here in all its glory (describable) or not. Everything else that is suspected that might be there is added by thought through mental images or interpretation. Clear???

Why would the fluidity of experience suggest “consciousness”? Do you see any bridge, hook, link, arrow or anything of this kind that links the word “consciousness” with experience? How exactly does the experience suggest anything? Do you see any consciousness molecules or building blocks in experience? How is this SEEN? If it is an assumption, how is it relevant? Just because for some reason you want to call the fluidity of experience “consciousness” does it make it true? It’s just a fantasy, a fairy tale driven by fear of non-existence. And if there is such fear then it should be explored stripped away from the labels and the story.
Is there a changing experience without the labels or just unchangeable, indivisible THIS? Change needs time (a mental construct). Without thought nothing ever happens :). Do you agree? Also, by describing THIS in a certain manner you give “it” qualities that only exist in your “knowledge backpack”, empty of inherent existence. Is there a direct correspondence between labels and experience that can be observed (hooks, links, bridges)?

With eyes closed where does the “body” end? Where exactly is “outside this body’s field of experience”? Can you touch the borders of the body? You can touch your skin but that would be a free floating sensation (location-less) without the mental images, right? So where exactly does feeling (sensations) end if they are not superimposed with mental images of “body”? Now, notice these mental images – are they even of “your body”. Pay particular attention to them – see how they start to morph into weird shapes and colours (it’s quite interesting and entertaining)
Is there such a thing right now as “behind this office’s door” or is it imagined (a mental picture)? Or “behind your back”? Please revisit the body exercises!
Now, this is a good exercise… If you have to draw a line in your seeing ending in the office door, where would it start? Observe again the mental images and what is actually there.

What is the distance made of? What is “the door” made of in DE?

I’ve been noticing this pattern of pointers taking some time to “click”.

Often, the mind resists because it's stepping into something unfamiliar, even if that unfamiliar thing offers peace. It goes in circles, trying to make sense of it all, eventually “giving up” to find the answers. Also it is part of the mourning over the self (in whatever form) – denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Resting in stillness often brings clarity when we least expect it.

There are thoughts about an I/Nelson, but what are they pointing to?

To other thoughts, like the tought “body”, and also to this feeling of being the seer, like "I am watching the thought I", "I am watching this computer".

So basically they are not pointing to anything real :), just to more fantasy and imagination (mental images), right?

Here is an exercise which examines the way in which the mind labels experience - it takes about 20 minutes and you will need a pen a paper.
This exercise is broken into 10 minute lots. For each 10 minute period pay attention to any sensation i.e. is there any tightening, or any relaxing?
For the first ten minutes write down what you are experiencing right now using the word “I”.

For example:
I am sitting on a chair,
I am hearing a clock ticking,
I am looking at a computer screen,
I am feeling hungry.

Get right to the point, no past or future fantasy, just a plain description of your experience right here and now.
Then for the next ten minutes continue writing down what you are experiencing but this time without using the word “I”. Just describe the experience as it is happening using verbs (not just repeating the above sentences but whatever is happening right now).

For example:
Sitting on a chair,
typing,
breathing,
blinking,
hearing the clock.
(Again, pay attention to sensations.)

At the end of the twenty minutes compare the two ways in which the experience was labelled and answer the following four questions:
1. Is one truer than the other, and If so, which one?
2. What is here without labels?
3. Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?
4. Did you notice any differences in sensations?

I forgot one thing…

these are all concepts, a “view” on reality. There is no problem with concepts if they are seen as empty. The problem comes only when we identify with concepts. Bypassing is a serious consequence of that. THIS is indescribable, indivisible. When you attach a thought to it, you make a something out of nothing (with qualities and characteristics).

What do you mean with “identify with concepts” and “bypassing”?

A view on reality is could be for example – there is nothing else but consciousness. You reify THIS as consciousness and then you say I am not Nelson but I am Consciousness – you identify with Consciousness. Then things still happen but they happen to Consciousness (the bypassing) as there is no one here. So you still get angry with others you still crave happiness, and avoid at all cost “unpleasant” situations, but there is nothing wrong with that as there is no one here, right???! :)))) This is the bypassing – replacing old beliefs with new (enlightened ones)

I will observe this phenomenon a little more. What I’ve already noticed is that there is a 'tougher' narrator, with a deeper voice, and a 'people-pleasing' narrator, with a softer voice. I hate this people-pleasing one, and it’s the most frequent one.

So which one are you – the tough one, the pleaser, or the observer that hates the pleaser (what observes the observer)?? Do you have split personalities, or these are just thought patterns?


Love
Rali

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Feeling my back on the chair = simply sensations (feeling)

But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it?

No.

And when the box does not want to open, do you grab the tools from the shed in order to fix it?

Haha, no.

Are sensations conscious?

No, sensations just are.

What exactly is body’s “consciousness”? Please show it to me! LOOK!

If I had to show it to you, I would point to this space/bubble of experience. But you wouldn’t see this bubble of experience. You would just see your bubble of experience.

Also, calling this a bubble of experience is a thought construct, because there are just colors, sounds, sensations, smells, tastes and thoughts - or, this.

Besides that, I wouldn’t know how to proof that this bubble of experience is owned by the “body”. Objectively, it just is. This ownership is also a thought construct.

Nothing in DE is feels like, it’s either here in all its glory (describable) or not. Everything else that is suspected that might be there is added by thought through mental images or interpretation. Clear???

Clear.

Why would the fluidity of experience suggest “consciousness”?

It is the best word that I have in my “knowledge” backpack for this. Experience doesn’t feel so solid, so it is more like consciousness than matter. But this is certainly an interpretation.

Do you see any bridge, hook, link, arrow or anything of this kind that links the word “consciousness” with experience?

No.

How exactly does the experience suggest anything?

It doesn’t. Just interpretation.

Do you see any consciousness molecules or building blocks in experience?

No.

How is this SEEN?

Just this.

If it is an assumption, how is it relevant?

Good question. It is the mind trying to figure out what I am or what this is all about. We already talked about this. I probably will never know.

Just because for some reason you want to call the fluidity of experience “consciousness” does it make it true?

No.

It’s just a fantasy, a fairy tale driven by fear of non-existence.

Makes sense.

Is there a changing experience without the labels or just unchangeable, indivisible THIS?

I don’t know if I get this one. Sometimes there are sounds, sometimes there aren’t, independent of labelling them “sounds”, no?

Change needs time (a mental construct). Without thought nothing ever happens :). Do you agree?

I have difficult with this one. Sometimes there are sounds, sometimes there aren’t, independent of labelling them “sounds”. But I agree that, in this moment, if there isn’t a memory (thought) of the previous moment, I wouldn’t know about the change. What am I missing here?

I will continue tomorrow.

Best,
Nelson

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Hearing the rain = simply sounds (hearing)

Is there a direct correspondence between labels and experience that can be observed (hooks, links, bridges)?

No, thoughts exists as thoughts, sounds as sounds, etc. There is no link.

With eyes closed where does the “body” end?

The first impulse is to say that the body ends where sensations ends, but sensations are overlaid with the mental image of the body, and the limits of the body are not the limits of a mental image.

If I try to ignore the mental image of the body, the sensations seem to be spread through a space, but even space is a mental image.

So, no.

Where exactly is “outside this body’s field of experience”?

There are just mental images of what “outside” would be.

Can you touch the borders of the body?

No, because sensations seem to be spread through a space.

You can touch your skin but that would be a free floating sensation (location-less) without the mental images, right?

Exactly.

So where exactly does feeling (sensations) end if they are not superimposed with mental images of “body”?

Without mental images of the “body” or “space” it is not possible to localize where sensations end.

Now, notice these mental images – are they even of “your body”. Pay particular attention to them – see how they start to morph into weird shapes and colours (it’s quite interesting and entertaining)

Indeed.

Is there such a thing right now as “behind this office’s door” or is it imagined (a mental picture)? Or “behind your back”?

Just mental images, and they are very inaccurate (for example, if I go outside of the office and really see what is there).

Please revisit the body exercises!

Ok.

I will continue tomorrow.

Best,
Nelson

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

If you have to draw a line in your seeing ending in the office door, where would it start?

This is an interesting one. The first impulse is to start from where my eyes are supposed to be (a mental image) ending in the office door. The line would be a point from this perspective.

But it dosen’t make sense to start in a metal image. So, as there are just colors, there is no point to start from.

What is the distance made of?

This whole room is made of colors. The distance is a kind of mental construct, although this mental construct is not really clear to me.

There is the mental image of this face/body, and somehow the colors of the wall are inferred to be distant. It seems to be a mesure of the size of the “wall” (colors) in relation to the size of the mental image of the face/body. Like a perspective.

What is “the door” made of in DE?

Colors.

So basically they are not pointing to anything real :), just to more fantasy and imagination (mental images), right?

Yes. Sustained by the idea that there must be an objective reality (including a body), and that this experience (sensations, colors, sounds, smells, tastes, thoughts) is just how this objective reality manifests into this body’s consciousness. Again, more imagination, but this one is stubborn.

1. Is one truer than the other, and If so, which one?

The second one (without the I) feels truer. The first one (with I) feels forced.

2. What is here without labels?

Existence (in the sense of what is existing, even though it is colors, sensations, etc), or what is happening, or THIS.

3. Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?

The first impulse it to say that labels just describe the experience. But, during the exercise, the use of the label “I” in a sense affected the experience, making it feel more forced, contracted.

4. Did you notice any differences in sensations?

Yes. Without using I, the experience feels more relaxed. When using I, the experience feels more contracted.

So you still get angry with others you still crave happiness, and avoid at all cost “unpleasant” situations, but there is nothing wrong with that as there is no one here, right???! :))))

I will get there x)

This is the bypassing – replacing old beliefs with new (enlightened ones)

Hmmm… I see, thank you.

So which one are you – the tough one, the pleaser, or the observer that hates the pleaser (what observes the observer)??

They seem to be patterns of thinking. Objectively, there is no observer, just thinking happening/existing.

Do you have split personalities, or these are just thought patterns?

Haha, just thought patterns.

Best,
Nelson

[poppyseed]

Hi Nelson

Also, calling this a bubble of experience is a thought construct, because there are just colors, sounds, sensations, smells, tastes and thoughts - or, this.

Yes! When I was talking about the “bubble of reality” I was referring to “world” built of conditioned thought concepts about experience. Otherwise there are no limits/borders where your “bubble” ends and my starts – just different thought patterns about THIS :)

I have difficult with this one. Sometimes there are sounds, sometimes there aren’t, independent of labelling them “sounds”. But I agree that, in this moment, if there isn’t a memory (thought) of the previous moment, I wouldn’t know about the change. What am I missing here?

So there two “angles” here. One is about the existence of “sounds” and the second is about time. Am I correct?

So let’s LOOK at them both…

Listen to the sounds at the moment. Close your eyes…Let’s say there are birds chirping for example (answer the questions about the sounds that you are listening). Without the mental images and labels, do you see any birds in the sound? How do you know that this sound is “birds chirping”? From memory? Are there only “birds chirping” or are there other sounds as well – like “cars passing”, “people talking”, “humming of the fridge”? So is there a time with no sound at all (absolute silence), or that is theoretical? Furthermore, just because there is a peak in sound/hearing are there solid/separate “sounds” without the labels, or sound/hearing morphs form one “shape” into another? Are there many sounds (without the labels and mental images) or just sound (“taking different values)? Also are the hearing AND sound - you are hearing sounds and then you don’t hear them, or that happens only in language? Is there an entity that witnesses the appearance and disappearance of sound – like chronologically? Furthermore, are seeing and hearing separate (without the labels and mental images), do you see any borders between them or the division is a mental construct? Where does seeing happen, and where does hearing happen? So when you say “Sometimes there are sounds, sometimes there aren’t” are you referring to DE or the story about it?

Now let’s look into time

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

But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?
How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?
Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?
How long does the ‘now’ last?
Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?
When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'? Can you experience yesterday, or 30 sec ago? What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?
So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

Furthermore, a memory is believed to be a thought referring to something that has happened. That a memory thought is a different thought than a non-memory thought. Let a memory be there, and look at it. Look at what is actually going on and not what thoughts say.

What is memory exactly? What is the memory ‘made of’?
WHEN does the memory appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.

What is the future thought ‘made of’?
WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.

What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future? Do they appear in a different place or in a different way?
If there is difference and how is that difference is known exactly?

This is an interesting one. The first impulse is to start from where my eyes are supposed to be (a mental image) ending in the office door. The line would be a point from this perspective.
But it dosen’t make sense to start in a metal image. So, as there are just colors, there is no point to start from.

This whole room is made of colors. The distance is a kind of mental construct, although this mental construct is not really clear to me.

That sounds like a logical conclusion – “it doesn’t make sense”? This is not about making sense, this is about how it really is. LOOK! Where is seeing coming from stripped of the mental images of eyes and behind the eyes? Revisit the “blackness” exercise. Also, next time when you watch a movie – is the story in 2D or 3D (despite the fact the TV screen is flat)?

There is the mental image of this face/body, and somehow the colors of the wall are inferred to be distant. It seems to be a mesure of the size of the “wall” (colors) in relation to the size of the mental image of the face/body. Like a perspective.

Just notice what is seen of the body. Notice that no head can be seen, and not all of the body can be seen either. Thought chimes in and says something like “that body is mine”, “that is me”. Just notice the thoughts and put them aside. Just notice all thoughts as they arise throughout this experiment and put them aside and just look from the place of open curiosity…not going to thoughts to tell you what is going on or what is being seen.
So, with thoughts about a body being put aside, what the actual experience of the body is, is colour.
Now look at the chair that you are sitting on. Once again ignore the thoughts and labels and notice that the actual experience of the chair is simply colour.
Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found?
Continue on like this for the rest of the experiment
Is there a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘chair’ and the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’?
Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’ and colour labelled ‘furniture’ be found?
Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’ and the ‘furniture’ or is there just simply colour
Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug and furniture’ and the colour labelled ‘wall’ be found?
Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’, ‘furniture’ and the ‘wall’ or is there just the actual experience of colour (seeingseen)?
Is there any actual dividing between any of these colours, or is there just seamless colour which thought divides into different objects, with different labels and seeming space between them; and then further divides them into different colours?
What did you find doing this experiment?
Is there such a thing as space or distance?
Is there an actual body/you sitting in a chair, or all there is, is colour?
Did you come across anyone or anything that is actually seeing colour, or is seeingseen and colour one and the same? If they are one and the same then where is the me or Consciousness that is seeing them? Is the seeingseen not just happening without a someone/something that is doing the seeingseen? Could a doer of seeingseen be found?
When you look carefully…can you actually find anyone/anything that is doing this experiment, who is doing the looking, or is looking just happening without any doer being found?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNwED9JkzSw

Yes. Sustained by the idea that there must be an objective reality (including a body), and that this experience (sensations, colors, sounds, smells, tastes, thoughts) is just how this objective reality manifests into this body’s consciousness. Again, more imagination, but this one is stubborn.

It’s “stubborn” because it’s been repeated for a long time, but is there any truth in it? Keep on looking if you can spot any consciousness with clearly defined borders that is outside of the sensations, colours, sounds, smells, tastes, thoughts – you should be able to see two sides, one of consciousness and one of experience. Are there two “things”? If not then the one is a delusion. If consciousness is not a learned concept, did you know about it when you were a baby? LOOK! What is “here”? That is the only way the stubbornness dissolves. If you keep repeating it from memory/thought despite the fact that there is no proof for any of it you are just reinforcing this belief. Any stubborn belief is a hidden identification with thought (that is how the “I” comes into “existence”). It’s there as a distraction from experiencing “unpleasant” sensations. So if there is a fear of non-existence, explore that (otherwise is just a philosophical debate). Stay with the sensation that comes with the thought “I don’t exist in any form or shape – not as Nelson, not as consciousness, not as God, nor as a void, or a bubble, or whatever. See what shows up.

This is the bypassing – replacing old beliefs with new (enlightened ones)

Hmmm… I see, thank you.

Bypassing is also, when you make logical conclusions. For example, there is no “I” so there is no suffering. There wasn’t a self/I to suffer before, it’s not like the self died and now there is no suffering. The illusion is still here but it is not a delusion any more once the absence of a self is noted (by thought). However, the illusion needs to be seen too, and that does not happen automatically – you need to go see that the mirage is a mirage and it can happen only by walking the distance, not by deciding that mirages don’t exist. Thus, the feeling of “unhappiness” does not disappear just because there is no “I”, it can only dissolve when the raw sensation is experienced and the label and all the stories revisited. Clear about bypassing? You could also call it gaslighting…

Take your time as usual with all the questions :))
Love
Rali

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

First, thank you so much for still being here and guiding me. You are amazing.

Yesterday, I realized that "I" is really just a language construct - a fiction, a story, something that exists only in language and not in experience, which is the only thing we can be sure about.

It is a way the mind uses to organize experience - a pattern of interpretation that creates this impression of a "hero" in the story, someone responsible for what is happening. But there is no hero here.

This is something we have been talking about, but yesterday it "clicked," and the mind opened up and started taking this possibility more seriously.

I will take some time to explore this, ok?

Best,
Nelson

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Seeing this computer monitor = simply colors (seeing)

I noticed that we usually assume that what is here is a physical body, and that it is me. But, if we pay attention, what is here doesn't feel physical, nor human. What is appearing here feels more like it is made of nothing. Nothing in different forms like sounds, sensations, colors, tastes, smells and thoughts.

And what is here is limiteless and timeless, in the sense that its limits are only imagined, as well as the past and future.

If I had to put a name on what is here, I would call it knowning, consciousness or nothingness, but these are just labels, for this forms that feels made of nothing. Like a dream.

So, I guess the point to stop living from the perspective of a separate self (belief), and start living from the perspective of what is really here, this nothing appearing as everything.

Rali, please, am I on the right direction here?

I will go back to the questions tomorrow.

Best,
Nelson

[poppyseed]

Hi Nelson

I’m really happy reading your last two replies. It seems like something shifted in your perception, but only “you” know that. I gave you space for whatever is happening to take place. Please finish with the answers of my last pointing

Love
Rali

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Hearing the rain on my headphone = simply sounds (hearing)

I’m really happy reading your last two replies. It seems like something shifted in your perception, but only “you” know that.

I don't know if there was a shift, but things are certainly becoming clear. It is almost a surrendering to what is really here. I’m deeply grateful for your help.

Please finish with the answers of my last pointing

Yes.

So there two “angles” here. One is about the existence of “sounds” and the second is about time. Am I correct?

Yes.

Without the mental images and labels, do you see any birds in the sound?

No.

How do you know that this sound is “birds chirping”?

Because of thoughts.

From memory?

Yes.

Are there only “birds chirping” or are there other sounds as well – like “cars passing”, “people talking”, “humming of the fridge”?

There are other sounds.

So is there a time with no sound at all (absolute silence), or that is theoretical?

Theoretical.

Furthermore, just because there is a peak in sound/hearing are there solid/separate “sounds” without the labels, or sound/hearing morphs form one “shape” into another?

There is this knowing (or hearing) taking different shapes.

Are there many sounds (without the labels and mental images) or just sound (“taking different values)?

Just sound taking different shapes/values.

Also are the hearing AND sound - you are hearing sounds and then you don’t hear them, or that happens only in language?

Only language says that there is hearing “waiting” for a sound. Sound is hearing and hearing is sound.

Is there an entity that witnesses the appearance and disappearance of sound – like chronologically?

No.

Furthermore, are seeing and hearing separate (without the labels and mental images), do you see any borders between them or the division is a mental construct?

The division is a mental construct. It is possible to say that there is just knowing taking different forms like sounds, colors, sensations, etc.

Where does seeing happen, and where does hearing happen?

In knowing.

So when you say “Sometimes there are sounds, sometimes there aren’t” are you referring to DE or the story about it?

Good one. The story about it. The “pieces” of sound that the mind creates (labels).

I will continue tomorrow.

Best,
Nelson

[poppyseed]

Hi Nelson

If I had to put a name on what is here, I would call it knowning, consciousness or nothingness, but these are just labels, for this forms that feels made of nothing. Like a dream.

Where does seeing happen, and where does hearing happen?

In knowing.

OK… So I thought you meant when you said that that “knowing” is just an empty label but later you seem to be using it as a “thing” – it’s like a container now for hearing and seeing. Nothingness at least doesn't have further meaning, but knowing comes loaded with qualities and seem to be using it in that context :))
Is there knowing if there is nothing to be known and there is no knower
If there is no perceiver and nothing to be perceived, is there perceiving?
If there is no entity to be aware, and nothing to be aware of, is there being aware/awareness?

To know something is merely to attach a word to it – even if it is just “witnessing” (you have to know what you are witnessing and that you are witnessing, witnessing is still a concept, and don't start me on the duration of witnessing, which suggest continuation). To be aware means "to know about", some common synonyms of aware are cognizant, conscious, and sensible. So let's look at all of these words - consciousness, awareness, cognition/knowing.
By using a word, you create something out of nothing (concepts, objects, reality, conditions, qualities, etc). Without words, there is no knowing. To know that you are aware is knowledge. Without words, there is no framework to separate, categorize, interpret, or define. Awareness is a word that is just attached to nothing.
Consciousness is not a mystical entity but a by-product of memory. It arises only when memory supplies the words needed to categorize and interpret raw "experience". Without memory, there can be no consciousness as you understand it. And what is memory? A repository of words, mental images and mental constructs.
Consciousness, then, is not an awareness of the present but a narration of the present built on the words stored in memory. The so-called “conscious mind” is merely a storyteller, drawing on memory (thought) to weave the illusion of an observer/witness.
Awareness is not some innate, universal truth but a mental construct. It is the mind’s ability to narrate its own sensations. Strip away the words, and there is no awareness—only the raw, unprocessed flux.
The idea of “awareness” is rooted in the same linguistic delusion as the concept of self. You are aware of something only because language supplies the framework to distinguish it from everything else. Without words, there’s no “I” to be aware, no “thing” to be aware of, and no “awareness” to connect them.
For example a baby simply exists. Before acquiring language, a baby doesn’t distinguish between self and environment, between sensations and objects, between peaks and troughs in experience. Awareness emerges only as words are learned, carving the flux of existence into categories and relationships – something to be aware of/something to be known. In the begining it could be very basic - before the development of mental concepts there is still pattern recognition in various shapes, and once the concepts are attached to that, its' game on. That’s why you don’t have memories of anything. Furthermore, as the baby’s name has been repeated that many times, the self-awareness starts "forming". That’s why babies experience separation anxiety at the age of about 18m – they become separate from the whole. To be aware of oneself is to be burdened by the illusion of separation, to carry the weight of a fabricated identity. Without awareness, there is no conflict—only the natural flow of life.
Awareness is simply the mind narrating sensations. Consciousness is the memory bank of those narrations. Thought is the manipulation of those narrations into new forms. Without words, these phenomena do not exist. Strip away language, and what remains is pure biological functioning, devoid of self, meaning, or narrative. Thought, awareness, consciousness, knowing and memory are one and the same. They are mental constructs, dependent entirely on words. Without words, they collapse into nothingness. Cases like dementia expose the mental nature of these constructs, proving that without words, there is no self, no thought, no awareness, and no consciousness. Life operates without the need for words, knowledge, or awareness. Do you agree?

Love
Rali

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Feeling my back on the chair = simply sensations (feeling)

OK… So I thought you meant when you said that that “knowing” is just an empty label but later you seem to be using it as a “thing” – it’s like a container now for hearing and seeing. Nothingness at least doesn't have further meaning, but knowing comes loaded with qualities and seem to be using it in that context :))

Yes, I’ve regret this answer as soon as I sent it x)

Knowing is not a container, just a name for these forms that seem to be made of nothing. So, “in”, is not the right word.

But, although this is more or less clear, I indeed have a tendency to see knowing as a container, as if everything is appearing in it. But looking closer I can see that this “container” is a mental construct, an assumption. There is no knowing here separated from what is known.

Is there knowing if there is nothing to be known and there is no knower?

There is no knowing here separated from what is known.

If there is no perceiver and nothing to be perceived, is there perceiving?

There is no perceiving here separated from what is perceived.

If there is no entity to be aware, and nothing to be aware of, is there being aware/awareness?

There is no awareness here separated from what is appearing.

But isn’t assuming that there isn’t anything here, when there is no form, also an assumption? I’ve never experienced a moment when there was no form here, so I can’t affirm that. By form, I mean sounds, sensations, colors, etc.

The only thing that I can say is that, right now, there is no awareness separated from what is appearing, or, at least, it can’t be known.

Am I missing something here?

To know that you are aware is knowledge.

Good one.

Consciousness is not a mystical entity but a by-product of memory. It arises only when memory supplies the words needed to categorize and interpret raw "experience".

Raw “experience” is a good name for what I call forms that feels to be made of nothing.

Awareness is not some innate, universal truth but a mental construct. It is the mind’s ability to narrate its own sensations. Strip away the words, and there is no awareness—only the raw, unprocessed flux.

Good one.

Do you agree?

Yes. Amazing explanation. I will medidate a little more on it.

I will look into time tomorrow.

Best,
Nelson