They say I don't exist

[Harry]

Yes, classification with one thought. But for example, there is a very clear distinction between smelling and seeing.

Exactly.

The real world is a more concrete world than thoughts and feelings, but I am a person more concentrated in the realm of thought. it inspires me about the outside world.

By ‘real world’ do you mean a world made out of physical/material stuff ‘out there’?

If so, what evidence do you have for the existence of such a world?

[Harry]

The real world is a more concrete world than thoughts and feelings, but I am a person more concentrated in the realm of thought. it inspires me about the outside world.

Let’s put this ‘outside world’ to the test of actual experience.

Have a look at an apple. If you have a ‘real’ apple, you can use it for this exercise.

http://www.maryshomestead.com/sitebuild ... /fruit.gif

When looking at an apple, there's colour; a thought saying ‘apple’; and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."

What is known for sure? Colour is known and thoughts are known.

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?
Actual experience does not refer to thoughts ABOUT something...because that is only just more thought. Actual experience is sound, thought, colour, smell, taste, sensation.

An ‘apple’ we think of as a ‘physical object’ existing ‘out there’ in the ‘world’.

But is an ‘apple’ actually experienced, or is only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’ experienced? Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in actual experience.

This is what is meant by ‘looking in actual experience ‘. What you know for sure, and, is always here.

Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched) Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known

However, is an apple actually known?

[kirmizihap]

By ‘real world’ do you mean a world made out of physical/material stuff ‘out there’?

Yes. like this.

If so, what evidence do you have for the existence of such a world?

The fact that it is currently perceived by the sense organs can be considered as evidence of its existence.

But is an ‘apple’ actually experienced, or is only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’ experienced? Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

It can be said with other words in different languages. There is a taste, smell and texture recorded in memory with the name apple.

However, is an apple actually known?

It cannot be known, but it can be perceived.

[Harry]

See if you can stick even more closely to what’s actually given in your experience, rather than what thought says about experience…

The fact that it is currently perceived by the sense organs can be considered as evidence of its existence.

Where is the ‘it’ in addition to the perception of it?

We have a sight/colour/perception called an apple, but where in your actual experience is the so-called physical apple as independent from that?

Can you actually experience it, or only think about it?

There is a taste, smell and texture recorded in memory with the name apple.

Do these four experiences (taste, smell, texture and name/thought) add up to anything physical? Or is the idea of physical a thing just that: an idea?

[kirmizihap]

Where is the ‘it’ in addition to the perception of it?

We have a sight/colour/perception called an apple, but where in your actual experience is the so-called physical apple as independent from that?

Can you actually experience it, or only think about it?

Do these four experiences (taste, smell, texture and name/thought) add up to anything physical? Or is the idea of physical a thing just that: an idea?

Real experiences such as images and sounds are categorized using ideas. Naming reality down to its atoms is sometimes boring, sometimes useful for daily life. For a person drowning in a world of names, it seems comforting to give a single name to such a fragmented experience.

[Harry]

Where is the ‘it’ in addition to the perception of it?

We have a sight/colour/perception called an apple, but where in your actual experience is the so-called physical apple as independent from that?

Can you actually experience it, or only think about it?

Do these four experiences (taste, smell, texture and name/thought) add up to anything physical? Or is the idea of a physical thing just that: an idea?

Real experiences such as images and sounds are categorized using ideas. Naming reality down to its atoms is sometimes boring, sometimes useful for daily life. For a person drowning in a world of names, it seems comforting to give a single name to such a fragmented experience.

I’m not looking for information about what people do, what’s useful for them, or what’s comforting for them.

My questions are about what’s given in your own direct experience right now.

See if you can answer my previous questions a bit more precisely…

:)

[kirmizihap]

Where is the ‘it’ in addition to the perception of it?

We have a sight/colour/perception called an apple, but where in your actual experience is the so-called physical apple as independent from that?

Can you actually experience it, or only think about it?

Do these four experiences (taste, smell, texture and name/thought) add up to anything physical? Or is the idea of physical a thing just that: an idea?

The concept that there is something physical is an idea, yes. It seems like most explanations, including science, sound like fairy tales. It's a simple thing, but I had a little enlightenment when I thought about it again.

We can say that all explanations are thoughts, after all, they are fairy tales. When we encounter a problem, sometimes the solution given by someone seems very correct. We seem to understand what he is saying, but when we look at it, it is unclear whether the speaker really understands what he is saying.

[Harry]

The concept that there is something physical is an idea, yes. It seems like most explanations, including science, sound like fairy tales. It's a simple thing, but I had a little enlightenment when I thought about it again.

We can say that all explanations are thoughts, after all, they are fairy tales. When we encounter a problem, sometimes the solution given by someone seems very correct. We seem to understand what he is saying, but when we look at it, it is unclear whether the speaker really understands what he is saying.

You’re right - the explanation is just a thought-story about our experience.


Here’s an exercise to continue with…
Answer all the questions individually please.



Clock Exercise - Part 1

For this exercise you will need to sit yourself near a clock that has an audible second hand. If you don’t have a ticking clock, then here is a link to a clock on Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L21br2DSCSg

Allow your eyes to close gently.

Listen to the sound.
“Tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock”
Focus on the tick tock. Attune to the sound itself.
IGNORE any explanatory thoughts about what must be creating the sound.

Try to find the clock.

1. Going just by the tick tock sound, do you find a clock present?
2. Is there any direct/actual experience of a clock in the sound?
3. Does the sound come self-labelled as originating from the clock?
4. Do you find a clock hidden in the sound?
5. Do you find a clock beyond the sound?
6. In your direct/actual experience of the sound, do you find any evidence that the sound is caused by a clock?


Allow your eyes to open.

Were you able to establish that in your direct/actual experience of the tick tock sound, that there was a clock?

Were you able to find a division between hearing and sound?

Were you able to establish where hearing ended and sound begin, or was there just pure experience labelled as sound?

For a sound to be ‘known’ then there must be a ‘knowing’ (experience) of sound!

Can a dividing line be found between the ‘knowing’ (experience) of the sound and the sound (known) itself? Or is there only ‘knowingknown’?

[kirmizihap]

Try to find the clock.

1. Going just by the tick tock sound, do you find a clock present?

No just sound.

2. Is there any direct/actual experience of a clock in the sound?

If we are to answer with doubt, no. but daily yes.

3. Does the sound come self-labelled as originating from the clock?

When you hear a sound, the way the clock works comes to mind, but I don't actually know whether the sound is coming from the clock or not. These sentences may seem ridiculous for daily life, but the sound coming from the clock is a belief.

4. Do you find a clock hidden in the sound?

There is no such information in the incoming voice.

5. Do you find a clock beyond the sound?

no it doesn't appear

6. In your direct/actual experience of the sound, do you find any evidence that the sound is caused by a clock?

No, it may be coming from the tape recorder. Even if it is not coming from the tape, even science cannot prove that the sound came from the watch.

Allow your eyes to open.

Were you able to establish that in your direct/actual experience of the tick tock sound, that there was a clock?

I couldn't

Were you able to find a division between hearing and sound?

If there is sound, it is called hearing. Hearing indicates that sound exists.

Were you able to establish where hearing ended and sound begin, or was there just pure experience labelled as sound?

I couldn't see anything like hearing, I focused on sound, so there was only sound/experience.

For a sound to be ‘known’ then there must be a ‘knowing’ (experience) of sound!

Can a dividing line be found between the ‘knowing’ (experience) of the sound and the sound (known) itself? Or is there only ‘knowingknown’?

Experiencing the sound in the sentence 'experiencing' is an extra word... It is considered to be used unnecessarily.

[Harry]

You’re on the right track.
What we’re trying to do is really discriminate what we think about, vs what is given in experience.

When you hear a sound, the way the clock works comes to mind, but I don't actually know whether the sound is coming from the clock or not. These sentences may seem ridiculous for daily life, but the sound coming from the clock is a belief.

But is there any such label within the sound itself?



No, it may be coming from the tape recorder. Even if it is not coming from the tape, even science cannot prove that the sound came from the watch.


This is all thought content - ideas - stories.

Does the sound itself say ‘I came from here/there’?

[Harry]

No, it may be coming from the tape recorder. Even if it is not coming from the tape, even science cannot prove that the sound came from the watch.

[kirmizihap]

But is there any such label within the sound itself?

No, it may be coming from the tape recorder. Even if it is not coming from the tape, even science cannot prove that the sound came from the watch.

Does the sound itself say ‘I came from here/there’?

The sound itself has no direction information. The listener almost realizes that the sound is coming from that side. The sound determines everyone's position and I'm on your right side etc. doesn't say.

[Harry]

The sound itself has no direction information.

Yes that’s right!

The listener almost realizes that the sound is coming from that side. The sound determines everyone's position and I'm on your right side etc. doesn't say.

Again, we’re just focusing on the sound as it is given, rather than going into theories etc.

Let’s continue on this exercise with the clock…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L21br2DSCSg

Again focus on the experience of the tick tock sound. Set aside all thought, images, ideas or theories about what must be going on. Attune to the sounds themselves.

Going by hearing alone, do you directly experience a sound apart from your sense of hearing?

Do you experience a sound getting closer to your range of hearing before you actually hear it?

Do you experience a sound after you hear it?

Do you experience an unheard sound of any kind?

Allow your eyes to open.

Were you able to establish, in your direct experience of hearing, that sounds enter your sense of hearing. In other words, in direct/actual experience is there a hearer AND sound?

[kirmizihap]

Going by hearing alone, do you directly experience a sound apart from your sense of hearing?

I perceive a sound, but there is no sense of hearing.

Do you experience a sound getting closer to your range of hearing before you actually hear it?

No, there is no approach, etc., it just sounds low, if it gradually increases, this is called approach.

Do you experience a sound after you hear it?

I don't experience anything after the hearing stops.

Do you experience an unheard sound of any kind?

I don't experience anything like this

Were you able to establish, in your direct experience of hearing, that sounds enter your sense of hearing. In other words, in direct/actual experience is there a hearer AND sound?

The sound exists and disappears, it is not possible to say anything else.

[Harry]

Well done, all correct and from experience!
Ild just like to dig onto one point…

I perceive a sound, but there is no sense of hearing.

Is the sound heard/perceived?

If not, how do you even know there is a sound?

If so, isn’t there hearing/percieving then?