Looking for a guide

[LanieRO]

Hi Rali,

So is there a chance that self might come back? Has Lanie even been there for one second? Or it was always a wrong label assigned to subtle sensations, colours and thoughts?

Yeah, actually, it might. There’s a really strong assumption that Lanie is there somewhere, and I (or someone) habitually looks where “she” is pointing. There’s an elaborate “hey, wait a minute….” routine before looking turns around to see if Lanie is there. It can’t really be done on demand; it has to be seen. And the assumption can’t be willed away either. It comes and goes. The clarity of the seeing through the assumption has gradually been increasing.

if you turn around the finger – what is it pointing to then?

Trick question; there is no finger.

Focus on an object – for example on a tree outside. Draw an imaginary line toward the tree. So on one side of the line is the tree. What is on the other side of the line? Is there a viewer sitting in an movie chair? Thought usually offers nothing but maybe a mental image of “blackness”/black empty space behind the head/eyes, but even the concept of emptiness is still an image.
Look further… How long is the line? Is there even a distance between that observation spot and the tree, or the tree is right here (not out there)? Disregarding the contrast in colours, is there even a tree in space, or just colour (multicolour)/the seen (with no black behind it)? Is that distance made of anything else but just colour?

Are we looking at the subject/object distinction right now? Or the DE of a tree over there? I’m not sure what the mental image of blackness is here… me or the tree? Or the line? Am i looking at myself from the perspective of a tree?

Is this getting at the idea of DE vs concepts of objects, and who space and form are concepts? In DE the tree is a shape and some colours and a smell. The boundaries are conceptual. Trees are moving all of the time - the wind would be a concept added to the tree, which in DE is just moving - an interplay of colours, shadows, and light.

And from here, the mind may still come up with new doubts or questions… but they land differently, don’t they?

Yeah. They seem to land nowhere, but there’s also the doubt and an assumption that they’re landing somewhere and I’m a bit afraid to check. I feel like I have to re-find the “I” in order to stand where I was standing the other day and turn around and see that the “I” actually isn’t there. It’s kind of labour intensive and I haven’t found a shorter way to verify this yet.

[poppyseed]

Hi Lanie,
It’s clear the looking is alive here, not just conceptually, but in real-time experience.

So is there a chance that self might come back?

Yeah, actually, it might.

Can something that was never there actually come back?
The “self” doesn’t reappear — what comes back is the old habit of labelling experience through that lens. A tight sensation in the chest, a surge of anxiety, a thought like “why do I feel this way?” — and boom, the mind says: “Me. That’s me again.” But was it ever anything more than sensation, emotion, and thought... all arising on their own?
Even now, what you call “the assumption of self” isn’t something you’re choosing to believe in — it just arises, like the weather. You already see this.

It can’t really be done on demand; it has to be seen.

Exactly. And fortunately, seeing isn’t something you have to do — it happens when it happens. The illusion never had a choice in whether it gets seen through or not.

Are we looking at the subject/object distinction right now? Or the DE of a tree over there? I’m not sure what the mental image of blackness is here… me or the tree? Or the line? Am i looking at myself from the perspective of a tree?
Is this getting at the idea of DE vs concepts of objects, and who space and form are concepts? In DE the tree is a shape and some colours and a smell. The boundaries are conceptual. Trees are moving all of the time - the wind would be a concept added to the tree, which in DE is just moving - an interplay of colours, shadows, and light.

You’re right to pause at the logic of it — this isn’t about mentally figuring out spatial relationships. It’s pointing toward the idea that there’s an observer separate from what is observed. We grow up with that assumption — “the world is out there, and I’m in here, looking at it.” But when you really pause and check — in direct experience — where is that separation?
You said:

In DE the tree is a shape and some colours and a smell. The boundaries are conceptual.

Yes. Perfect. You don’t experience “a tree over there” — you experience colour, sensation, and scent, here. Even the space between you and the tree is made of sensation and visual contrast — not of measurable, physical “distance” in DE. It's like looking at a lava lamp. The wax may seem to change shape, and the shapes it seems to take may seem to be present one moment, and absent the next. But all that is known is the wax/this. Nothing actually changed and nothing was ever born or lost, although it may have seemed to. All that is known is experience/this - nothing can be added to it, nor taken away.
So — where exactly is “Lanie” located? Behind the eyes? In the brain? As a watcher? Or is she just another idea appearing in this seamless, boundless display of experience (the lava lamp)?
Is there a distance between Lanie and the tree, or there is just the seen happening right here, closer than close?
What is there when the length of line (distance) colapses into zero?

They [doubts] seem to land nowhere, but there’s also the doubt and an assumption that they’re landing somewhere and I’m a bit afraid to check.

So beautiful. You’ve seen through the trap — but the body-mind still plays out the old pattern of “there must be a place these doubts are landing… I should go check.” But when you do check honestly… nothing holds. There’s no landing pad. No center. No container. And no one needing one.

I feel like I have to re-find the ‘I’ in order to stand where I was standing the other day and turn around and see that the ‘I’ actually isn’t there.

That’s so well said. But here’s the good news: that whole routine of re-finding “I” is also just more scenery — another pattern in the lava lamp. You don’t need to revisit the illusion to see through it again. Let it dissolve when it arises. Trust the clarity that’s here, even if it doesn’t always feel “solid.”
Let this settle. There’s no rush to claim a shift, no gold star for “getting it.” The seeing continues to deepen without ownership. Just keep looking where the finger disappears — until even the idea of a finger fades.
Love
Rali

[LanieRO]

Hi Rali,

Hope you're doing good and your week is going well. :) I think this site was down for a bit? Seems to be working now, but surprised me!

Can something that was never there actually come back?

No…. but if I can’t actively see no-self at the moment then I have to believe in no-self. And belief and DE are basically opposites. So while the self might not be back, there’s been a shift to a different type of experiencing. Still direct, still is what it is, but not a clear no-self experience.

Maybe it would be more accurate to say the assumption is back and I would need to believe the assumption is wrong as it’s not always clearly visible that it is wrong.

“Me. That’s me again.” But was it ever anything more than sensation, emotion, and thought... all arising on their own?

Yes, I think that’s true.

It’s pointing toward the idea that there’s an observer separate from what is observed. We grow up with that assumption — “the world is out there, and I’m in here, looking at it.” But when you really pause and check — in direct experience — where is that separation?

Yeah… and how is that separation any different than, for example, the way thoughts or feelings appear and disappear from my own experience? Are the things that are traditionally considered part of a self fundamentally any different than things that are not usually considered part of a self?

I think the “correct answer” is that there is no difference between these things, but this isn’t really seen through yet. I can conceptually understand that the stuff over there is taking up x amount of my field of vision, indicating size and distance, and that it’s lighter and darker, indiciating depth and shadow, but the overlays and assumptions come on top of that really strongly. There’s recognition of where objects are in 3D space that feels faster than the perceiving of the object in 2D. (Is all 3D imaginary, visually? Probably, right?)

So — where exactly is “Lanie” located? Behind the eyes? In the brain? As a watcher? Or is she just another idea appearing in this seamless, boundless display of experience (the lava lamp)?
Is there a distance between Lanie and the tree, or there is just the seen happening right here, closer than close?
What is there when the length of line (distance) colapses into zero?

For the lava lamp, is your metaphor that the whole lava lamp the universe, and nothing is gained/lost, just endlessly shifting its form? I think that’s what you’re saying and that’s what I’m going with!

I think you’re getting at the fact that seeing happens in the eyes, and is perceived quite locally. Everything experienced happens right here and “out there” really isn’t DE ever, at all, under any circumstances. Whether a memory or looking at the ocean, it’s all appearing really, really close. I’m going to keep playing with this one - it seems clear to me, and not as effortful as trying to collapse the concept of distance. :)

[poppyseed]

Hi Lanie,
Yes, the site was down briefly — glad it's back and that you're still here with all of this unfolding.
You’re articulating the terrain beautifully now — not just with clarity but with honesty about what’s actually seen vs what’s still conceptual. That’s a huge shift in itself.

No…. but if I can’t actively see no-self at the moment then I have to believe in no-self.

This is such a key point — and a common place people land: “I believe it, but I can’t always see it.” And you nailed it when you said belief and DE are opposites.
It’s worth asking: what exactly is the difference between belief and seeing? How do you know when you’re believing something rather than directly seeing it? (like that Mahamudra koan)
What you’ll likely notice is that belief still relies on a subtle "me" who is believing, trying to hold onto clarity, trying to stabilize in no-self. But in the moments when it is seen — when there’s just experiencing, just life, with no one behind the curtain — there's no one there to believe anything. It’s just... happening.
So when it feels like no-self is “not seen,” maybe it’s not the seeing that’s gone, but the expectation of what seeing should feel like that’s temporarily reasserting itself. That, too, is just part of the display.

Next time you watch a movie, notice how you get sucked into the story; how emotions come up and judgements appear. Then all of a sudden, there is like a flip back to the room - as if focus zooms out. Observe how it happens. At which point is there a decision to snap out? Is there one that makes that decision or does it simply happen, effortlessly? Is it different from being sucked into mind movies/ getting lost in thought? Is there a believer? If there is nobody to believe, is ”believing in the story” actually happening or is it a story about “believing in the story”?
So look... What is it? What is it that is currently identified with thoughts?
What is it that is standing apart from thought and has the ability to disregard them or believe them?
What do thoughts happen to?
Is there someone outside of thoughts, being identified with them?

Using the analogy with a movie a bit differently... Watch how sequencing of thoughts creates the illusion of a separate “I.” It's like a film: a rapid series of still frames creates the illusion of continuous motion. In the same way, a rapid succession of thoughts — about “me,” about “what I just did,” about “what I need to figure out next” — gives rise to the sense of a continuous, personal experiencer.
But what happens when the frame rate slows down?
Without the overlay of constant mental narration, the illusion of continuity — and the “I” at the center of it — begins to fade. There’s just this. Sensation, thought, sound, color… already happening, already complete.
So a good question to sit with might be:
Is there an observer of the illusion?
Or is even that just more movement — more subtle content arising in experience — with no one behind it, no one inside it, no one apart from it?

There’s recognition of where objects are in 3D space that feels faster than the perceiving of the object in 2D. (Is all 3D imaginary, visually? Probably, right?)

Yes — beautifully put. Visually, 3D is constructed. DE doesn’t offer “space” or “depth.” There’s colour, light, shadow, shape — but the interpretation of those elements as depth, distance, separation… all of that is added by thought. It’s not wrong, just not direct. Remember the icons on your desktop analogy. Vision doesn’t have to change into 2D – just the emptiness of the description has to be seen. It’s what makes this a "human" experience.
Notice, even now: can you see distance? Or is the “tree over there” simply arising here, as part of this immediate visual field?
And same goes for “Lanie.” Does Lanie exist anywhere in what’s showing up now? Or is the idea of “Lanie” just another ripple appearing (another empty icon), like colour, like sound, like the story of “out there”?

For the lava lamp, is your metaphor that the whole lava lamp the universe, and nothing is gained/lost, just endlessly shifting its form?

Notice what happens when the word “universe” is brought in. It creates a vast imagined space, a container, a “thing” out there. But is there such a thing in direct experience?
The lava lamp metaphor points not to something out there, but to what’s already appearing — the ever-changing display of colour, sensation, sound, thought… no fixed center, no separation, nothing added or taken away. Just this, shifting, flowing, happening — and no “someone” behind it making it go.
No need for “the universe” as a backdrop — that, too, is just an idea.
Isn’t it all closer than close? And without edges?

I think you’re getting at the fact that seeing happens in the eyes, and is perceived quite locally.

Almost :) Seeing happens, but even “in the eyes” is a story — because can you actually find eyes in the experience of seeing? Or “eyes” are just a mental image added – a memory of the image that’s seen in a mirror, remembered as a concept?
All of this points to one question that can be surprisingly powerful if you let it simmer:
Where is experience happening?
Not as an answer — not “in the brain” or “in the world.” Just look. Without reaching for a thought — where?
Let this keep unfolding. You’re not far. You’re not behind. You’re right in the middle of the seeing. And even if “Lanie” seems to flicker in and out — the looking is here. Stay with that. Let the dust settle.
Always happy to keep walking with you if it’s helpful.
Love
Rali

[LanieRO]

Hi Rali!

Sorry - this one got kinda long again! :)

“I believe it, but I can’t always see it.” And you nailed it when you said belief and DE are opposites.
It’s worth asking: what exactly is the difference between belief and seeing? How do you know when you’re believing something rather than directly seeing it?

That’s an awesome question, and one that I’ve asked myself quite a lot over the last couple of months. You often ask questions and I can usually find a pretty good answer in the mind and convince myself that that is what I saw. Our species is notorious in our ability to suggest visual memories to one another.

I think genuinely it feels different. Finding something conceptually located in the mind has a sensation to it - I can feel the mind solving the puzzle, and often hear verbal reasoning going on in the background and conceptually see the thoughts appearing. Seeing doesn’t have those - there’s no talking and no visualization (not ironically, as I’m seeing a thing that isn’t).

I just re-read your post where you had an answer of “belief requires a subtle ‘me’” and that resonates. That’s a lot more simple and eloquent than what I tried to say. I like that a lot and can see that that is true. When I look for no-self “out there” that is believing that I am “here”, doing the looking. It’s when it turns around that it can be seen.

At which point is there a decision to snap out? Is there one that makes that decision or does it simply happen, effortlessly? Is it different from being sucked into mind movies/ getting lost in thought? Is there a believer? If there is nobody to believe, is ”believing in the story” actually happening or is it a story about “believing in the story”?
So look... What is it? What is it that is currently identified with thoughts?
What is it that is standing apart from thought and has the ability to disregard them or believe them?
What do thoughts happen to?
Is there someone outside of thoughts, being identified with them?

This is clear for me- that no decision to “snap out” of the movie is made - getting lost in the story and being very present in the actual surroundings happen by themselves. With movies or with thoughts, it’s the same.

Are you asking that when I’m fully sucked into a movie (or thoughts) is there a part of me that is believing the story? Yeah, I suppose I do believe it. And yes, I suppose that is a subtle identification of a self believing in something else.

I brought some family members to mind and a bunch of opinions came up. I asked “who agrees with these opinions” and after a while, the dust settled and it became clear that there’s a label saying that these are “my” opinions and “I” agree with them - it’s just an assumption tacked onto an opinion.

It seems too that opinions and beliefs are a bit more momentary than I had believed too. Like they arise in the moment, but when they disappear, they’re gone. Similar opinions might come up often due to habits of mind, but it’s actually impossible to compare yesterday’s opinion of my sister with today’s opinion of her and saying that they’re the same opinion that I always have would be just another label attached to something that’s impossible to actually see.

Thoughts happen to me insofar as they occur in this specific brain.But yeah, I also do feel identified with it. Even in trying to see through thought, I feel like it’s me looking, me working out where they are coming from and how they are attached and what has its hooks in the thought. There’s a bit of an emotional reaction to it too, which suggests identification with the process.

Using the analogy with a movie a bit differently... Watch how sequencing of thoughts creates the illusion of a separate “I.” It's like a film: a rapid series of still frames creates the illusion of continuous motion. In the same way, a rapid succession of thoughts — about “me,” about “what I just did,” about “what I need to figure out next” — gives rise to the sense of a continuous, personal experiencer.
But what happens when the frame rate slows down?

Yeah… that continuity of self story is a label on top of experience. The story is necessary to contain all of the various snippets of experience inside a separate self - stories like personal growth, or setbacks, or commitment. Without a self, there is only this moment. There is only this moment anyway, but the story is needed to maintain the sense of self.

Without the overlay of constant mental narration, the illusion of continuity — and the “I” at the center of it — begins to fade. There’s just this. Sensation, thought, sound, color… already happening, already complete.
So a good question to sit with might be:
Is there an observer of the illusion?
Or is even that just more movement — more subtle content arising in experience — with no one behind it, no one inside it, no one apart from it?

No one inside it, no one apart from it.

an you see distance? Or is the “tree over there” simply arising here, as part of this immediate visual field?
And same goes for “Lanie.” Does Lanie exist anywhere in what’s showing up now? Or is the idea of “Lanie” just another ripple appearing (another empty icon), like colour, like sound, like the story of “out there”?

Distance and Lanie are both concepts.

Notice what happens when the word “universe” is brought in. It creates a vast imagined space, a container, a “thing” out there. But is there such a thing in direct experience?

Nope, definitely not.

No need for “the universe” as a backdrop — that, too, is just an idea.
Isn’t it all closer than close? And without edges?

Yeah, I like this. Sometimes it feels like this and then it fades. It’s never a super strong feeling, but I can sense it, and lately, I’ve been sensing it more often. Hoping it grows stronger - I have a sense that it will, in time.

an you actually find eyes in the experience of seeing? Or “eyes” are just a mental image added – a memory of the image that’s seen in a mirror, remembered as a concept?
All of this points to one question that can be surprisingly powerful if you let it simmer:
Where is experience happening?

I think I do feel eyes in the experience of seeing - right now, my eyes are tired and a bit dry and that’s part of my DE. There is a bit of illusion with it - I almost never notice myself blink, for example - but it still feels eye centred. The muscles associated with my eyes are a bit tired and my eyes are what reacts if I look at the light.

I think maybe experience is happening in the brain? I can see how that’s also a concept and potentially an illusion but that’s where it feels like.

I can’t really do things ike feel my feet from my feet. I look down on them from my brain-tower and they tell me they’re there. I can feel a fair bit from my chest and belly though, and that occasionally feels like the centre of experience, although the default is the head.

[poppyseed]

Hi Lanie,
Notice how the thought “I can’t see no-self right now” assumes there’s someone here who either sees or doesn’t. Can you find that one? In direct experience?

But yeah, I also do feel identified with it. Even in trying to see through thought, I feel like it’s me looking, me working out where they are coming from and how they are attached and what has its hooks in the thought. There’s a bit of an emotional reaction to it too, which suggests identification with the process.

You feel like it is you looking??? How exactly do you feel that – what is the sensation of "you looking" exactly? Tightness? Elevated heart rate? What you would describe are sensations, not proof for a self. Just because there is an extra label “Lanie” on top of these labels doesn’t bring Lanie into existence.
If it’s “you” doing the looking — can you describe that “you” in direct experience?
Where is it located? What’s its shape, colour, texture, sound?
Is it warm, cool, heavy, sharp, fluffy, humming, blinking?
What exactly are its boundaries? Is it pulsing or still?
What is its height in centimetres?
Or… is it just another thought, tagging itself onto sensation and calling it “me”?
Go looking. Report back what you actually find — not the thoughts about it, but the raw stuff.
Let’s see what’s really there. :) If it is seems like or feels like, I don’t want to hear it – been there done that.

You can also do that... 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 bodily 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. For example:
Sitting on a chair,
typing,
breathing,
blinking,
hearing the clock,
listening to my thoughts (believing them)

(Again, watch what is happening in the body.)
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 the body?

There’s the feeling of tired eyes… yes. But can “eyes” be seen in seeing? Or is that label added to sensation and a remembered image?

What is the feeling of "tired eyes" exactly? Does the sensation announce in some way that is related to eyes or that is added by thought? Are there actual eyes in the sensation (not mental images)?
You say experience happens in the brain. Can the brain be found in experience? Is there a place where experience is happening, or is that idea just more thinking?
Is there someone “looking at thoughts”?
Or is that just another thought claiming ownership over what is already arising?
And this one’s worth sitting with a while:
Is there an observer of the illusion, or is that, too, just part of the illusion?
Keep looking! Don’t worry about “getting it” — just return again and again to what is actually here. Always closer than close. Please no bulk answers - I don't want a summary that has been chewed up by thought. I want a raw report for each question with actual descriptions (colour, sensation, taste, smell, or sound)
Love
Rali

[LanieRO]

Hi Rali,

Sorry - hit “submit” and it didn’t go through.

About bulk answers - some of your questions seem rhetorical and don’t seem to need a separate answer for each so I’m grouping them together (“Is it warm, cool, heavy, sharp, fluffy, humming, blinking?What exactly are its boundaries? Is it pulsing or still?”) Did you really want a separate answer for each question? I’m taking care to answer all the parts of the question but maybe I’m over-assuming that certain things are pointing in the same direction… Is this a chronic issue you’re having with my responses, or was it in particular responses?

Notice how the thought “I can’t see no-self right now” assumes there’s someone here who either sees or doesn’t. Can you find that one? In direct experience?

Nope. And I like the part that they both assume there’s someone who sees or doesn’t see.

You feel like it is you looking??? How exactly do you feel that – what is the sensation of "you looking" exactly? Tightness? Elevated heart rate? What you would describe are sensations, not proof for a self. Just because there is an extra label “Lanie” on top of these labels doesn’t bring Lanie into existence.
If it’s “you” doing the looking — can you describe that “you” in direct experience?
Where is it located? What’s its shape, colour, texture, sound?
Is it warm, cool, heavy, sharp, fluffy, humming, blinking?
What exactly are its boundaries? Is it pulsing or still?
What is its height in centimetres?
Or… is it just another thought, tagging itself onto sensation and calling it “me”?

I'm trying to explain that it feels like I am identified with thoughts - there's a reactivity there and a sense of “mine.” The sense doesn’t attach to anything and there no owner that can be found.

Obviously it’s none of the things you’ve described above.

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 the body? (for the DE activity with / without "I")

The second one felt actually much truer. When the labels of “I am doing” came before, it served to dull the sensation of separate experience and experiencer. When that’s dropped, the sensation is sensed much more fully. Without labels, it’s just experience and it’s immediate. The labels make it feel a bit further away and less detailed. The senses can notice less.

What is the feeling of "tired eyes" exactly? Does the sensation announce in some way that is related to eyes or that is added by thought? Are there actual eyes in the sensation (not mental images)?

There’s tightness around the eyes and a feeling of pressure right behind them.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean “does the sensation announce in some way that is related to eyes or that is added by thought”. My best guess…. It’s located at my eyes. There’s thought there too, and a mental image of eyes. Those are of course projected on top of the DE of tired eyes as a layer of interpretation.

I can see that seeing is coming from the direction of my eyeballs. I can feel tension in proximity of the seeing location.

You say experience happens in the brain. Can the brain be found in experience?

No.

[quoteIs there a place where experience is happening, or is that idea just more thinking? [/quote]

Experience is experienced in the body, through the doors of perception. Cold toes are experienced in the toes, tight eye muscles around the eyes, frustration as tightness in the heart centre. The labels don’t happen anywhere, but the DE is connected to the body.

The only (slight) exception to this is sometimes my hands will feel like they are in a position that they aren’t, like my brain loses its proprioceptive abilities while meditation. Or sometimes feelings in the nervous system transcend the body, like a sensation starting in the centre of my chest can go up and out and I can feel it in front of my throat, not actually at it. These are maybe, in a way, thoughts too - as the brain tries to map sensations onto its sense of the body, it creates a concept of the sense happening somewhere else and these occur along with mental images.

Is there someone “looking at thoughts”?
Or is that just another thought claiming ownership over what is already arising?

No one is watching thoughts; they just think themselves.

Is there an observer of the illusion, or is that, too, just part of the illusion?

I can’t find an observer in the illusion, so…

And losing the observer feels a lot losing the “I” in the exercise you had above. Losing the arena experience happens in makes the experience itself a lot closer and more intimate.

Have you seen the show Westworld? There are robots who are very life-like and they don’t know that they live in a theme park, and periodically, a robot will find out that it’s not real, which they always find disorienting. It feels a lot like that. There’s a sense of grief that maybe nothing here is “mine” including the “me” who owns it and a feeling of fear that I didn’t make myself or the things around me; they’re here for mysterious reasons far larger than me. There’s no control or action to be taken to make or fix or do be. Everything that I used to think was stable (family, relationships, money, education) is a story, a part of the illusion. It’s not me or mine. We’re all just floating in space.

[poppyseed]

Hi Lanie

About bulk answers - some of your questions seem rhetorical and don’t seem to need a separate answer for each so I’m grouping them together... Did you really want a separate answer for each question? I’m taking care to answer all the parts of the question but maybe I’m over-assuming that certain things are pointing in the same direction… Is this a chronic issue you’re having with my responses, or was it in particular responses?

So the purpose of multiple questions is to see things from different angles, do proper exploration. When you answer with a summary that indicates that you didn’t look and report, but answered through thinking. No matter how casual and similar the questions are – the more looking the better. So when you answer:

Obviously it’s none of the things you’ve described above.

I’m not sure that you spend time looking (experiencing the merits of looking) or you just dismissed the questions as absurd and not matching your experience. Because then you say :

I'm trying to explain that it feels like I am identified with thoughts - there's a reactivity there and a sense of “mine.”

I want to know what exactly do you call “I” if it is “none of the things I described”. Is the ‘I” the reactivity? Is “I” something like a “soul” – invisible, untouchable, silent, tasteless, odourless? What makes that different from a belief (religious or whatever)? How exactly do you know it is there, or is it assumed? Yes, there are sensations and thoughts about how “this feels like mine”, but none of these is proof for an existence of an entity (formless or with form), if you have to be “scientific” about it. ALL you have is seeing, smelling, tasting, hearing, and feeling. What is not experienced directly is a thought/description (right or wrong) of these. So let’s investigate which descriptions are right and which are wrong of what is really here…
You say:

I can see that seeing is coming from the direction of my eyeballs. I can feel tension in proximity of the seeing location.

Does seeing come from a sensation (e.g. tension)? Or does seeing come from a mental image (of eyeballs)? We investigated that before and you said:

Sight/colour just appears and isn’t from direct sensation. Mental images are also not from sensations; they’re conditioned from images I’ve seen.

So what changed?
Let’s slow that down. How do you know that seeing comes from the “direction of eyeballs”?
Is it something you see directly, or something you think about seeing? Do you see your eyes doing the seeing? Do you see the border (eyeballs) where the image of the seen crosses and it is seen?

In direct experience, can you find a “source” of seeing? (Revisit the blackness exercise)
Is there an actual arrow of perception, pointing from a location (like the eyeballs) to the seen?
Or is that just a conceptual overlay — a subtle mental image added on top of the seeing?
If the eyes are closed — is the “blackness” seen still “coming from” the eyes (even though there is still tension but now named "closed eyes")?
If something appears in peripheral vision, does the direction shift?
If seeing was happening from the eyes — where exactly, within the eyes, does that seeing begin?
Can any of that be found without thought?
Or is there just seeing… happening… without a center or source?
Please answer these individually :)
Let the idea of "direction" rest and simply notice what’s here when there’s just the seen — colour, shape, light, motion — with no need for a “viewer” or a direction of viewing.
That may sound subtle, but it’s often in those quiet assumptions that the illusion persists.
Sit with it and see what’s actually here.

Experience is experienced in the body, through the doors of perception. Cold toes are experienced in the toes, tight eye muscles around the eyes, frustration as tightness in the heart centre. The labels don’t happen anywhere, but the DE is connected to the body.

How is this known exactly?? Is the body a container of a kind or simply a label for location-less sensations and colour? Please revisit the "body" investigations
You mention sensations in the “toes” or “eyes.” But can a toe actually be found in the sensation of cold? Or is it just sensation + label + mental image = “my toe is cold”?
Likewise, is the tension ( “around the eyes”) announcing it’s from ‘eyes,’ or is “eyes” simply the name thought adds on top? Does that tightness contain any label?
Does it speak and announce “eyes,” or “mine,” or “Lanie”?
Or is all of that added after the fact, as interpretation?
Now try this… For something to have a location, there has to be a reference point. How is that reference point actually known? Is it known through a sensation?
Then… where is that sensation located? What determines its “location”?
Is there an internal map that marks out "left/right," "in front/behind," "from here to there"?
What’s it drawn on? What is it that orients the body map?
Where is the center that “below of” and “above of” arise from?
Can you find that spot in direct experience, or is it just assumed?

Look at the room. Drop any thoughts about eyes, head, body, or space, just stay with the raw seeing: colour, shape, light, movement. Now look:
Where is the left edge of the field of vision?
Where is the right edge?
Left according to what?
What is that “reference point” measured from?
Is it directly experienced or assumed?
If “eyes” are a reference point… can they be found in the act of seeing itself (eyes seeing eyes)?
Or are they a remembered image (a thought appearing after the seeing) explaining and organizing what’s already happening?
Without the label “eyes,” is there any point at all?
Or is the whole visual field just seamlessly here?

This can point right into the heart of the illusion — the subtle, unexamined sense of a “me” at the center of perception, around which everything is organized.
What happens when you look for that center (not as a mental image or idea, but as an actual thing) and find nothing solid?

Keep looking.

Everything that I used to think was stable (family, relationships, money, education) is a story, a part of the illusion. It’s not me or mine. We’re all just floating in space.

That sense of loss is completely valid. Even though the “me” was never real, it held together a world of love, effort, identity, purpose. When that structure starts to fall, it’s not unusual for grief, fear, or even panic to appear. Not because something was lost - it's still there exactly the same - but because the illusion was so intimately woven into how life was lived. There never was a “self” in the first place, but when the established patterns of a life are disturbed, thought cannot adapt to all of this in an instant, simply by revising all of our old beliefs. Much of the old organisation lingers on, in the guise of a world that we continue to experience and in habitual patterns of thought and activity that our surroundings continue to elicit. That very much applies to seeing the illusion of an “I” - it’s quite a sudden change with a relatively long process of adapting to this change. The recognition of no self is just the beginning of seeing life and “yourself” in a new light. It takes time to clean up all old beliefs and conditioning.

There’s no need to rush out of that grief. Let it be here, too. Let it speak, dissolve, reappear — it’s just another movement in the lava lamp. And it doesn’t need a self to be felt.
And gently, when it feels okay: notice whether anything is actually floating in space. Or is even that just a thought, an image, a poetic echo? What is “space” in direct experience? Is it actually a vast container we’re floating in? Or is that just another story, another layer of concept?
Without story — is anything missing right now?

Love
Rali

[LanieRO]

Hi Rali,

Sorry for the delay - busy wrapping things up at work for Christmas and feeling really tired.

Everything with non-duality seems really really HARD this week! Super frustrating and overwhelming, but in ways that seem to not have a very good explanation, like my body is reacting very defensively and not liking it.

On a better note, visually things are often seeming a bit psychedelic-y - like the world is rushing at me, and briefly, things turned oddly 2D today for a minute before going back to their regular dimensions. And I’ve had quite a lot of what feels like emotional cleansing and releases of bad energy. Not sure if this is related or I’m just oversharing.

Is the ‘I” the reactivity? Is “I” something like a “soul” – invisible, untouchable, silent, tasteless, odourless? What makes that different from a belief (religious or whatever)? How exactly do you know it is there, or is it assumed?

I don’t think the I is the reactivity - I think there’s some internal identification with something, causing reactivity. It doesn’t mean there’s an I there; just some part of me is holding on to something there. I think a belief in I is quite like a religious belief.

Does seeing come from a sensation (e.g. tension)? Or does seeing come from a mental image (of eyeballs)?

I think seeing might be a type of sensation, like the sensations of colour, movement, light.

So what changed?
Let’s slow that down. How do you know that seeing comes from the “direction of eyeballs”?
Is it something you see directly, or something you think about seeing? Do you see your eyes doing the seeing? Do you see the border (eyeballs) where the image of the seen crosses and it is seen?

It comes from an actual perspective - what comes into the visual field is from the height and location of eyes, and not from the perspective and height of say, my knees.

Maybe what you’re saying here is that there’s also an aspect of concept applied to this - it relies on a concept of the body to come to this conclusion. The DE is actually outside of that.

In direct experience, can you find a “source” of seeing? (Revisit the blackness exercise)
Is there an actual arrow of perception, pointing from a location (like the eyeballs) to the seen?
Or is that just a conceptual overlay — a subtle mental image added on top of the seeing?

No - seeing just appears. When thoughts about seeing are dropped, it just appears in whatever all of this is appearing in.

If the eyes are closed — is the “blackness” seen still “coming from” the eyes (even though there is still tension but now named "closed eyes")?

If the eyes are closed everything disappears from the visual field (except for some eye-closed star burst things, which still come from the direction of eyes). The blackness doesn’t seem to be coming from anywhere. It’s just what’s there when there’s no light or form.

If something appears in peripheral vision, does the direction shift?

Yes, sometimes.

(Of the eyes? That’s what I thought you meant when I wrote this as your last question was about eyes)

If seeing was happening from the eyes — where exactly, within the eyes, does that seeing begin?

The retina.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here… is it where perception happens? If that’s the case, I don’t think it has a location. Visual information just appears in consciousness.

Can any of that be found without thought?
Or is there just seeing… happening… without a center or source?

I think thought is responsible for the feeling that it appears at the eyes. Perception is just appearing. I’m not sure about “without a center or a source” but I can see how seeing is just appearing.

How is this known exactly?? Is the body a container of a kind or simply a label for location-less sensations and colour?

I really don’t know. It seems more likely that my body is a container than that all seeing is floating around the void somewhere, but I really don’t know.

But can a toe actually be found in the sensation of cold? Or is it just sensation + label + mental image = “my toe is cold”?

Yeah, I think maybe it is labels and sensations are just appearing and disappearing, relying on assumptions of anatomy.

is the tension ( “around the eyes”) announcing it’s from ‘eyes,’ or is “eyes” simply the name thought adds on top? Does that tightness contain any label?
Does it speak and announce “eyes,” or “mine,” or “Lanie”?
Or is all of that added after the fact, as interpretation?

Eyes is a name thought adds on top. I suppose I’m very used to locating anatomically where a sensation is coming from, but that’s just a thought.

Tightness is a label for a sensation.

It doesn’t announce “mine” or say anything of the sort.

Now try this… For something to have a location, there has to be a reference point. How is that reference point actually known? Is it known through a sensation?
Then… where is that sensation located? What determines its “location”?
Is there an internal map that marks out "left/right," "in front/behind," "from here to there"?
What’s it drawn on? What is it that orients the body map?
Where is the center that “below of” and “above of” arise from?
Can you find that spot in direct experience, or is it just assumed?

Sensations don’t actually have reference points; those are added through thoughts.
I have no idea where sensations are located. I think sometimes, if I get a sudden odd pain, I have to move near the area where I think it might be to try and locate the pain because it’s not actually obvious. There’s no map or left and right or anything. I’m reminded of lying in bed at night and getting an itch and not being able to figure out where it is. The physical sensation spot isn’t in DE; it is assumed.

Where is the left edge of the field of vision?
Where is the right edge?
Left according to what?
What is that “reference point” measured from?
Is it directly experienced or assumed?

On the left and right, respectively, and the reference point would be my nose… I’m sure that’s not the answer you’re looking for but I have no idea what is!

If “eyes” are a reference point… can they be found in the act of seeing itself (eyes seeing eyes)?
Or are they a remembered image (a thought appearing after the seeing) explaining and organizing what’s already happening?
Without the label “eyes,” is there any point at all?
Or is the whole visual field just seamlessly here?

Eyes are not part of the DE of seeing and they are a concept. And the visual field is just here.

notice whether anything is actually floating in space. Or is even that just a thought, an image, a poetic echo? What is “space” in direct experience? Is it actually a vast container we’re floating in? Or is that just another story, another layer of concept?
Without story — is anything missing right now?

I can’t think of a better word to describe the way things seem to just appear and disappear than floating in space. Just a concept or a descriptor for what is happening.

How can anything be missing without a story?

[poppyseed]

Hi Lanie,
It’s okay to feel like things are hard or cloudy sometimes — that’s part of the process. Let it be exactly as it is. No need to resist or figure it out right now.
But let's look again, simply.
You said seeing comes from the direction of the eyes… but in direct experience, can you see eyes seeing?
Can you find the retina in the act of seeing itself? Can you see your retina?
Or is that just a thought — a memory, a scientific explanation — coming after the seeing?
Look now ... without the word “retina”, what’s actually happening? There are sensations (e.g. labelled “eye muscles moving”, “opening and closing of eyelids”) but do you see any actual arrows pointing to the imagery/the seen/colour? Just because they (colour and sensation) happen simultaneously is no proof for causality. Also "cause and effect" are thought content about/layered on top of what is already here. Does sensation cause colour? Does colour cause sensation? LOOK! (don't think) Drop the science, the learned knowledge, the aquired experience, and work with just what you have for sure - seeing_hearing_smelling_tasting_feeling - inseparable / separated only by the DE labels.
Where is “seeing” starting from? Is there any location at all, or just... this/seeing, happening without source?
You say that even with eyes closed the ”star burst things still come from the direction of eyes”. What direction is that with eyes closed? All you see in that moment is “the star bursts” … Where do you see the eyes and direction/location (or that is added by thought/mental images)? You seem to be confusing mental images with real seeing. The biggest difference between mental images and seeing is that real seeing does not disappear when you stop thinking about it. What remains when you stop thinking about where the seeing is coming from is the seen :)

Is there any sensation, colour in DE that tells you “This is the origin of sight — this is where it begins”? (not what you think they say, but what they actually show - e.g. you see the actual eyes (not mental images) doing seeing - can an eye split itself into an "eye" and "not the eye" in order to see itself???)
If not, then that sense of direction — “from the eyes,” “from my body” — is just a thought, isn’t it?
A story added after the fact.
You add:

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here… is it where perception happens? If that’s the case, I don’t think it has a location. Visual information just appears in consciousness.

All you have is perception – seeing, hearing… The rest, the scientific knowledge, the theories and explanations of how things are happening is added by thought. And thought is not reality no matter how reasonable it sounds. Even DE labels are an approximation at best - icons on your desktop layered over 0's and 1's.

On the left and right, respectively, and the reference point would be my nose… I’m sure that’s not the answer you’re looking for but I have no idea what is!

Can you find the nose in direct seeing?
Is “left” and “right” experienced because there’s a nose dividing the visual field? Or is that image of a nose just another thought, a remembered concept laid over the top?
In DE, you see just dynamic colour (not colours). Thought splits colour/seeing/the seen into multiple colours, shapes, things with borders (left or right). Furthermore, thoughts about thoughts add that the “nose” is yours and this is where you are (behind the nose). Do you see that?
Let’s work with an example…
Look at this picture of trees

When looking at this picture, thought automatically divides and labels colour/the seen into many different colours (blue, green, brown), then further names those colours into specific objects (trees, sky, grass…). Further, it adds space between the trees, to the left or to the right of them...
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?

So take a moment, and just drop all of that (the container, the reference points, even “the body.”)
What’s left?
Isn’t it just this — the seen — here, all at once, with no center, no edge, no direction?
Love
Rali

[LanieRO]

Hi Rali,

This was kind of a fun one to sit with the visual sense for a bit! Interesting to try and get under the layer of interpretation with it.

You said seeing comes from the direction of the eyes… but in direct experience, can you see eyes seeing?
Can you find the retina in the act of seeing itself? Can you see your retina?
Or is that just a thought — a memory, a scientific explanation — coming after the seeing?

I can’t see seeing. Visual information is just appearing. The retinas/scientific explanation isn’t part of the DE.

Look now ... without the word “retina”, what’s actually happening? There are sensations (e.g. labelled “eye muscles moving”, “opening and closing of eyelids”) but do you see any actual arrows pointing to the imagery/the seen/colour?

There is just the seen, just visual information appearing.

Does sensation cause colour? Does colour cause sensation?

Sensation doesn’t cause colour. I suppose colour can cause sensation, if there’s a reaction to it in the body.

Where is “seeing” starting from? Is there any location at all, or just... this/seeing, happening without source?

Seeing just appears, without source.

All you see in that moment is “the star bursts” … Where do you see the eyes and direction/location (or that is added by thought/mental images)?

Hmm, yeah, good point. You’re right; the star bursts just appear in consciousness too and the DE is not that they are directly coming from the eyes. LIke all visual information, it’s just there.

Is there any sensation, colour in DE that tells you “This is the origin of sight — this is where it begins”? (not what you think they say, but what they actually show - e.g. you see the actual eyes (not mental images) doing seeing - can an eye split itself into an "eye" and "not the eye" in order to see itself???)
If not, then that sense of direction — “from the eyes,” “from my body” — is just a thought, isn’t it?

There’s no DE that says where sight comes from. And the sense of it coming from the eyes is interpretation.

Can you find the nose in direct seeing? Is “left” and “right” experienced because there’s a nose dividing the visual field? Or is that image of a nose just another thought, a remembered concept laid over the top?

I can see my nose, yes (can’t you?) I suppose it’s not the focal point of my visula experience, which might be your point.

Is left and right a thought? Perhaps I stitch left and right together after the fact to create a mental image in a panorama.

In DE, you see just dynamic colour (not colours). Thought splits colour/seeing/the seen into multiple colours, shapes, things with borders (left or right). Furthermore, thoughts about thoughts add that the “nose” is yours and this is where you are (behind the nose). Do you see that?

Yeah. There is just colour. I can’t see texture or distance or shadow; those are only variations in colour that I’m adding interpretation to. The borders between objects are made of colour.

Some confusion about left and right… I think it means it doesn’t matter where I’m looking but that information enters the visual sense and adding the thought of left and right is just a concept. Like if i glance to the left side of the room and then the right side of the room, my brain reorganizes it and puts it together into a coherent room, even though that was too separate glances, andtoo separate moments of DE, and the coherent room is not found in DE. Is that what you’re getting at?

When looking at this picture, thought automatically divides and labels colour/the seen into many different colours (blue, green, brown), then further names those colours into specific objects (trees, sky, grass…). Further, it adds space between the trees, to the left or to the right of them...
IGNORE ALL object labels and colour labels:-
Are there many colours? Or is there simply colour?

Hmm. Yeah, 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?

Everything is colour through the visual sense. There is no end to colour.

I’m not so sure about the actual dividing line between colours though. I can see how the leaves get thinner on the tree and there’s more green and blue mixed together, but there still seems to be a border of sorts between the colours. I can also see how the green of a leaf is not the same green throughout and how the intensity shifts. But there does seem to be a sort of border still.

What’s left?
Isn’t it just this — the seen — here, all at once, with no center, no edge, no direction?

Umm, I think so. I’m not sure what’s meant by no centre, edge, or direction, but probably?

[poppyseed]

Hey Lanie
Great looking — really! And yes, it can be kind of fun to sit with seeing like this, especially when things start to loosen.
Let’s keep it super simple for a second…

I suppose colour can cause sensation, if there’s a reaction to it in the body.

Is that DE or another (scientific) explanation? There are seeing and sensations, but look, are they even separate? Close your eyes and focus on your breathing. Now open your eyes – the “room” appears. Can you see a border where seeing ends and sensation begins, or that border is a mental construct? Just because we have DE labels doesn’t mean that there are inherently existing senses. (remember the video about McGurk effect, or taste affected when smell is affected) These dependencies just show that there are no inherent senses – they are artificially created by thought, which tries to find causes and effects after the initial labelling. In DE all there is just this – inseparable, whole, indescribable.

You’re right; the star bursts just appear in consciousness too

How is it known that the “star bursts” appear in consciousness? Don’t they just appear? Do you see an entity – a container, a bubble or anything else – that contains experience?
Where is colour happening?
Is it in something? Floating on something?
Or is it just… colour, without location, without container? If you drop the container, what happens to edges, and center?

I can see my nose, yes (can’t you?) I suppose it’s not the focal point of my visual experience, which might be your point.

I’m not so sure about the actual dividing line between colours though. I can see how the leaves get thinner on the tree and there’s more green and blue mixed together, but there still seems to be a border of sorts between the colours. I can also see how the green of a leaf is not the same green throughout and how the intensity shifts. But there does seem to be a sort of border still.

Remember the lava lamp?
There aren’t things in the lava lamp. There’s just formless substance, endlessly shifting shape. It’s not that one blob ends and another begins. There’s only movement, a dance of colours and curves with no fixed parts, no edges, no separation.
Now look again at the seen
Are there really objects and gaps between them?
Or is it just this lava lamp of colour — flowing, blending, re-forming?
When you say “tree” or “sky” or “border,” or “nose” for that matter can you actually find those — or are those just thoughts about what’s appearing?
Where in DE is the split between "thing" and "not-thing"?
See how thought creates things out of nothing. Once you have “things”, you have borders, left or right of them, etc. But can you find a line between the leaf and the sky? can you cut the bird from the sky? Or is there just a gradient — a subtle change in colour?
Is that change itself a boundary?
In direct experience, all of that is just shifting colour, not discrete objects with real boundaries. So if you drop the commentary, where do the borders go? Just colour… and more colour… shifting, seamless, undivided.
What happens to left or right if all you have is just colour? Is there anything in what’s seen that tells you “this is the left side” or “right side”?
Where is the dividing line between left and right?

Look right now, in direct experience with your eyes open:
Do you see a nose? What exactly is seen? Describe it only in terms of colour, sensation.
Can you see “your nose”? Or is there just a seeming “shape or shadow”, a variation in colour?
Does that shadow say “nose” in DE? Or is that label pasted on afterward?

I’m not saying that seeing should change. I’m not saying that you should drop concepts of left and right and never use them again. All you have to do is see them as empty, as just labels, as icons on your desktop – useful but empty - which are happening right now.
Just see what’s here.

One more thing:

Everything is colour through the visual sense.

Is the colour coming “through the visual sense (eyes)” or is colour simply here? There just... the seen…already here.
You can’t even say that colour is appearing, colour is always here, just changing. Even black is colour, not the lack of it :)

And finally:

Umm, I think so. I’m not sure what’s meant by no centre, edge, or direction, but probably?

Just try this…
Look at something through the window. Then keep on turning your head to the left – colour doesn’t stop. Keep going still to the left until you see the initial view. Did colour stop? Where is the edge, where is the center? Yeah thought narrated the whole time and made it dependent on your head, but in DE, was there a moment with no colour? With eyes closed this should be very easy to see – star bursts everywhere :)

Love
Rali

[LanieRO]

Hi Rali,

(Is colour a sensation)
Is that DE or another (scientific) explanation? There are seeing and sensations, but look, are they even separate? Close your eyes and focus on your breathing. Now open your eyes – the “room” appears. Can you see a border where seeing ends and sensation begins, or that border is a mental construct?

Hmm… I guess seeing and sensations might not be separate. Any “sensation” to visual informationin the body that might be an emotional reaction would be based on thoughts.

I was thinking of seeing happening outside the body, but I suppose it doesn’t. It happens in the same space as “closer” sensations, like touch. Thinking of seeing as “out there” is a concept. It happens in the same intimate space as everything else.

How is it known that the “star bursts” appear in consciousness? Don’t they just appear? Do you see an entity – a container, a bubble or anything else – that contains experience?
Where is colour happening?
Is it in something? Floating on something?
Or is it just… colour, without location, without container? If you drop the container, what happens to edges, and center?

I think I’m still imagining my mind as a stage on which all these things appear… I’m not meaning to imagine it this way, but it just seems to be the default. So starbursts just appear, colours just appear. There’s no container.

It feels really quite frightening to try and let go of the container in which it all appears. It feels bit like being a baby. There’s just sensation; that’s all there is, and the sensations are the entire world.

Remember the lava lamp?
There aren’t things in the lava lamp. There’s just formless substance, endlessly shifting shape. It’s not that one blob ends and another begins. There’s only movement, a dance of colours and curves with no fixed parts, no edges, no separation.
Now look again at the seen
Are there really objects and gaps between them?
Or is it just this lava lamp of colour — flowing, blending, re-forming?

I’m still struggling here. The mind really wants to see things as discrete items and to understand tree / sky / bird as independent objects. That habitual interpretation is strong, and that drive to correctly identify the objects around me feels deeply linked to an evolutionary survival drive.

I’m trying to look at the world like it’s a 2D painting with colours splashed on the canvas in various patterns… is that the right path? And it’s not really flowing, bending, and re-forming for me.

When you say “tree” or “sky” or “border,” or “nose” for that matter can you actually find those — or are those just thoughts about what’s appearing?
Where in DE is the split between "thing" and "not-thing"?

Tree and sky would just be labels.

There is no split between thing and not-thing in DE. Is the sky a thing? In DE there is just sensation - the sensation of colours of the sky. There’s no difference in DE as even emptiness has colour (and the emptiness is a concept).

But can you find a line between the leaf and the sky? can you cut the bird from the sky? Or is there just a gradient — a subtle change in colour?
Is that change itself a boundary?

I’m not really sure here. The change in colour from green to blue isn’t that subtle to me and I’m quite used to considering that a boundary. Admittedly, the concept of discrete objects adds to that.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with cutting the bird from the sky. The bird is moving, the bird might land on the ground or a tree and have a different background. I can’t quite blend the bird and the sky into the lava lamp.

So if you drop the commentary, where do the borders go? Just colour… and more colour… shifting, seamless, undivided.
What happens to left or right if all you have is just colour? Is there anything in what’s seen that tells you “this is the left side” or “right side”?
Where is the dividing line between left and right?

I guess the borders between things we see are thoughts.

For left vs right, it’s always relative to other objects; there is no dividing line between left and right. I think this still makes sense if we’re seeing just colour instead of objects. It is still a label, but the bird being to the left of the tree (or brown blob to the left of the green blob) is still how it would be perceived in DE (minus the labelling, of course). But we can still perceive the relative order of colours and while left/right is a concept, I can’t see how it is not relevant in this way of seeing.

Do you see a nose? What exactly is seen? Describe it only in terms of colour, sensation.
Can you see “your nose”? Or is there just a seeming “shape or shadow”, a variation in colour?
Does that shadow say “nose” in DE? Or is that label pasted on afterward?

There’s clearly a lot of interpretation on here. I can see an indistinct blob that is roughly the colour of the rest of my skin and i take it to be my nose. It just seems to be a nose but that’s not DE.

Is the colour coming “through the visual sense (eyes)” or is colour simply here?

I think colour is simply here.

Look at something through the window. Then keep on turning your head to the left – colour doesn’t stop. Keep going still to the left until you see the initial view. Did colour stop? Where is the edge, where is the center? Yeah thought narrated the whole time and made it dependent on your head, but in DE, was there a moment with no colour? With eyes closed this should be very easy to see – star bursts everywhere :)

Colour doesn’t stop. Is that what you mean by no edge or center?

I would describe it as wherever I’m currently looking has a centre and an edge (what is focused on and the edges of peripheral vision) but what is viewable clearly extends for ever without a centre or an edge. Whatever is in DE at this exact moment seems to clearly have a centre and an edge.

[poppyseed]

Hey Lanie,
Let’s revisit something really important, because I feel like this keeps slipping sideways a bit:
You don’t need to change what’s appearing.
You don’t need to see 2D, or psychedelic, or lava lamp-y, or “flat.”
That’s just another expectation.
What we’re exploring is not about altering perception.
It’s about seeing that the labels applied after the fact are empty.
You know that example with icons on a desktop? Let’s actually unpack that again — not just as a metaphor, but as a real pointer.
You’re sitting at your computer. There’s a trash can icon. You don’t freak out about it — you don’t think it’s an actual trash bin sitting inside your laptop. You know it’s just a symbolic label pointing to something functional.
You can use it. There is a functionality to it, but you don’t believe in its physical solidity.
Same with “tree,” “sky,” “bird,” “nose, "brain", "body",” “left,” “me.” You can call it functionality, evolution, mistery, or self-oragnisation - it doesn't matter as none of them are really true - the point is that you can't change the experience, only the story is optional.
The problem isn’t using these labels — it’s believing in their independent, inherent existence - that there is such a thing as a bird. Even physics tells us that everything is atoms (particles) taking different configurations - just because some particles stick together for longer doesn't make them a thing on its own. It’s mistaking the icon for the thing. And that’s what gives rise to craving and aversion. To effort. Struggle. Control.When we believe the icon is real, we want it a certain way. We defend it. We react to it. It becomes a story about my bird, my feelings about it, my decisions and actions following these feelings, etc. Do you see how the story spins out of control in zero time, even though this whole time it was actually about a bunch of atoms that got stuck together for a while :)?
So, when a "bird" is just a floating label, a convenient pointer — we can still speak, think, and act, without the grip. No need to drop the word “bird” — just drop the belief that there’s a real, solid thing behind it.
Nothing needs to change in the way things look.
What shifts is how deeply they’re believed.
Look now — can you see the “tree” without the word “tree”?
Can you see colour, shape, movement — all arising on their own — before the label lands?
That’s it. That’s the space we’re pointing to.
Everything else is just commentary.

Love
Rali

[LanieRO]

Hi Rali,

This was easier and had some really helpful pointers.

You know that example with icons on a desktop?

Thanks for explaining that one more fully. I sort of used to get the direction you were pointing at but wasn’t really following the metaphor, so that adds clarity.

I think what I’m hearing is continue separating DE and the story and label. The story and the label are useful, and not necessarily wrong but the direction to head in is in the DE. So if there’s a bird - the process is NOT wondering what type of bird it is, and why it’s here this time of year and what it might be hunting or is hunting it. It’s the blur of colour against the sky, the sounds. Maybe that’s a bad example too.

It feels like there’s two types of unwinding happening at the same time. One is unwinding of the self, and realizing I’m not here in the way I had assumed that I was. The other is the unwinding of the world and realizing others, objects, colours, and concepts are not here in the way I thought they were, or interacted with in the way I assumed. There’s no self and also no other.

Do you see how the story spins out of control in zero time, even though this whole time it was actually about a bunch of atoms that got stuck together for a while :)?

Yeah, I think I do. The DE of “sweater” might be warm, soft, loose, blue, itchy. When it’s “my sweater” there’s more stories about “careful not to spill” “how do i wash this?” “this was expensive” “is it pilling” and “does this make me look fat.” Once the stories come in there can be a lot of them.

I think with “bird” too there can be a sense of ownership to the stories. I have a tendency to authoritatively declare what kind of bird that is, what it eats, where it nests, and other trivia. I’m really not sure how true any of my “facts” are or remember where they came from (or if I made them up and forgot) but tend to be quite defensive if someone doesn’t entirely agree.

I think labelling is like awareness of awareness, which isn’t actually direct experience. You stand back from the moment and describe and evaluate it.

can you see the “tree” without the word “tree”?
Can you see colour, shape, movement — all arising on their own — before the label lands?

Hmm. Yeah, I think so. I’m looking around right now and nothing looks weird and there are no colours running into each other, but I can look at the things and colours around me and be in that space before thought arrives.