The Gate

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
i understand this to be a non conceptual claim about the nature of our reality: that there is secretly no one here, sometimes described as nothing happening to no one, or everything is a happening, but no dividing lines; but that second one feels like it sneaks in a self in my opinion. like a connected self.

What are you looking for at LU?
Definitely at least hoping for partial alleviation of suffering, and i think the no self realization could help a lot with that. A year ago i had the personal, intuitively felt insight that thought had a definite defensive component to it that was hidden under the content. The problem is the sense of there being a suffering me has for sure never gone away, and if anything thoughts are much more physically/emotionally uncomfortable now than they were before. I’m hoping that undermining core beliefs in a self will dispel some of that. i’ve been told that my illusion/sense of control is keeping me suffering, and i have some expectation that LU can help with that.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
i don’t really know now. I’m hoping that any guide i do meet will be able to meet me where i’m at, which is:
-partially disillusioned,
-fairly emotionally raw (not unstable, just working through a lot of shadow material involuntarily)
-and pretty open to getting through my own illusions/held pains.

i’ve met a couple times with two pretty different guides; one was pretty direct on the whole “there is nothing happening; feels like a you doesn’t mean a you” and one was much more laid back and just inquired a lot into the particulars of what i was feeling. i think that some regularity focused just on investigating the illusion of self will maybe push past some of the sticking points, hence coming to LU, but if guided I don’t expect much of the guider

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
Right now i’ve been doing a semi random mix of breath meditation, some guide work/youtube awakening content, and spontaneously unfolding shadow work.

Ever since i had my insight about thoughts being defensive in nature, it’s like i got hit with a bat of my own shit that I didn’t even know was there. really just trying to cope which has been hard while caught in between illusion and “true nature”? i’m not seeking as much, but definitely still want to get somewhere other than here mentally. Willing to look into that <-

I talk to a guide once a week, watch a couple awakening youtube videos a day, and have been authentically semi curious recently about the nature of my reality— what is a thought actually, what does no self actually mean, what can i see and how can i see, etc.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self? 9

update, big mental change happened when I realized that it was possible that I was an English word/label/pronoun being unnecessarily added to every feeling and implied or at the start of most thoughts. I can say this has slightly quieted things, much struggle still remains though. What's also very unclear is what this leaves. I can still see stuff obviously, colors, scenes, people; what are other people? labeling them that doesn't feel totally right. what am I without the label I? it feels daunting, or like I don't want to look. Weird mess right?
if I could sum up: I still feel like a someone (maybe a being or a mass or amorphous thing) who wants to not have certain feelings, even perhaps unlabeled. is that real? will that go away? Is I more than just a label?

Hi there, I'm Jeff, happy to guide you. Please let me know if you're still interested, seems you've been waiting here for a while. Let me know and then we can get started.

Peace

J

Dear JRwever:

Actually, I have a question for you.

Can you describe why you are a "9" out of 10 in terms of your willingness to see "no-self"? Is it because you don't fully believe it will help you? You're scared of something? Please let me know.

J

Hi J,
Still interested, at least enough to try. Thanks for responding. Hard to say exactly why I put that, there's a sense that no one can really say 10 otherwise they'd have pulled apart their beliefs already, and I've done a good bit of it with mixed success. So some hesitancy there that discovering no self or that beliefs are behind it will be my answer. I've always had a little fear that I'd uncover a stone that would pull me apart in a bad way stability or relationship wise, but that's at least less now

Right now, I'd say if you poked at a belief, I'd be willing to at least consider that I'd be wrong. No matter the belief. not scared, just confrontational?

Hi there, glad to hear from you.

What would you like me to call you? Please call me Jeff.

FYI I am in the CETimezone, so, Paris, Amsterdam, etc. We are generally 6 hours later here than EST/EDT, but the US moved their clocks forward I guess last week, that doesn't happen here until the end of March. Having said all that, it would likely work best for me if you were to respond to my posts here by 2:00 am EST at the latest to ensure we have daily contact.

Housekeeping
(Though you said you've some experience with LU, I don't know exactly what was made clear to you, so my apologies if you've gone through this before!)

1. Please post here daily. If you need more time with something, at least post on your thread to let me know. For me regularity and continuity is essential for this process.

2. There is no one judging answers given, so please be 100% honest in your answers and inquiry.

3. It may be helpful for you to set aside other teachings, philosophies, rituals, practices, books/reading, while engaged in this exploration in order to put all your effort and attention into seeing what there is to see here. If you have a daily meditation practice, it is fine to continue that but is not necessary for our work together.

4. Please answer questions posed to you individually, and use the quote function to highlight the question being answered.

Below is a link to the video with instructions on using the Quote Function. Please watch it. Use the PREVIEW button to make sure your text looks right before you hit "SUBMIT."

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=660

5. Technology is not perfect: sometimes there is a glitch or a hiccup on the site which can wipe out your responses!
It is advisable that you copy and paste questions asked of you into your local work environment, answer them there and then copy and paste them to your thread. Always save a copy of what you have done!

6. I would like you to answer all questions I pose that are written in blue text. Please answer all questions even if I miss using the blue text.


To begin with, so that we both become aware of what your expectations are here, please answer the following questions:

How will life change?
How will you change?
What will be different?
What is missing?


You've said a fair amount about your engagement with the "self illusion" project.

Tell me more about your experiences here at LU. What was helpful? What wasn't helpful?

Also, you say you work with a guide, assumedly someone working with you to help you see through the self illusion? Please describe the nature of the work, and if you don't mind, the video resources you have availed yourself of.

These statements also bear some clarification:

"...i had the personal, intuitively felt insight that thought had a definite defensive component to it that was hidden under the content...Ever since i had my insight about thoughts being defensive in nature..."

Please explain what you meant, and how you think it works.

Cheers,

Jeff

Hi Jeff, nice to meet you. You can call me Jack.

How will life change?

I don't know. I really hope I'll suffer less, maybe have cleaner decision making and relationships. That's a hope. I've heard from multiple YouTubers that they have access to "overwhelming love," "infinite or durable peace" and "a feeling of complete okness,": I'm really hoping the sense of something being wrong or hard to deal with all the time goes away

How will you change?

More of that^. I'd like to think I'll be kinder, more loving, more carefree and ok just existing. I hope I'll feel more joy, ease, play, lightness. I think there's a lot of self hate and efforting and self fixing and lack of love towards others that could probably change if I get out of the way.

What will be different?

From what I've heard, not much, but also a lot? You can see what I hope will be different, but I've been told that a big problem of mine is resisting how things are and not letting my experience be exactly what it is, and that this is it. I hope pain and discomfort and hard social situations will pass through much more quickly and that good experiences will be more common and more fully enjoyed.

What is missing?

Probably that everything is fundamentally ok, clarity on what to do in any given moment (or a trust that it'll just happen/that I'm not doing Any of it), and moderate enjoyment on average of my life

Tell me more about your experiences here at LU. What was helpful? What wasn't helpful?

I've never been guided at LU, but I did read several forums. The most revealing stuff was:
-Feel how it feels to label activities "I'm doing it" vs "action happening" and then "no label".
-second was when someone described I as just an English label that gets added to every thought and we begin to give attributes to this I found in language that it doesn't deserve. Note, I don't think this rules out a self for me, just that thoughts with I in them don't necessarily point clearly to some well defined person shaped thing like a clear soul. very murky here
-less helpful has been the "just look, is there a thinker?" I don't know how to look in that way, though I do try earnestly. I often run into what feels like "yeah, well, I didn't find anything but I also didn't rule out anything satisfyingly (and there's a feeling of cat chasing it's tail)" to me, not finding does not mean not exist.

Please describe the nature of the work, and if you don't mind, the video resources you have availed yourself of

.
I've worked with Vince Schubert 1-2x a week for maybe 4 months total. What's been weird is he really hasn't spent so much time on the self or lack thereof. It's been primarily about how I can't control, how I can't know, and how my sense of binaries (right wrong, success failure) is based in fantasy as he sees it. Lots of poking at my resistance. Other than that, just a lot of him poking at how certain things I say reflect beliefs or societal conditioning/rules I've picked up over time. Lots of him reframing my harder feelings like anger or suffering.

Besides him, I watched a lot of Simply Always Awake (Angelo Dilulo) videos on YouTube, and a good bit from The Awakening Curriculum.

Please explain what you meant, and how you think it works

I went back and looked at the chats where I made that insight since it was a year ago and it doesn't resonate as much anymore.
As far as I remember, I was looking hard at every single thought trying to figure out how to fix them (this was before spiritual path or guiding) and at some point I got close enough to thought that I recognized that every single one was somehow trapping/compelling me, protecting/defending in some way, and that I was more than those thoughts somehow. How it worked, i don't know, it was like I felt into them and something foundational cracked; this was also the first time it felt like I was really led into my body

Looking back, this moment totally changed my life, but my relationship to thoughts/what I think of them isn't very clear. I'm not really sure now if thoughts really have a function, they seem to lead me in really good directions sometimes, really bad directions other times. But I can seem to realize most thoughts are just thoughts to some degree,

Hi Jack, great work. Ok, cool. Let’s start right here:

“As far as I remember, I was looking hard at every single thought trying to figure out how to fix them (this was before spiritual path or guiding) and at some point I got close enough to thought that I recognized that every single one was somehow trapping/compelling me, protecting/defending in some way, and that I was more than those thoughts somehow. How it worked, i don't know, it was like I felt into them and something foundational cracked; this was also the first time it felt like I was really led into my body...Looking back, this moment totally changed my life, but my relationship to thoughts/what I think of them isn't very clear. I'm not really sure now if thoughts really have a function, they seem to lead me in really good directions sometimes, really bad directions other times. But I can seem to realize most thoughts are just thoughts to some degree”

The LU exploration is largely based on direct experience. These are the “gateways” that the “self” uses to gather the data that makes up what I will call here “objective” experience. We are trained and conditioned from birth (and perhaps also while in the womb?) to function in the world by identifying the (apparently separate) “stuff” of “reality” as objects. This is pretty helpful in terms of getting around without banging into too many trees, etc., ;>) , but in doing so we create a working relationship with everything - a conceptual model of reality - that necessarily objectifies “our-selves”. Right? So, “I am not that tree, I am this object over here that sees the tree, and I will also feel (maybe even smell and taste? OMG!) the dang thing if ‘I’ slam into it hard enough (with ‘my’ mouth open)”


;>)


This process is repeated over time again and again. We are told, “that’s yours, that’s hers/his”, “don’t go there, go here”, “that’s tasty, you really ought to try it”, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum. We can easily see that even though we don’t remember this happening (and certainly not EVERY TIME IT HAPPENED!), that we have been VERY well trained to relate to life this way.


This kind of thing is usually referred to in non-dual circles as subject - object relations. Some version of this is likely necessary in our early childhood development, but the one we are mostly stuck with is based on certain ideas about the world that end up being like an operating system, or at least a piece of software. After long use, and long before we know it’s even a thing, well, we can’t tell it’s running anymore. It would be as if we were wearing glasses that made everything blurry, skewed, or even upside-down, and the glasses merged with our faces. Since everyone else (society) wears the same glasses, nobody notices anymore. Unfortunately, when we can’t “see” clearly, there are quite a lot of bumps in the road, in the night, and in our dreams. The whole world seems to be pretty bumpy too. Have you noticed?


The way out of this “Matrix” where everyone eats Soylent Green for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks (it’s my favorite Ben & Jerry’s flavor! What’s yours?) ;>) is to deconstruct the whole thing. It’s not particularly complicated, although the many procedures for doing so have been shrouded in mystery and bull$#!+ for most of human history.

These are the filters:

Seeing
Hearing
Smelling
Tasting
Touching
Thinking

In this model,"thinking" is a "sense", in that a thought is an "object" of the "sense" of thinking that is "held" in a manner that is analogous to the way we might hold a stone in our hand (ie, "held" by touching), or the way the aroma of a strawberry is "held" within the sense of smelling.

Therefore, all "objects" of experience are, although “sensed” by different senses, are grouped into a single category.

One way I like to describe what you are here to see (and what there is EVERYWHERE TO SEE) is that what you call your “self” is a mixture of one or more of these processes and the knowing of them. We are here to disentangle that ball of confusion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5P7x4v ... rt_radio=1

;>)

Are we having fun yet?


Example Exercise:

Colored Socks

It’s important that we distinguish between what is actually happening in our “direct experience” (of sensory data) and the way we normally go about processing the world.

Here is an example to illustrate the difference.

If I were to ask you what color socks you are wearing right now, you might:

Think back to this morning and try to remember putting your socks on. Referring to your memory, you would then probably be able to tell me what color you think they are.

Alternatively, you could just take a quick look at your socks and tell me what color they are.

One way passes the information through the sense of thinking (our word based - conceptual - capacity of interpretation). There are all kinds of pitfalls in doing this kind of thing. For example, I don’t know about you but I pretty much have THE WORST short term memory ever. Some of us are also INCREDIBLY opinionated (well, mostly all of us are, we just don’t think so - “That’s not my opinion! It’s the way things ARE!!!”)

The other way, actually looking NOW is a lot more direct, right?

For the purpose of seeing this "no self" thing, it’s important to be clear about all these distinctions.

Other than the times we are specifically looking at the “objects” of thought/thinking, what’s swirling around in our minds is not what we are interested in.

We can’t get here from there! (technically, “through” there, but who’s counting?)

;>)

Wow, that’s a good one!
Have to remember that!
Wait, remember what?

;>)

Here’s that list again:

Seeing
Hearing
Feeling (Sensation, not emotion. Emotion is Sensation plus made-up thoughts & labels)
Tasting
Smelling
Thoughts (arising - not their content!)


To Do:
What you are going to do is to label your daily activities in terms of the “objects” of the (6) senses alongside their “normal” labels - the ones we are trained to know and experience the world through, and forget that they are just ideas, having no more substance than any other passing thought! The more we do this kind of thing, the clearer the “illusion” becomes.

When we see that Santa Clause is just a guy wearing a red suit (often with a pillow inside it!), not some mythological dude that somehow goes down every chimney, fire escape, or elevator shaft in the world to give kids presents (and gets it all done in one night with flying reindeer, no less!) and it’s our parents that do all the work while we are asleep, it’s hard to go back to that version of things.

Warning:

Do not watch this video if you are easily offended, and do not blame LU for my putting it here! It’s clearly in questionable taste! I’m going rogue here!

https://youtu.be/IJH3tf2VOMg?si=Ya7HO82-O3ipZWIB

;>)


Make your lists of labels like this:

Drinking a cup of coffee =
…Seeing (the cup in my hand)
…Smelling (the aroma of the coffee)
…Tasting (the taste of the coffee)
…Touching (the feel of the weight, size, and shape of the cup)
…Thinking (whatever thoughts arise while drinking the coffee)
…Hearing (the sound of my sipping the coffee)

Let me know if you are clear about this or if you have any questions.

Do as many lists as you can.

Love,

J

PS: I'm sorta kinda colorblind when it comes to blue, green, purple, that kind of thing. When I pick colors to make "blue" text sometimes I pick different ones. Hope it's close enough.

This exercise, after like 20 minutes of it opened stuff up like crazy. Note, I probably only Wrote 1/3 of all the exercise I did with it, most was me just exploring live. I'm not really sure what changed after the fact, but during it it felt like a lot of dissolving and freedom and relief. Something about viewing thoughts as the object of thinking, and just like the object of hearing and seeing and feeling really helped move things around. and not all of it, but a good bit of the me sense was seen to just me imaginary in that tangled knot of before. I'm definitely back in pain and some confusion now, but the morning was pretty fantastic so thank you.

Maybe a question I had is: some people seem to acknowledge a "sense gate" with thought objects, other people frame it as "listen to your thoughts like sounds" and "see-hear-feel" (but not "notice thoughts"). Any thoughts on this? If anything I'm struggling with the conceptual parts of this, and how and when to apply to exercise, more than anything else. Like as an example, I'd get confused what was a thought and what was like visual seeing of a thought. Or I'd get "sight of a sound". Etc

Here are all the lists I did write down as it was happening.
Seeing (the shape of the phone)
Feeling (the feel of the phone)
Hearing (the sound of the fan)
Feeling (the feel of bed on back)

Seeing (the visual of pee moving)
Hearing (the sound of the breath)
Feeling (the feeling of stomach muscles contracting)
Feeling (the feeling of buzzing)
Thinking ("I don't know"

Seeing keyboard
Hearing sound of fan
Hearing sound housemate
Thinking: thoughts of me
Hearing: sounds of stomach
Feeling: feeling of warmth of face
Hearing: the jingle of the fan again
Feeling: the tingly on the face
Hearing: the the sound of thoughts and breath

feeling: weird energy in body
Hearing: sound of vent
Seeing: sound of vent


hearing: voice
thinking: thought of how to do this best
seeing: sights
hearing: some internal voices
feeling: breath flowing
feeling: keyboard button presses
hearing: sound of typing

feeling: weight of waterbottle
feeling: coolness of liquid moving
feeling: change in temperature

Feeling: warmth of keyboard
Hearing: sound of room
Feeling: sound of room
Feeling: warmth in neck
Thinking: “dullness in cheek (turned exercise  into a thought)”
Feeling: vague sensations kinda in mouth
Thinkingt: maybe i’m doing this wrong / messing this up
Thinking: maybe i should pay attention to thought

Hey there!

“This exercise, after like 20 minutes of it opened stuff up like crazy. Note, I probably only Wrote 1/3 of all the exercise I did with it, most was me just exploring live. I'm not really sure what changed after the fact, but during it it felt like a lot of dissolving and freedom and relief. Something about viewing thoughts as the object of thinking, and just like the object of hearing and seeing and feeling really helped move things around. and not all of it, but a good bit of the me sense was seen to just me imaginary in that tangled knot of before. I'm definitely back in pain and some confusion now, but the morning was pretty fantastic so thank you.”

I’m glad you liked it.

“Maybe a question I had is: some people seem to acknowledge a "sense gate" with thought objects, other people frame it as "listen to your thoughts like sounds" and "see-hear-feel" (but not "notice thoughts"). Any thoughts on this? If anything I'm struggling with the conceptual parts of this, and how and when to apply to exercise, more than anything else. Like as an example, I'd get confused what was a thought and what was like visual seeing of a thought. Or I'd get "sight of a sound". Etc”

I don’t really have a great answer for you in the terms you are asking it handy, sorry. Most of what you are saying isn’t in my experience. Best I can come up with in terms of visualization stuff you are describing at the end there is that it’s thought, though it’s maybe more like thinking/seeing.


Since all our sense data is processed in the “black box” of the brain (we don’t at all perceive things the way they are - our “VR headset” renders the world to us in terms that match our design functions of survival, reproduction, etc. You ought to look up David Hoffman’s discussions on how the probability that what we perceive as reality being real is zero. I looked for the precise video to share with you but can’t find it. Maybe his TED talk? Great stuff.


In any case, answering these questions aren’t necessary really for what we are doing here. I know it may seem elusive but this is incredibly simple – so much so that nobody can see it ;>)


A really good example is the “illusion” of race. Scientifically there is no statistical basis for “different” human races. There is one “race”. Human. The differences we see in terms of our appearance barely register genetically and are scientifically irrelevant. Like, life or death irrelevant.


However, as a social construction, race is obviously a “real” thing. Look at all the evidence. Millions have died as a result of our belief in what we see, think, etc. But just because most of humanity is - and has been - incredibly ignorant doesn’t make “race” real. Stupidity, intolerance, fear, sure.


“Selfing” is the same. We are conditioned to think as we do. Ok, enough pontificating.


Main thing:

Please do the exercise in the form I presented it. Exactly.

I need to know we are on the same page. You did it a bunch of ways, but I don’t think one instance was how I showed you.
First of all, take any experience you have during the day.


Sitting in a chair.


Picking up a piece of paper.


Eating a banana.


Hearing a car backfire.


Watching a movie.


Writing a text message.


Washing the dishes.


Plumping a pillow in bed.


Taking a shower.


Putting on a shoe.


Petting the dog.


Smelling a dirty bathroom.


Licking a finger with jam on it.


Chopping an onion.


All of these are examples of the “normal” labels we use to describe daily activities.


Here’s that list again:

Seeing
Hearing
Feeling (Sensation, not emotion. Emotion is Sensation plus made-up thoughts & labels)
Tasting
Smelling
Thoughts (arising - not their content!)


To Do:
What you are going to do is to label your daily activities in terms of the “objects” of the (6) senses alongside their “normal” labels

Here’s the format.

Make your lists of labels like this:

Drinking a cup of coffee =
…Seeing (the cup in my hand)
…Smelling (the aroma of the coffee)
…Tasting (the taste of the coffee)
…Touching (the feel of the weight, size, and shape of the cup)
…Thinking (whatever thoughts arise while drinking the coffee)
…Hearing (the sound of my sipping the coffee)

In this example, “Drinking a cup of coffee” is the “normal” label for the experience.
“=” means that the label can be broken down into it’s “Direct” or “Actual” form – in other words, what the “labeled” experience is **actually** made of.

All experiences are “made of” sense data “gathered” by the senses. There are 6 of them. When you list an experience (one at a time please), break it down into it’s **actual** components.

Yes?

Please do a lot of these. You should do them until you are crystal clear about what is **actually** the case (in terms of the senses) when an experience is happening. You don’t have to memorize this, you are not being asked to now become a “master” of these distinctions so that you can no longer just ask someone to hand you an object because you are so busy saying it “correctly”. ;>)

It’s just an exercise.

Let me know if you are clear about this or if you have any questions.

Love,

Jeff

FYI: I checked with a bunch of colleagues, nobody gave me a satisfactory answer yet, but here's what my AI told me, which essentially confirmed (at least part) of my suspicions:

"This touches on one of the most active intersections of neuroscience and philosophy: the relationship between perception (bottom-up) and mental imagery (top-down).

The short answer is that visualization is not "just" a thought in the sense of a dry, abstract proposition (like "2 + 2 = 4"). It is a distinct neurobiological state that recruits a massive portion of the same hardware used for physical sight.

## The Shared Hardware

Neuroscience supports your "internal rendering" theory. When you look at a physical apple, signals travel from your retina to the **Primary Visual Cortex (V1)** and then through higher-level processing areas that identify color, shape, and "appleness."

When you **visualize** that apple, the process is largely reversed. Your frontal cortex (the "boss" of the brain) sends signals back down to those same visual processing areas.

* **The Overlap:** Functional MRI (fMRI) scans show that about **70-90%** of the same brain regions are activated during both actual seeing and vivid visualization.
* **The V1 Debate:** Whether the *Primary* Visual Cortex (the most basic "pixel" processor) is activated depends on the person and the vividness of the image. For people with high-clarity visualization, the brain is literally "drawing" on the same screen it uses for real-world input.

## Thought vs. Image

You made a sharp distinction between the *concept* of an apple and the *image* of an apple. In cognitive science, this is the "Dual-Coding Theory."

1. **Verbal/Symbolic:** The label "Apple" and its utility (it is food, it is cheap). This is purely a "thought form."
2. **Imagic:** The sensory-based representation.

Visualization is a "mixture," but specifically, it is a **perceptual simulation**. You aren't just thinking *about* the apple; your brain is simulating the state of *seeing* the apple. The brain is essentially "hallucinating" under controlled conditions.

## The "VR Headset" and Internal Sound

Your point about the "VR headset" is very close to the **Predictive Coding** model of the brain. This theory suggests that our "normal" seeing is actually a continuous, internally generated simulation that is merely *corrected* by the data coming through the eyes.

When your eyes are closed (or you are dreaming), the "correction" from the outside world is turned off, and the brain’s generative model runs solo. This applies to all senses:

* **Inner Speech/Music:** When you "hear" a song in your head, the **Auditory Cortex** is active.
* **Dreams:** During REM sleep, the brain is functionally disconnected from the body, but the visual and motor centers fire as if the events were real. This is why dreams feel like "seeing" rather than "thinking."

## The "Aphantasia" Variable

It is worth noting that this is a spectrum. Some people have **Aphantasia**, meaning they have no "mind's eye" at all. They can think about an apple, describe it, and know they want to buy it, but they see only darkness. For them, visualization is 100% abstract thought. For others (**Hyperphantasia**), the "internal rendering" is so strong it can be difficult to distinguish from physical reality.

## Summary

You are essentially correct: Visualization is a **top-down projection** onto the same internal "screen" that receives **bottom-up data** from your eyes. The mechanism of "seeing"—the firing of the visual cortex to create a spatial, colored representation—is largely the same. The primary difference is the source of the data: the world vs. your memory/will."

...

But, the relevant question remains:

Is there a separate self involved in any of this, or is it all just happening?

:>)

Apologies for the redo, I don't know why I didn't realize for each activity you wanted all the senses, not just freeform what comes up. Let me know if this is what you needed, I'm definitely at least trying to follow instructions 😂

Laying in bed
Seeing (the world around, the sheets pillows, etc)
Hearing: (fan sounds, ambient noise)
Feeling: (fabric on skin, weight pressed against bed, sweat)
Thinking: (maybe vocalizations of what's being typed, like narration?)
Smelling: (not much smell, vague)
Taste: yucky morning breath taste

Washing hands
Seeing: (sink, hands, water, peripheral room)
Hearing: (water, ambient fan)
Feeling: (coldness of water, movement of hands, feet on floor)
Thinking: (still narrating senses, thoughts about activity, mood)
Smelling: (I smelled but it's vague, I have weird nostrils internally from childhood)
Tasting: (slightly more pleasant morning breathe taste, kinda sweet, saliva)

Cutting an apple
Seeing: (apples, knife, board, colors)
Hearing: (knife slicing, apples hitting cupboard)
Feeling: (small touching sensations on apple, didn't register much else but in hindsight there was a lot)
Thinking: (some noticing of how my brain mixes some inputs for sure, some doubt thoughts)
Tasting: not much this time
Smell: (very nice apple smell)

Waiting in line
Seeing (phone, hands, world moving around me, colors)
Hearing: (cars moving, buzzing noises, footsteps)
Feeling (feet on the ground, clothes on my body, warmth and cool)
Thinking: (little narration, adjustments to procedure, self dislike)
Smelling: gas smell/city odor
Tasting: (taste of my apple from earlier)


Driving
Seeing: (car interior, city around me)
Hearing: (birds, car noises, city)
Smelling: (snot smell, otherwise vague)
Taste: (juice, some blood taste)
Thinking: (random thoughts about activity, me)
Touching: (vibrating, skin feeling, steering wheel, body warmth)
Here I notice again that thinking and labels are often confused with each other

Walking
Seeing: field, my glasses
Hearing: footsteps, stuff I'm stepping on, birds, car noises, voices
Smelling: really hard to discern, strong pull into thought
Thinking: repetitive thoughts about doing it right, thoughts about other people
Taste: some phlegm, some acidic taste from apple

Breathing exercises
Seeing: world around me, some visual thoughts, light, shadows
Hearing: air moving, plane, leaves
Smelling: sunscreen- kinda fruity
Tasting: lots of flavor, mango, some taste smell interaction
Thinking: thoughts of enjoyment, thoughts about thoughts, lots of small tiny thoughts

here I’m noticing that when the thought sense starts to clarify, it becomes more enjoyable to put attention in it, and at the same time the senses are seeming to become more enjoyable, in a subtle way

Sitting in a classroom
Seeing: chair, my body, my phone, reflection
Hearing: pencils moving, voices, air conditioning
Thinking: thinking about thinking a lot, fears, hopes, past future stuff probably
Smelling: sunscreen, weird mix with memory here
Taste: not much here, some vague mouth tastes
Touch: the chair, my phone, weight on my skin, vibration, flowing


Doing Work on computer
Seeing: my computer (blues and white colors, words), peripheral vision of room, my limbs
Hearing: keys typing, breathing, ambient noises, mousepad swiping, my emotes
Touching: vibrating, pulsating through the body, soft flow, some clenching in neck and throat and jaw
Thinking: what's weird is thinking dropped off the moment I immersed myself in the work. Even paying attention there was a feeling of thoughts going quiet and a pull to focus on the activity
Smell: very faint, not much this time
Taste: also kinda faint, not clearly discernable

I feel like in my experience right now is access to each of the 5 main senses (split up or as a sensory field so to speak), and a distinct thought sense that I can tap into or get drawn into or sometimes seem avoidant to. The thought sense definitely interacts with and mixes with the other senses. I'm not really sure what the I/me is right now. Seems like a ball of morphing senses, sometimes feels like connection/identity with it, but lots of thoughts there

Be assured I did more work with the drill, just didn't write everything down. Sometimes it felt good to play with thought and feeling at the same time, or sight and just sight, etc.

Hey there! No need to apologize for anything.

Good work. Plenty to work with here.

“here I’m noticing that when the thought sense starts to clarify, it becomes more enjoyable to put attention in it, and at the same time the senses are seeming to become more enjoyable, in a subtle way”

Happy to hear more about this. I assume that by “clarify”, you mean that when you see that THINKING can be seen as a sense distinction / category as opposed to [____?]

I’m not so sure what you mean by “put attention in it”, though, yes, I know what it’s like to have pleasure arise in the senses. You’d maybe be surprised by the degree to which that can happen when it doesn’t correlate with what we might have once thought was necessary for pleasure to occur. Ask me sometime after all this is done what I mean if you like.

In case you noticed (or didn’t), it's awesome to start moving away from being mesmerized by the content of experience, and getting interested / curious in the senses themselves. Maybe that’s what you mean. There’s more to it than that, but it sounds like it was at least somewhat enriching, or interesting for you. Whatever the case, you are entering a domain where you are in very good company.

Are you familiar with The Bahiya Sutta?

"The Bahiya Sutta is a famous, concise Buddhist discourse where the Buddha instructs Bahiya to train in bare perception: in seeing, just seeing; in hearing, just hearing; in sensing, just sensing; and in cognizing, just cognizing. This practice of non-clinging and eliminating "self" from experiences leads to immediate liberation from suffering.

The Buddha taught that when one does not identify with or add a "self" to sensory experiences (seeing, hearing, etc.), one is not defined by them, not located in them, and not caught between them.

This sutta is viewed as a "pointing out instruction" that cuts through conceptual proliferation by focusing on immediacy and awareness without a subject, often described similarly to Zen or Advaita teachings.

Here’s part of the famous core teaching quote associated with the “...Sutta”:

"In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized."

Feel free to comment on “the…Sutta” if you find any relevance for you in our inquiry so far.

Here’s a link to a well respected translation: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .irel.html

“Thinking: what's weird is thinking dropped off the moment I immersed myself in the work. Even paying attention there was a feeling of thoughts going quiet and a pull to focus on the activity”

Makes sense in the context of categorizing thinking as a sense, right? I mean, it’s hard to chew gum and walk at the same time, isn’t it!? ;>)

Usually, when things are going well, we aren’t there.

When things get @#$%^&*(), we tend to show up, like “OH $#!+!!!!”

“I feel like in my experience right now is access to each of the 5 main senses (split up or as a sensory field so to speak), and a distinct thought sense that I can tap into or get drawn into or sometimes seem avoidant to. The thought sense definitely interacts with and mixes with the other senses. I'm not really sure what the I/me is right now. Seems like a ball of morphing senses, sometimes feels like connection/identity with it, but lots of thoughts there”

I’d like to address this a bit sideways.

Back to your list of labels.

First of all, I suggest you switch out “Feeling” for “TOUCHING”.

“Feeling” is waaaaay too imprecise. It can be almost equally applied to completely different things, your statement above is a pretty good example of that.

We often collapse thinking and somaticizing into “feeling”. This frequently gets swapped out for what we call emotions, and it’s all dumped into a single bucket that morphs and swishes around in ways that, because of the way we represent and conceptualize experience to ourselves and to others, tends to reproduce the subject / object relational paradigm that we “locate” the (apparently) “separate” “self” within.

We say, “I feel like….” all the time when we are just doing our best to communicate and don’t know any better way to do it. It’s MUSHY!!!

;>)

So, ditch the word “feeling” when it comes to the model we are working with here - the “6” senses – please keep working to see “THINKING” as just another sense “bucket” that handles, holds, and processes data like the others. It’s not a sacred cow.

Also, notice as many of the times you use the word “feeling” throughout the day that you can. Make it an ongoing practice during our work together until it’s obviously no longer relevant.

I’m not suggesting you not use the word, only that you notice when you do, and see if you can be more precise about what you are talking about.

Are you talking about a body sensation? (TOUCHING)
An “emotion”? (body sensation = TOUCHING, plus [an] interpretation = THINKING)

Or what?

Smell?
Taste?
Sound?
Visual data?

Ok, back to business.

If you wrote

Laying in bed:
Seeing (the world around, the sheets pillows, etc)
Hearing: (fan sounds, ambient noise)
Feeling: (fabric on skin, weight pressed against bed, sweat ←←←← (should be “TOUCHING”, right?)
Thinking: (maybe vocalizations of what's being typed, like narration?) ←←←← (yes, that’s “auditory” THINKING…fine to just call it THINKING here unless you wanna become a neuroscientist!)
Smelling: (not much smell, vague)
Taste: yucky morning breath taste

Rewrite like this:

Laying in bed
(The world around, the sheets pillows, etc) = SEEING
(fan sounds, ambient noise) = HEARING
(fabric on skin, weight pressed against bed, sweat) = TOUCHING
(maybe vocalizations of what's being typed, like narration?) = THINKING
(not much smell, vague) = SMELLING
(yucky morning breath taste) = TASTING

Then, look at what you’ve written. This is about quality, not quantity. Go S L O W.

Take your time.

I want you to start with the sense data you are collecting, and, like Bahiya, learning to recognize all of it within the categories of the senses, rather than the other way around, as if you were chasing butterflies with a net!

;>)

Savor the sights, sounds, tastes, smells, body sensations (“touchings”), and thoughts, and then let them “dissolve” or generalize into the various sense categories.

So like, look at something, and then recognize that SEEING is taking place.

See if there are any smells around. Smell them, and then recognize just smelling.

Without any labels, there’s just smelling.

If you were a baby, and today – this moment – or any moment – was your first moment alive when all your senses were on line, but you had zero in the way of concepts because you had no language for anything, and it was all just coming at you in 6 different forms, there would be nobody anywhere saying “apple” or “momma’s sweat” or "nursery music box song” or “wet diaper”, but there would still be all the senses. There would just be nobody that could say anything to themselves or to anyone else about any of it.

A baby’s ability to think, speak, “cognize”, conceptualize, theorize, fantasize, believe, calculate, or lie in any way shape or form is nonexistent.

We have to learn how to do all of that. Gradually, it all comes together, but not in an articulate fashion:

crawl(nonverbalthink)smell…toddlegrablaugh…gripburpstand…mamameyouupdown…

This is, I suppose, partially why we don’t remember much of that: we had no way “record” any of it in any language based, intellectual manner. WE CAME OUT OF NOTHING. WE WERE NO-THING. WE SIMPLY…WERE.

Anyone that looks at a newborn can tell: “they ARE! Goodness: what shall we name it!?”

Have you heard about the Taoist idea of “The Uncarved Block”?

“In Taoism, the Uncarved Block (or Pu, 樸) refers to a state of pure, natural simplicity and potential.
It is a metaphor used throughout the Tao Te Ching to describe the ideal state of human consciousness and the Tao itself—before it is shaped, "carved," or corrupted by societal rules, artificial desires, or intellectual over-complication.

Key Concepts of Pu
Original Nature: Just as a block of wood is most versatile and "itself" before a carpenter carves it into a specific tool (like a bowl or a chair), a person is in their most powerful and authentic state when they are free from the "carving" of ego and social conditioning.
Infinite Potential: Once you carve the wood, it becomes one thing and loses the potential to be anything else. By remaining "uncarved," you retain the ability to respond to any situation naturally.
Simplicity and Stillness: Pu is associated with a quiet mind. It suggests that by stripping away the unnecessary—the "fanciness" of language, status, and complex ambition—you return to a state of harmony with the Tao.
Wu Wei (Non-Action): The Uncarved Block is the state from which Wu Wei (effortless action) flows. When you aren't trying to force yourself into a specific "shape," your actions become spontaneous and effective.

Think of it like a child’s play versus a corporate meeting:
The Carved Block: The meeting. It has a rigid agenda, specific titles, polished language, and a pre-defined goal. It is "useful" but limited and often stressful.
The Uncarved Block: The child playing. There is no rigid "shape" to the activity. The child responds to the environment with total spontaneity and simplicity, moving from one thing to another without the friction of ego.

In Taoist philosophy, the goal of the sage is not to gain more knowledge or "finish" themselves, but to "un-learn" and return to the state of the Uncarved Block.”


So..

If you are able to know the richness of the labeled experiences you already wrote, use them, or make a few new ones. Once you get this you can’t really un-get it, so take your time. (well, actually I suppose I am asking you to start “ungetting” it all ;>)

Let your attention rest completely within each occasion of your senses functioning.

Appreciate the fact – the miracle – the incredible unlikelihood - that these amazing things (not just the sheets, pillows, and sounds of the fan, or whatever the data are, - although all those things are also almost just as amazing), out of all the things that are happening in the infinite universe - right… this very instant(!) are manifesting within the SENSING that is happening in the exact ways in which they are being experienced by you - just you - at this moment!

…and that even though practically everyone else alive has some version of what you are doing going on too, only your experience is quite like the one you are having!

It’s a #$%^& miracle, so take your time.

Do as many written examples / repetitions / appreciations of these as you want, or can.

Make sure you understand what I am asking you to do, so if you have any questions, feel free.

When you are done, describe as best you can what it was like.

Love,

Jeff

Hi Jeff, Really struggled with this one, but some attempts did open some things up.

Sink, hands, water, peripheral room: SEEING
Water, ambient fan: HEARING
Coldness of water, movement of hands, feet on floor: TOUCHING
narration, thoughts about activity, mood thoughts: THINKING
Vague smells: smelling
Morning breathe and saliva: TASTING
above was a rewrite, all the ones below are probably original.

Standing:
Feet on floor: TOUCHING
Body/room: SEEING
Uncertainty thoughts, confusion: thinking
Breathing sounds, fan: Hearing
At least this try, smell or taste didn't come up, or did so really vaguely. Have been kinda ish smell blind for most of my life. Nothing was clearly sorted into those categories from the activity of standing alone

What came up immediately is I had no idea how much thinking is being done all the time. As soon as this happened it was like woah I don't really have any ability to "feel in control" over how this proceeds (a thought).
Also, decisions, as I was viewing (some of? All of?) them is also a thought, but still need looking at this one.
"I, it," both thoughts even in the same internal sentence. Will come back to this, since often it's not clear it's "just a thought" and therefore false or not relevant or something.

What's still stuck around strongly is a lot of the push and pull on my internal reality. Like to me, thoughts or interpretations maybe suggests that "If I unclench in certain ways or lean into certain sensations or thoughts," new feelings come about as if by force. Sometimes good ones, sometimes it's like beating your head into a wall. That is to say, all my "doing" to improve my experience internally is slowed but still intact.

Another weird one that has really impacted this whole exercise is the perceived inability to let sensation hit me in the way you talk about. I'm so resistant to it for some reason. There was crazy fear the first time it was indicated here to let thought be identified from experiencing thought, not by some identifying action or an identifier. So when you say "look at something and let it clarify", the pull into thought is strong and hard to get any other sensation out of it.

Here's my other attempts though.
drinking water:
the weight / metalness of the bottle: Touching
the taste of the water: Tasting
unsurness /uncertainty: must be thought. I get the sense that maybe thought can't be identified or known in the way I want? I was really trying to label it a lot or pin it down in some way.
small visions of internal depictions: probably seeing or sight thinking.
vague odors of the room: smelling.
the chair feel: touching.

sitting:
sights of room around me, my arms, my legs: seeing
vibratingness of my body: touching.
thoughts of this activity, or me, or confusion: thinking
music in my headphones: hearing.

Phone:
Idk how i knew, but thinking was the biggest one.
Second in perceived importance but what i noticed first was the weight of my phone: Touching
then was the phone itself: seeing.
really faint runny nose smell: smelling
another thing came up here: if i'm not looking for a smell or taste, it never even occurs to me that it exists. I have to like put attention in it first, then maybe detect it, rather than the other way around.

of course, these aren't my only tries at this, just my only written ones:

yeah not gonna lie this is so difficult for some reason. It's like when you say "just do an activity and let it clarify into senses" i'm overloaded with perceived impossibility of defining or knowing hearing as hearing without letting thinking intrude. And when I try to isolate one sense, the pull into thoughts strengthens. I'm sorry for not having more, I just struggled with this, so after my other guide meeting today, I kinda just went about my day and learned about the senses randomly where I could.

3/15-16
Thank you for your work!

Hi Jeff, Really struggled with this one, but some attempts did open some things up.

Please tell me which attempts, and what opened up.

Standing:
Feet on floor: TOUCHING
Body/room: SEEING
Uncertainty thoughts, confusion: thinking
Breathing sounds, fan: Hearing

At least this try, smell or taste didn't come up, or did so really vaguely. Have been kinda ish smell blind for most of my life. Nothing was clearly sorted into those categories from the activity of standing alone

That’s no problem. There are plenty of other senses to play with.

What came up immediately is I had no idea how much thinking is being done all the time. As soon as this happened it was like woah I don't really have any ability to "feel in control" over how this proceeds (a thought).

“...this proceeds (a thought).”

Good catch!

“...I don't really have any ability to "feel in control" over how this proceeds”

That’s correct. “You” don’t.




Please do the following exercises:


Palm Flipping

1. Hold a hand in front of you; palm turned down.
2. Now turn the palm up. And down...and up and so on.
Watch like a hawk.
Don't go to thoughts – examine your direct experience. Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire:-

How is the movement controlled?
Does a thought control it?
Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?
How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately. Who or what chose which hand - the left or right hand for the exercise?
Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?


Raising Hand Exercise

1. Place both hands on a table in front of you, palms down.
2. When you have done that, rest for a moment and then raise one hand in the air but not the other.

Don't go to thoughts, examine your direct experience.

Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire:-

What is it exactly that is choosing which hand to raise?
Can you find a separate individual or anything that is doing the choosing?
What is it that is controlling the hand?
Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?
Can anything be found that makes the hand move?
How is the decision made?


Love,

J