The Gate

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
All the teaching traditions point to something that is beginningless and endless. It seems to the one typing this that there is just a bundle of thoughts, feelings and conditioning going through the motions of life. And yet the suffering of clinging to reality persists. This is also it, but it feels like time to put that suffering to rest.

What are you looking for at LU?
An interaction and engagement with someone who is a bit more advanced, so to speak, with these concepts. It would be wonderful to be able to converse by text with a person who has experienced some of these things.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
An attempt to clarify some of the thoughts and feelings experienced after encountering these pointings. I hope someone who has passed through the gateless gate could help me to release the preocupation with attaining something and be happy with what it.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
It started in my teen years with a sort of kensho experience, as I later labeled it, and then began a long trek through meditation systems, zen, primitive christianity, stints in indian with yoga, and leading to plant medicine, shaminism and non-duality. Probably too much as I became a sort of addicted seeker. But yet no resolution seems to come.

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

Hi Onlyanegg
(is that what you want me to call you?)

Welcome to Liberation Unleashed :)! It’s great to see you here!
My name is Rali, and I’ll be glad to be your guide if you like.

Here at LU we assist in the exploration of the idea of the separate self. This is a guiding based on experience that brings a shift in perception and is not a debate. It directly points to what IS through the use of exercises, questions and dialogue. What is expected from you is to LOOK carefully to what is being pointed at. It is this simple LOOKING (not thinking) that brings a shift in perception.

Here, we are LOOKING directly into the experience of the senses, which is actually here and now, with the thinking stripped away. It is also known as Direct Experience (DE) or Actual Experience (AE). In this way, we are aiming to discover what is truly happening without the story we tell ourselves. For this process to work you have to answer with 100% honesty, and not relying on thought, imagination or memory - just reporting your direct experience. That would also mean leaving spiritual teachings, philosophies and science away during the inquiry. If you have a meditation practice, please feel free to continue with it as usual – it might come helpful.

Please read through “Liberation Unleashed is not …” in the FAQ’s of LU.
http://liberationunleashed.com/about/faq/#faq-1041

When replying to a question, please use the quote function to highlight the question being answered. Throughout this inquiry, please answer questions individually, not in a bundle. Please watch the below video to learn how to use the Quote function. This will assist us in having a clear dialogue around the questions and answers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fAToDNh9hQ

It is advisable that you copy and paste questions asked into Word, answer them there and then copy and paste them to your thread. It will save you time in the long run, if a glitch in the system wipes out your answer.

For the sake of the intensity of the inquiry let’s try to stick to a daily conversation. Of course, life happens, so if you need more time, please let me know. I will do as well.
What time zone are in?
If you're okay with everything so far, we can start.
Love
Rali

Hi Onlyanegg
(is that what you want me to call you?)

Hi Rali,
You can call me Peter if you like :)

Welcome to Liberation Unleashed :)! It’s great to see you here!
My name is Rali, and I’ll be glad to be your guide if you like.

Thank You, It's great to be here.

Here at LU we assist in the exploration of the idea of the separate self. This is a guiding based on experience that brings a shift in perception and is not a debate. It directly points to what IS through the use of exercises, questions and dialogue. What is expected from you is to LOOK carefully to what is being pointed at. It is this simple LOOKING (not thinking) that brings a shift in perception.

Here, we are LOOKING directly into the experience of the senses, which is actually here and now, with the thinking stripped away. It is also known as Direct Experience (DE) or Actual Experience (AE). In this way, we are aiming to discover what is truly happening without the story we tell ourselves. For this process to work you have to answer with 100% honesty, and not relying on thought, imagination or memory - just reporting your direct experience. That would also mean leaving spiritual teachings, philosophies and science away during the inquiry. If you have a meditation practice, please feel free to continue with it as usual – it might come helpful.

Please read through “Liberation Unleashed is not …” in the FAQ’s of LU.
http://liberationunleashed.com/about/faq/#faq-1041

When replying to a question, please use the quote function to highlight the question being answered. Throughout this inquiry, please answer questions individually, not in a bundle. Please watch the below video to learn how to use the Quote function. This will assist us in having a clear dialogue around the questions and answers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fAToDNh9hQ

Thank You. Understood.

It is advisable that you copy and paste questions asked into Word, answer them there and then copy and paste them to your thread. It will save you time in the long run, if a glitch in the system wipes out your answer.

Ok

For the sake of the intensity of the inquiry let’s try to stick to a daily conversation. Of course, life happens, so if you need more time, please let me know. I will do as well.
What time zone are in?
If you're okay with everything so far, we can start.
Love
Rali

I am in Eastern Standard time, GMT-4.
A daily conversation sounds great. Looking forward to corresponding with you and thank you so much for your time and efforts.
Love,
Peter

Hi Peter
I’m sorry about the delay. I somehow missed your reply.

Please make sure that you are subscribed to your topic. In the top left corner, next to "Post Reply" there is an icon that looks like a spanner. When you click on it there is a menu where you can select “subscribe topic’. Click on it once. If you want to be sure that you are subscribed just refresh the page and if you click again should show now “ unsubscribe topic”. Don’t click on it as it will unsubscribe you :).

I am in Eastern Standard time, GMT-4.

I'm GMT+2. We have a bit of a difference but we’ll manage.

A daily conversation sounds great. Looking forward to corresponding with you and thank you so much for your time and efforts.

Great!

First things first, let’s get your expectations out on in the open:

1. What will be different when you realize there’s no separate self?

2. What do you expect to happen as a result of this?

3. What do you want not to happen?

4. What are you hoping for?

5. What is missing?

Love
Rali

[First things first, let’s get your expectations out on in the open:

1. What will be different when you realize there’s no separate self?

I know from many years of listening to non-duality speakers that the "right" answer is nothing. Nothing will be different. At least materially, physically etc. I sort of understand intellectually, conceptually, but in my mind I feel like a separate person, with free will, suffering, choices and problems to solve. I realize that those thoughts and feelings will probably all be the same.

2. What do you expect to happen as a result of this?

I really don't have any expectations at this point, having already given up on anything happening. However, it would be nice if this endless pull toward awakening would subside so I could spend some life energy on other things instead of just pondering the koan that is "me."

3. What do you want not to happen?

Unlike many seekers who are afraid to lose interest in their children, partners, etc, I am relatively unencumbered in life, working a simple job to survive and make money and devoting a lot of my time to this kind of yoga-meditation as Rupert Spira calls it. Therefore I'm not afraid of losing anything, in particular. I feel as though I'm already dead-alive in a way and this is just a dream that is happening.[/quote]

4.What are you hoping for?

I could say I've also given up all hope, but realisticallyI'm hoping to have the experience that is described in the texts, of a lightening, a lifting of some veils, the dark glass lightening, etc, etc....I know, I know, it's a futile hope, but hope is hope and even though theoritaclally this is it already, one cannot stop desiring and hoping through will alone.

5.What is missing?

Nothing is missing. There is too much already. The cup is full of concepts, ideas, feelings, frustrations. It would be nice to have less, to lay down the burden of existence as a person and become one with the all, which seems to be the everpresent state outside of the dream of being a person trying to awaken.

Hi Peter

Thank you for your honesty! It can be challenging to become aware of what we really believe. The questions were a means to seeing what expectations you have, as everyone has some “idea” about awakening. There is so much information out there now with so many people sharing their experiences, and “teachers” preaching how it supposed to look and feel, that to have no expectations is almost impossible.

Your expectations are somewhat reasonable, but ultimately, expectations are a hindrance. They cling to an idea of how it is supposed to go, which is not necessarily correct, and this is why I asked you to read the FAQ’s of what Liberation Unleashed is NOT. When realisation happens, it can be very subtle and if there are expectations of any kind, then it can be missed and the guiding becomes very difficult. I can promise you there will be no fireworks; it is just a subtle shift in perception! The only true expectation, that you can have, is that the seeking will end. If there are any other expectations, it's good to acknowledge them and then set them aside. It is all much simpler and ordinary. Is that OK with you?

I know from many years of listening to non-duality speakers that the "right" answer is nothing. Nothing will be different. At least materially, physically etc. I sort of understand intellectually, conceptually, but in my mind I feel like a separate person, with free will, suffering, choices and problems to solve. I realize that those thoughts and feelings will probably all be the same.

The only things that will be different are perceptions. But we will look at this in more depth soon.

Now… If you look for the I, what is there? If I say there’s no doer, thinker, experiencer, decision maker, or a witness, what comes up? Where exactly did you look? What exactly did you find? Please describe in detail what appears – feelings, sensations, thoughts, anything?
Love
Rali

Now… If you look for the I, what is there? If I say there’s no doer, thinker, experiencer, decision maker, or a witness, what comes up? Where exactly did you look? What exactly did you find? Please describe in detail what appears – feelings, sensations, thoughts, anything?

I looked inside my head, which often feels like a kind of contraction centered around the forehead, or third eye. Also, scanning the body down to the tips of my toes. And there is a persistence of the same thoughts and identity since I was old enough to remembere anything. Just a sense of me! It doesnt seem to be doing me much good at this point but it persists nevertheless.

When I try to look for the I, I mostly find thoughts about the past, and anticipation of future events. A bundle of thoughts, mixed with some feelings, mild annoyance that I keep seeing the same things (For example, even though it is just thoughts, it is the same thing I've always assocoiated with a me, so functionally equivalent to the I)

Also though, There does seem to be a body, pain, lethargy, pleasure, hunger and thirst, among other feelings. And then there is feedback all around of sensations, sight, smells, noises, that all point to the one experiencing them. So this is me, and it seems like sophistry to say there is no I at this point even though it is clear that the things that make up me will all disappear one day.

Also to say there is no decision maker, yes I get it, all the preconditions for making a decision happened in the universe to allow this sense of me to feel it is deciding to take a sip of coffee, or whatever, but from this perspective it is the same as making a decision. I cannot escape that feeling. Maybe I don't have to escape it to shift the perspective, but I don't know how to do that.
Thank You
Love,
Peter

Hi Peter
Thank you for your detailed answer! It gives me an idea where to begin

Before we start let’s just make sure that you understand how to LOOK for no self in the exercises.
There is a BIG difference between knowing that there is nothing and seeing that there is nothing.
Here is an example to illustrate the difference:

If I ask you what colour socks you are wearing right now you have two ways to answer:
1. You can think about it, trying to remember, or guessing what colour they are.
2. You can have a look at your socks and see what colour they ACTUALLY are!
You will agree that only by looking you could be 100% certain, right?

For the purpose of this inquiry, it is crucial that you are clear about this difference in the two ways of answering and stick only to the second way. We are only interested in looking at and seeing what is actually going on. We are only interested in Direct (Actual) Experience (DE/AE)- the experience right now and right here.

Direct or Actual Experience is:

Seeing
Hearing
Sensing (not emotion - emotion is sensation plus thoughts/labels)
Tasting
Smelling
Thoughts Arising (but not their content, what the thought is ABOUT)

Please let me know if you are clear about this or if you would like any further clarification.
Here's an exercise for you to get super clear on what direct experience is. You can use this photo of an apple or a real apple.


Have a look at an apple. When ‘looking at an apple’, there's colour, a thought saying ‘apple,' and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple." What about the content of thoughts, what they describe? While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT cannot be found in direct or actual experience. Direct, actual experience is sound, thought, colour(sight), smell, taste and sensation.

Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour (visual information) labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known
However, is 'an apple' actually known? (Or is it just a label?) Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’? Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?
Love
Rali

Before we start let’s just make sure that you understand how to LOOK for no self in the exercises.
There is a BIG difference between knowing that there is nothing and seeing that there is nothing.
Here is an example to illustrate the difference:
If I ask you what colour socks you are wearing right now you have two ways to answer:
1. You can think about it, trying to remember, or guessing what colour they are.
2. You can have a look at your socks and see what colour they ACTUALLY are!
You will agree that only by looking you could be 100% certain, right?

It seems to me that if I knew how to look for no-self, then I would already see no-self.
How can I know that the color of socks I'm wearing is looks the same to you as to mee. Maybe my red is your green, etc...
So my thoughts and sensations of being trapped in a separate self is the same as your sense of liberation.

It seems in my mind I cannot separate Direct, actual experience and thoughts about the experience. In one sense everything is filtered through the mind. So even looking directly at the apple, I am seeing my perceptions and thoughts about the apple.

For the purpose of this inquiry, it is crucial that you are clear about this difference in the two ways of answering and stick only to the second way. We are only interested in looking at and seeing what is actually going on. We are only interested in Direct (Actual) Experience (DE/AE)- the experience right now and right here.
Direct or Actual Experience is:
Seeing
Hearing
Sensing (not emotion - emotion is sensation plus thoughts/labels)
Tasting
Smelling
Thoughts Arising (but not their content, what the thought is ABOUT)

Also, I cannot really see the difference between thoughts arising and their contents. Just seems like thoughts to me. Maybe I am dense.

Please let me know if you are clear about this or if you would like any further clarification.
Here's an exercise for you to get super clear on what direct experience is. You can use this photo of an apple or a real apple.
Image
Have a look at an apple. When ‘looking at an apple’, there's colour, a thought saying ‘apple,' and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple." What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?
While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT cannot be found in direct or actual experience. Direct, actual experience is sound, thought, colour(sight), smell, taste and sensation.

I don't understand, if direct experience includes thought, then thoughts about the apple are also real. I am mostly imagining the apple even though I can touch feel taste it etc.
I get the point of saying that, so the sense of self is imagined also, but it is the most persistent illusion and only subsides briefly for unexpected reasons.

Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour (visual information) labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known
However, is 'an apple' actually known? (Or is it just a label?) Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’? Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

This makes me think of "There is no spoon" from the matrix movies. It is all just energy forming and reforming into patterns, maybe controlled by big-mind, consciousness, everything and nothing, G-d, etc....however It feels real and when I stub my toe or take a bite of an apple I feel and taste it,
Sorry for the late reply I couldnt really process this excercise fast enough.
Love.
Peter

Hi Peter

You are overcomplicating things. Looking is simple. If you feel tension when trying to look at what is, you are trying too hard. Stop trying. Looking is a matter of noticing what is already here, not inventing or imagining something that needs a huge amount of energy to sustain. It’s not mental gymnastics, and there’s no medal that you have to go for. Soften, breathe—smile even. Take your time to relax and simply notice what is happening in the present: sensations, muscle tension, feelings, subtle eye movements, sounds, smells. This sort of noticing is effortless; attention moves and focuses on different perceptions, different information coming in. Thoughts rush in to label what is being noticed. No special state is required; it’s everyday ordinary business.

It seems to me that if I knew how to look for no-self, then I would already see no-self.
How can I know that the color of socks I'm wearing is looks the same to you as to mee. Maybe my red is your green, etc...

If I ask you what colour socks you are wearing, I don’t ask you to philosophise about the nature of the colour “red” or “green” but just to notice what colour socks you are wearing, using the same label to describe it as you have always used, is that clear? The point of this example was just to encourage you to notice through your senses what is here now but not to remember what it was yesterday or a month ago. Labels used for description are the same that you use in your everyday life. Nothing fancy here, just normal everyday life.

Also, I cannot really see the difference between thoughts arising and their contents. Just seems like thoughts to me. Maybe I am dense.

Well you can notice the presence of a thought, right? You can see that you are thinking about something. And that thinking is different from tasting for example. Please let me if it’s not the case. The presence of a thought is DE but what thoughts talk about is a fiction as we will see with this inquiry.

I don't understand, if direct experience includes thought, then thoughts about the apple are also real. I am mostly imagining the apple even though I can touch feel taste it etc.
I get the point of saying that, so the sense of self is imagined also, but it is the most persistent illusion and only subsides briefly for unexpected reasons.

Forget about the self for a second and concentrate on the “apple”. Yes, the presence of thoughts is real but their content is fictional. Words are not experience. The story about experience is not experience. Experience is what is happening through sense perception: seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching, feeling, and thinking. What is happening underneath the words is what the words are pointing to. Taste an apple and see; its sweetness, crunchiness, and juiciness are ideas that are learned, repeated, and accepted as standard expressions. They only vaguely describe what is happening on taste buds. But, if you share that apple with a friend, both of you will know what you mean by these descriptions and agree.
When your friend eats an apple and describes how sweet it tastes, how fragrant it is, how crunchy the flesh feels, how can you know what he is talking about if you haven’t tasted that apple? The description of experience is no help when it comes to the sense of experiencing. We can talk about tasting the apple, but it’s all conceptual: ideas about ideas and not the experience that is happening right now. Ideas are good for directing attention, like this: The next time you eat an apple, remember to experience the taste fully, as if you are tasting the apple for the first time. Dive into the experience, noticing all and forgetting all you know about the apple. Savour every bite of it. See the difference between talking about the taste of the apple and tasting it. So do this and let me know what you find

This makes me think of "There is no spoon" from the matrix movies. It is all just energy forming and reforming into patterns, maybe controlled by big-mind, consciousness, everything and nothing, G-d, etc....however It feels real and when I stub my toe or take a bite of an apple I feel and taste it,

This is what is meant by the colour of your socks exercise. No stories about previous experiences but what is here, now. There are so many concepts here like “energies”, “consciousness”…I’m asking you what is in front of you :)
Look at the apple, taste one (please).

There are tasting (tastes), seeing (colours/shapes), feeling (sensations when eating and touching), smelling (smells) – no hearing an “apple”. If you notice I used verbs as these are happening in motion, there is a flux not a frozen picture. Then thought appears and describes that you are seeing an “apple”, tasting an “apple” etc. Just because these particular seeing, tasting,… have appeared together in the past they are grouped together as “apple” experience. What makes the “object apple” inherently existing? At which point will it stop being an object/apple? What makes an apple an “apple”? We have green, red, yellow “apples” so obviously is not the red colour that makes an apple exist on its own, right? We have a lot of other sweet and sour fruits so it’s not the taste, right? We have a lot of other objects that feel the same way, so it can’t be the sensation. So what is it then? Do you see where I’m going with this? If it is the right combination of specific senses that makes an object ”apple” exist, does it exist on its own and DE’s just describe the object or it’s the other way around- we have the 5 specific senses and thought groups them and creates an object? Can an "object" then be in general a LABEL for a specific combination of any of the five senses?

There is a belief that labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’. But there isn’t. Just like it is a generally accepted belief that labels like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inherent characteristics of ‘things’. But actually, they are not.Let’s take your example “Maybe my red is your green, etc...” and play with it:

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN' , what is the actual experience?

Is the colour red ‘experienced’, or is the colour green ‘experienced’ as the label suggests?

Does the label ‘GREEN’ have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’? Or does the label suggest something else other than what is here now (red colour)?

Is 'green' associated in any way with the experience of the colour red; or is green just a label that overlays the actual experience of red?

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’ , is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no affect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

Let me know what is SEEN.

Love
Rali

You are overcomplicating things. Looking is simple. If you feel tension when trying to look at what is, you are trying too hard. Stop trying. Looking is a matter of noticing what is already here, not inventing or imagining something that needs a huge amount of energy to sustain. It’s not mental gymnastics, and there’s no medal that you have to go for. Soften, breathe—smile even. Take your time to relax and simply notice what is happening in the present: sensations, muscle tension, feelings, subtle eye movements, sounds, smells. This sort of noticing is effortless; attention moves and focuses on different perceptions, different information coming in. Thoughts rush in to label what is being noticed. No special state is required; it’s everyday ordinary business.

I will try to stop trying, although as I have alluded to before, it has been many years of meditation trying to attain the state of effortless effort. Sometimes it happens spontaineously, although it seems to coincide with having made some efforts previously. I'm trying to get my head choicelessness and effortlessness. My everyday ordinary business has been "getting this" for so long that it seems like a bit of a struggle to put it down.
But yeah, I see it all happens by itself and the doing of anything is just interfering with the perception of what is.

If I ask you what colour socks you are wearing, I don’t ask you to philosophise about the nature of the colour “red” or “green” but just to notice what colour socks you are wearing, using the same label to describe it as you have always used, is that clear? The point of this example was just to encourage you to notice through your senses what is here now but not to remember what it was yesterday or a month ago. Labels used for description are the same that you use in your everyday life. Nothing fancy here, just normal everyday life.

Yes clear, I am wearing blue socks, just blue!

Well you can notice the presence of a thought, right? You can see that you are thinking about something. And that thinking is different from tasting for example. Please let me if it’s not the case. The presence of a thought is DE but what thoughts talk about is a fiction as we will see with this inquiry.

Ok yes I see I can distinguish thought from feeling or other experiences. Sorry to overcomplicate things. That also seems to happen a lot.

Forget about the self for a second and concentrate on the “apple”. Yes, the presence of thoughts is real but their content is fictional. Words are not experience. The story about experience is not experience. Experience is what is happening through sense perception: seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching, feeling, and thinking. What is happening underneath the words is what the words are pointing to. Taste an apple and see; its sweetness, crunchiness, and juiciness are ideas that are learned, repeated, and accepted as standard expressions. They only vaguely describe what is happening on taste buds. But, if you share that apple with a friend, both of you will know what you mean by these descriptions and agree.

When your friend eats an apple and describes how sweet it tastes, how fragrant it is, how crunchy the flesh feels, how can you know what he is talking about if you haven’t tasted that apple? The description of experience is no help when it comes to the sense of experiencing. We can talk about tasting the apple, but it’s all conceptual: ideas about ideas and not the experience that is happening right now. Ideas are good for directing attention, like this: The next time you eat an apple, remember to experience the taste fully, as if you are tasting the apple for the first time. Dive into the experience, noticing all and forgetting all you know about the apple. Savour every bite of it. See the difference between talking about the taste of the apple and tasting it. So do this and let me know what you find.

I agree that if two people share an experience, tasting an apple for example, they mostly agree they had a similar experience, even if they use slightly different words and thoughts to describe it.
And also that direct experience is ocurring before thoughts and concepts are forming around it. I will try to have an apple with lunch today!

This is what is meant by the colour of your socks exercise. No stories about previous experiences but what is here, now. There are so many concepts here like “energies”, “consciousness”…I’m asking you what is in front of you :)
Look at the apple, taste one (please).

Ok I understand, I over conceptualize and intellectualize things. I have been doing that my whole life. Also, revisiting the past it an allusion to being stuck in the past. So I will try to experience what is here now. But it seems easier said than done!

There are tasting (tastes), seeing (colours/shapes), feeling (sensations when eating and touching), smelling (smells) – no hearing an “apple”. If you notice I used verbs as these are happening in motion, there is a flux not a frozen picture. Then thought appears and describes that you are seeing an “apple”, tasting an “apple” etc. Just because these particular seeing, tasting,… have appeared together in the past they are grouped together as “apple” experience. What makes the “object apple” inherently existing? At which point will it stop being an object/apple? What makes an apple an “apple”? We have green, red, yellow “apples” so obviously is not the red colour that makes an apple exist on its own, right? We have a lot of other sweet and sour fruits so it’s not the taste, right? We have a lot of other objects that feel the same way, so it can’t be the sensation. So what is it then? Do you see where I’m going with this? If it is the right combination of specific senses that makes an object ”apple” exist, does it exist on its own and DE’s just describe the object or it’s the other way around- we have the 5 specific senses and thought groups them and creates an object? Can an "object" then be in general a LABEL for a specific combination of any of the five senses?

Ok, I see the point that things just sort of flow into each other, there is no inherent separate object. everything is in flux and in constant change. I try to take a mental snapshot and hold onto time, to make things last, but nothing lasts

There is a belief that labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’. But there isn’t. Just like it is a generally accepted belief that labels like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inherent characteristics of ‘things’. But actually, they are not.Let’s take your example “Maybe my red is your green, etc...” and play with it:
When you look at the word label ‘GREEN' , what is the actual experience?

I see a the letters, and then the imagination of the color I perceive as green. I guess I have always been a bit of a literal thinker, probably milddly neuro-divergent, in that I get very attached to words, concepts, ideas. Maybe that is what slowed down my process. (just kidding, kinda, how can there be a process)

Is the colour red ‘experienced’, or is the colour green ‘experienced’ as the label suggests?

I would say no, it is just a concept, until the actual color itself appears, and then in the words of the bard" A rose iby any other name would smell as sweet." The label-word, doesn't matter. This is easily illustrated in that the word-sound is dirrerent in every language yet they all point to the same thing.

Does the label ‘GREEN’ have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’? Or does the label suggest something else other than what is here now (red colour)?

No words can by thier nature have a one to one correspondence. Many scholars have postulated that a language like sanscrit has sounds that are more original, that is the vibratory frequency of the sound may correspond to the vibration of the thing being pointed to, but that is all pointless intellectual excersise to speculate about here :)

Is 'green' associated in any way with the experience of the colour red; or is green just a label that overlays the actual experience of red?

Both just labels, however in the label making thought process they are sometimes closely associated.

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’ , is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

The redness isn't affected, but the association with the thought process and beliefs of the subject, ie Me, changes slightly.

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no affect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

Let me know what is SEEN.

Redness itself can't be good or bad, but the thoughts around it, suggesting perhaps blood or even violence, can be thought or judged to be good or bad by the observer.

I found this to be a very useful and interesting exercise to think about. Thank you for all your efforts.
Love
Peter

Hi Peter
Thank you for your determination and openness!

Ok I understand, I over conceptualize and intellectualize things. I have been doing that my whole life. Also, revisiting the past it an allusion to being stuck in the past. So I will try to experience what is here now. But it seems easier said than done!

No worries! That’s why I’m here :)

Redness itself can't be good or bad, but the thoughts around it, suggesting perhaps blood or even violence, can be thought or judged to be good or bad by the observer.

Do these associations (thought content) have anything to do with the colour red? Does the colour red intrinsically carry violence or blood? What is “blood” (think of the apple example)? In DE “blood” is a label, right? It points to seeing (colours) and maybe sensations (if it’s touched), or tastes. You see, ideas are not objects or subjects themselves. Groups of concepts taken for truth of how things are become beliefs upon which new ideas land and stick (e.g. associations), creating an even bigger, more magnificent castle of concepts. For you “blood” is associated with “violence” for others it could be “life-saving”, or “indicator for testing health”. These associations are not the same for everyone, which suggests their empty (conditioned) nature. What is "good" or "bad" for you is not necessarily good or bad for somebody else (different cultures, upbringing, etc.). And that is why we are not interested in thought content – we are interested in what is truly here, now, independently from conditioning.

Just to ensure that you are crystal clear about DE and labels related to it...here's an exercise that you can try as many times throughout the day as you can. Label daily activities, objects and emotions simply as colour/image, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought as per the apple example.
For example, when having coffee in the morning, become aware of:
Seeing a cup, simply= image/colour (seeing)
Smelling coffee, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste (tasting)
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought (thinking)

Break down daily activities into these categories (which are all Actual/Direct Experience) and report back with lists EXACTLY like the one above. Please write a few examples from your daily life.
Love
Rali

Do these associations (thought content) have anything to do with the colour red? Does the colour red intrinsically carry violence or blood? What is “blood” (think of the apple example)? In DE “blood” is a label, right? It points to seeing (colours) and maybe sensations (if it’s touched), or tastes. You see, ideas are not objects or subjects themselves. Groups of concepts taken for truth of how things are become beliefs upon which new ideas land and stick (e.g. associations), creating an even bigger, more magnificent castle of concepts. For you “blood” is associated with “violence” for others it could be “life-saving”, or “indicator for testing health”. These associations are not the same for everyone, which suggests their empty (conditioned) nature. What is "good" or "bad" for you is not necessarily good or bad for somebody else (different cultures, upbringing, etc.). And that is why we are not interested in thought content – we are interested in what is truly here, now, independently from conditioning.

Yes I can see how the associations of colors, shapes, forms, is conditioned by culture. There is something very pavlovian about it.
For some, blue is seen as a depressing color, for example. But some of the associations are seemingly near universal. Sounds for example of alarm, seem to work in any language, a more primitive conditioning system, something universal and animalistic. Sounds of fear, anger, emotional states that can be understood in any language.

Just to ensure that you are crystal clear about DE and labels related to it...here's an exercise that you can try as many times throughout the day as you can. Label daily activities, objects and emotions simply as colour/image, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought as per the apple example.


For example, when having coffee in the morning, become aware of:
Seeing a cup, simply= image/colour (seeing)
Smelling coffee, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste (tasting)
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought (thinking)

Seeing a bicycle=shape/color
Feeling a bicycle=weight/solidity
Hearing the bicycle=whizzing/grinding of gears
Riding the bicycle=Balancing/momentum
Thought about bicycle=thoughts

Eating Breakfast=Chewing/tasting
Drinking Smoothie=Smelling,tasting
Dressing=touching,pulling
Slipping=Falling,oofing
Saying goodmorning=Talking/listening

Sitting=Seeing/moving/resting
Typing=Fingers Moving

Break down daily activities into these categories (which are all Actual/Direct Experience) and report back with lists EXACTLY like the one above. Please write a few examples from your daily life.
Love
Rali

I think I see why this is useful. There is really no "selfing" in any of these activities, yet it still feels like doing something, sometimes.

Thank You
Love,
Peter

Hi Peter

For some, blue is seen as a depressing color, for example. But some of the associations are seemingly near universal. Sounds for example of alarm, seem to work in any language, a more primitive conditioning system, something universal and animalistic. Sounds of fear, anger, emotional states that can be understood in any language.

Emotions = sensation + thoughts

So what you are saying is that thoughts might be similar. Thoughts are what we’ve learned from your parents or peers or anybody else. Some “stories” do go way back and are a bit more “primal” but never-the-less still a story, a bunch of labels/concepts passed on from one generation to another.

Seeing a bicycle=shape/color
Feeling a bicycle=weight/solidity
Hearing the bicycle=whizzing/grinding of gears
Riding the bicycle=Balancing/momentum
Thought about bicycle=thoughts

Eating Breakfast=Chewing/tasting
Drinking Smoothie=Smelling,tasting
Dressing=touching,pulling
Slipping=Falling,oofing
Saying goodmorning=Talking/listening

Sitting=Seeing/moving/resting
Typing=Fingers Moving

There is still a lot of thought content here. The DE labels are only seeing (colours), hearing (sounds), tasting (tastes), sensations (feeling), smelling (smells), and thinking (thoughts). So what I wanted is to describe everyday activities through DE labels.
What your examples should have looked like is:
Feeling the weight and solidity of a bicycle = sensation
Hearing whizzing/grinding of gears of the bicycle = sound (hearing)
Riding the bicycle, balancing/momentum = sensation (feeling)
Eating Breakfast, chewing = sensations and tastes (tasting)
Dressing, touching, pulling = sensations (feeling)
Slipping, falling, oofing = sensations (feeling)
Saying good morning, Talking = sound (hearing), sensations
Sitting = sensations (feeling)
Moving = sensations (feeling)
Typing = sensations, sounds
Fingers Moving = sensations

Please write some more examples from your day in that format!

Love
Rali

Emotions = sensation + thoughts

So what you are saying is that thoughts might be similar. Thoughts are what we’ve learned from your parents or peers or anybody else. Some “stories” do go way back and are a bit more “primal” but never-the-less still a story, a bunch of labels/concepts passed on from one generation to another.

If the labels are so deep as to be generational it seems difficult to see beyond them, yet that is what I hope to be able to do.

There is still a lot of thought content here. The DE labels are only seeing (colours), hearing (sounds), tasting (tastes), sensations (feeling), smelling (smells), and thinking (thoughts). So what I wanted is to describe everyday activities through DE labels.
What your examples should have looked like is:
Feeling the weight and solidity of a bicycle = sensation
Hearing whizzing/grinding of gears of the bicycle = sound (hearing)
Riding the bicycle, balancing/momentum = sensation (feeling)
Eating Breakfast, chewing = sensations and tastes (tasting)
Dressing, touching, pulling = sensations (feeling)
Slipping, falling, oofing = sensations (feeling)
Saying good morning, Talking = sound (hearing), sensations
Sitting = sensations (feeling)
Moving = sensations (feeling)
Typing = sensations, sounds
Fingers Moving = sensations

Please write some more examples from your day in that format!

Cleaning=sensations,sounds, movement.
Eating Watermelon=Sensations (taste)
Driving a car= Sensations (sitting, moving hands and feet)
Sitting in front of computer= Sensations (sight, hearing)
Drinking= Sensations (tasting)
Sweeping=Sensations (moving)
Cooking=sensations (moving, tasting)


I'm starting to see that there isn't really too much thought involved in any of my normal daily activities. The labeling and conceptualizing seems to come either before or after the activities themselves. But even when I am trying to look at DE, it feels like the same frustrated, tired, yet somehow curious and open, ME! So there is a separation between the me and that which the me perceives.