two is one

Welcome to the main forum. When you are ready to start a conversation, register and once your application is processed a guide will come to talk to you.
This is one-on-one style forum, one thread per green member.
User avatar
Ronaldo
Site Admin
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:06 am
Location: New England, USA

Re: two is one

Postby Ronaldo » Tue Jul 14, 2020 7:50 pm

Hi Tomasz

I wanted to clarify that we're not yet doing the typical question-looking-response enquiry.  I made many statements and asked some questions in my last post, but many of them are rhetorical or made for emphasis, I'm not asking you to answer each of them, but rather want to hear how that makes you feel.  So here are more specific questions, please be honest, not polite:

Do you see the logic in these arguments, or do you find them nonsensical? 
Do you sense any raising of resistance and opposition?  
Do you want your theory and method to be true?
Is there any point that I've made that is fuzzy or hard to swallow? 

Do you agree with my last sentence: There is nothing you actually know for sure, except... The only things you know is that there is this experience! The sights, the sounds and sensations could be unreal, but the experience is undeniable, isn't it? 
If not, what are you absolutely certain you know?
I do hope your reply is far shorter than mine!

Regards
Ron
The truth is simple. If it was complicated, everyone would understand it. - Walt Whitman

User avatar
kwwadi
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:29 am

Re: two is one

Postby kwwadi » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:45 pm

Hi Ron,

Wow, that is a long reply.
Thank you.
I certainly do not usually have so much time to write.

Please, remember that whatever you are going to read in my response is not against you.
I do appreciate your willingness to guide me.


Do you see the logic in these arguments, or do you find them nonsensical?
Yes, there is logic with of your arguments. For example,
Is it possible that this is fundamentally wrong and backwards? That experience is prior to, and not created by matter? That matter is a perception? Could it be that matter does not exist as a separate, independent entity outside observation?

The matter (a table) can be experienced as solid, but it does not mean it really is.
When I touch something, it triggers receptors in my fingers to send an electric signal which goes along nerve cells in my arm/shoulder and neck to the brain.
Then that signal interferes with the field inside the brain. That distortion can be noticed because it has its silent background and it is an example of ‘the object’.
I still know nothing about the real table.
What I register, is a distortion in the brain.
What I experience is an illusion of the table limited to what can be geneated in the brain.
The only matter I know is perception.


Do you sense any raising of resistance and opposition?
Yes, I was feeling a resistance to your arguments which was represented by tension in my middle chest which was up to 3-4 on the scale to 10.
I felt you did not really let yourself grasp my theory well and you made some assumptions on the base of your experience with similar discussions in the past.
As you can imagine, I am into that ‘theories’ for a long time and the current one is a summary of everything what I encountered to this point including reading, experiencing, experimenting and discussing.
However, I do not feel too personal about that theory and I will be happy to drop it and let it to be dissolved into nothingness by direct looking and experiencing.

By the way, would it be wrong to assume that direct looking and experiencing leads to a certain theory which can be proved by it?
Can a theory and an experience be somehow balanced?
Do you think that all theories are useless because they are a product of thinking?
Say I have a theory that if I hit the wall with my fist it will hurt. That theory stops me from doing it. Is there anything wrong with it?
Theories generally help us to predict what is going to happen with some certainty. They can be continuously corrected and that is how people learn.
I agree, at the same time there is a huge space for experiencing and looking and it should not be overlooked :)



Do you want your theory and method to be true?
It seems to explain a lot of things I read about, I learn about and I experienced.
I would not be afraid to stop believing init but I find myself hoping that it eventually be confirmed by direct looking/experiencing :)


Is there any point that I've made that is fuzzy or hard to swallow?
The main one was saying about my theory being based on materialism.
You then give an example with ‘old fashion’ approach to space inside the matter.
I wrote something on that topic here - https://www.openfocusattentiontraining. ... -identity/



Do you agree with my last sentence: There is nothing you actually know for sure, except...
The only things you know is that there is this experience! The sights, the sounds and sensations could be unreal, but the experience is undeniable, isn't it?
The knowledge is based on experience.
I experienced hot iron and now I know to not touch it anymore.
By the way, could you explain a difference between sensing and experiencing?


If not, what are you absolutely certain you know?
I know, if I jumped from a tall building I would die.
I know you have good intentions to help me to see.


I will have two long days at work tomorrow and on Thursday.
Please, forgive me if I will not respond before Friday.

Kind Regards,
Tomasz

User avatar
Ronaldo
Site Admin
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:06 am
Location: New England, USA

Re: two is one

Postby Ronaldo » Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:55 am

Hi Tomasz.
T: When I touch something, it triggers receptors in my fingers to send an electric signal which goes along nerve cells in my arm/shoulder and neck to the brain.
So many assumptions are made in this simple sentence. Yes, I too studied all that and accepted them as absolute truths for decades, but it's all based on the basic axiom that you are a person made of matter in a world made of matter.  In that axiom your senses are the interface between your consciousness (the knowing of what is sensed) and the world.  You acknowledge that your brain interprets a world outside of you, and that you have no direct access to that world - how can you make any claims about that outside world? Clearly you can't. 
Are your body and brain outside of that world, or inside it? Isn't your body also a mere interpretation then? How can you be certain you're not a pure simulation, or an organism the size of an ameba and everything you sense, the movement, the colors, the pain - all are simulations occuring in your ameba brain?, none of it is real.

T: What I register, is a distortion in the brain.
What I experience is an illusion of the table limited to what can be geneated in the brain.
   
According to recent research, what you see is not a translation of the image on the retina, the information presumably passed from the retina to the visual cortex is very sparse and the gap between what is actually seen and what appears on the retina cannot be explained. But moreover, If you look at a tree, and the information of that  inverted image on your retina is transferred to your visual cortex, how do you know it's a tree? Is there a picture shining in your brain of a tree? Is your brain merely categorizing it as "tree", "green", "Oak" etc like artificial vision? Is categorizing something and giving it tags the same as the experience of knowing that which is seen?

T:I felt you did not really let yourself grasp my theory well and you made some assumptions
That is correct, I have no interest in your theories, and it's nothing personal and not meant to dismiss you or your efforts. I've heard countless theories, some are better than others because they are tighter in logic, have supporting experimental data etc., but all of them rest on a bunch of big axioms and beliefs that are impossible to know.  Dogs like to chew on bones, and "minds" love to think.  Despite my lack of interest, I'm not dismissing the value of theories, logic and science, I use these every day and life would be a hopeless mess of superstitions and supernatural phenomena without that practicality.  My point is that if you spend your time in the mind, you'll never get out of that domain, and there are endless places and opportunities to do that, we try to show you something quite different than that here.

T:  I do not feel too personal about that theory and I will be happy to drop it and let it to be dissolved into nothingness by direct looking and experiencing.
If you are able to drop that I'll be happy to stop discussing theories and get down to our business here. But something in your view needs to relax, you hold them close and dear and identify with their validity.

By the way, would it be wrong to assume that direct looking and experiencing leads to a certain theory which can be proved by it?
You could look and derive a new theory,  but then you'd be deluding yourself and your pure vision becomes a belief in a story. This happens all the time so the looking needs to happen again and again.  There is nothing I am going to convince you off, nothing for you to learn, LU is not a cult or a dogmatic method, there is nothing to believe in.  You simply look and look again, and at some point something will just fall and you'll "see" what has always been there, simple and overlooked. 

Can a theory and an experience be somehow balanced?
Do you think that all theories are useless because they are a product of thinking?
 Like I said, theories have value and practical usefulness. I don't live in a cave and eat coconuts, I use my smartphone and spend too much time on this damn computer. The purpose here is to go beyond the movie of your life, and see who is that main character we tag Tomasz, who is presumed to be developing theories, treating people, suffering, seeking.

Say I have a theory that if I hit the wall with my fist it will hurt. That theory stops me from doing it. Is there anything wrong with it?
If you don't believe in gravity and jump from the 10th floor, will you crash?  Even after seeing the no-self things continue the way they always have, why? because it has always been that way, regardless if you believe it or not! Your belief does not affect reality, reality doesn't care what you believe. There is no contradiction when you realize it and you don't become spiderman either. 

T: I find myself hoping that it eventually be confirmed by direct looking/experiencing :)
it will not, the theory/thoughts are happening inside reality, but they will be exposed as illusory and lose their glamour. 

R: Is there any point that I've made that is fuzzy or hard to swallow?
T: The main one was saying about my theory being based on materialism.You then give an example with ‘old fashion’ approach to space inside the matter.
OK, I'm sorry if my example included an old trivia, but we could go on and debate the materialistic view, and if you believe in it or not, but that's unlikely to produce much forward motion, let's move on. 

By the way, could you explain a difference between sensing and experiencing?
Is sensing an experience?
Are the two things separate or the same? i.e. can you sense without experiencing that sensing? 

I know, if I jumped from a tall building I would die.
I know you have good intentions to help me to see.
You know these things in the usual sense when people say they know something.  Here we are talking about absolute truths, "you" and "I" are not absolute truths. But that makes no sense to the thinking mind.  
I will have two long days at work tomorrow and on Thursday.
Please, forgive me if I will not respond before Friday.
OK, When you have the time, please answer the non rhetorical questions, if you disagree with my statements just move on, we can try to proceed regardless. There are lots of other items to question.

Thanks
Ron
The truth is simple. If it was complicated, everyone would understand it. - Walt Whitman

User avatar
kwwadi
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:29 am

Re: two is one

Postby kwwadi » Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:43 pm

Ron,
If you are able to drop that I'll be happy to stop discussing theories and get down to our business here. But something in your view needs to relax, you hold them close and dear and identify with their validity.
I agree, it might be that I found a lot of very practical everyday ways to improve my life which are linked to (based on) that theory. In other words, for many years it helps me to deal with stress, unwanted emotions, insomnia, physical performance, creativity, physical pain and a few more. I also can help other people based on that approach and they feel/live better.
I cannot be sure if that theory is true, but I am sure my experience of life has changed to the better and I would not like to lose it.
So, it might be a reason why I appear a bit rigid about it.

There is nothing I am going to convince you off, nothing for you to learn, LU is not a cult or a dogmatic method, there is nothing to believe in. You simply look and look again, and at some point something will just fall and you'll "see" what has always been there, simple and overlooked.
I like that a lot.
Lets make it happen :)

Is sensing an experience?
Could the difference be that sensing is pure registering without naming and giving a meaning.
While experiencing requires experiencer who then can give names build stories on what was experienced.

Are the two things separate or the same? i.e. can you sense without experiencing that sensing?
Yes, sensing is does not trigger any memories/emotions/reflections.
Pure sensing just is.

Thank you,
Tomasz

User avatar
Ronaldo
Site Admin
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:06 am
Location: New England, USA

Re: two is one

Postby Ronaldo » Fri Jul 17, 2020 2:43 am

Hi Tomasz,
I found a lot of very practical everyday ways to improve my life which are linked to (based on) that theory. In other words, for many years it helps me to deal with stress, unwanted emotions, insomnia, physical performance, creativity, physical pain and a few more. I also can help other people based on that approach and they feel/live better.
Yes, that's fair, and is not a contradiction. There are lots of methods and changes in perception that can help.I read Eckhart Tolle when I started seeking, and it struck me, I realized for the first time that I was not my mind, that identification dropped.  Tolle (and many other teachers) start by putting you in the place of the observer - you are not your thoughts, but the one observing the thoughts, you are not your body, but the one experiencing a body.  That understanding appeals to logic, it makes sense! I loved it and it is a huge leap from being identified as a mind and as a body and it "works" great for a while and liberates you from that sticky attachment to every thought and every belief you have. 
So yes, it does help, but it's only a concession, a halfway understanding, it's not the end nor the whole truth.  I suspect this is where you're stuck, as I was for quite a while.  

Why is it not the end or ultimate truth and why is it holding you back? First, it is as a logical understanding, it makes perfect sense and quickly becomes a belief!  Any and every observation you make is being molded to fit this vision, "T: I am something which is watching my thoughts", "T: The sensation in my head is NOT me who is aware of thoughts." Here you assume that you are the observer.  However, that is an assumption, and a belief. You are not the observer, there is no you, that 'self' is by itself a mere thought, and that thought is not known by the Tomasz character!. An observer implies duality, and reality is nondual - but that is not something I can explain, that is something you can experience. 

What is the difference between a concept/idea/theory and an experience? Suppose you have never eaten a kiwifruit, I need to convey to you what a kiwi tastes like, but you have to really know what it tastes like. Can you see that no matter how much time we’ll spend, me describing the taste of that kiwi, you listening, reading books about it, watching videos on youtube with gurus explaining the taste and the mouthfeel – you will not get it. At some point you may actually believe or think that you get it, you know what it tastes like, perhaps after you’ve completed a 10 day intensive kiwi retreat, but you will not. 
When you put that kiwi in your mouth, you will instantly know the taste, and no words will be needed. In fact you will also immediately realize how all these words and videos have been of no value and no significance at all. The truth is such an kiwi; my words cannot make you see, but if you follow the pointers you may experience it for yourself. That is why there is only pointing, a thought is never the real thing.

Do you see why explanations and theories will not get you far on this quest? Do you see why you have to drop the assumptions and beliefs and be like a 3 year old tasking his first kiwi?Isn't a thought either pointing to something real - a vision, a sound, a feeling, OR merely pointing to other thoughts?  If so, are thoughts ever the genuine thing? Can they be? Sure they claim to be, but can you see through that claim?  If you feel that this is absolutely clear, we can resume the enquiry, and pardon that I will likely repeat a lot of your previous discussion with Vivien.  
R: is sensing an experience?
T: Could the difference be that sensing is pure registering without naming and giving a meaning.

Sensing, e.g. touch, is indeed just touch, the interpretation of that is done by thought.  Do this simple experiment please: close your eyes and touch the table with the tips of your fingers, focus on that sensation of the table.  Now drop the label "table" drop the label "wood" (or whatever it's made of). 
Can you get to a point where you are focused on the sensation alone, and simply feel it?
Does it have a shape, a form?
Does it indicate what it's made of?
Is it possible to express in words exactly what it feels like?


T: experiencing requires experiencer who then can give names build stories on what was experienced.

This is an assumption based on the witness, why is there a mandatory experiencer? What if there is just sensing, by no one?
 
Is an experience the same as the interpretation of that experience?
Have you ever seen an object that you don't know and just couldn't identify? Are you saying there was no experience in just looking if you can't call it a name?

R: can you sense without experiencing that sensing?
T: Yes, sensing is does not trigger any memories/emotions/reflections.
Pure sensing just is.
 
I think you're meaning the right thing, but there's a bit of confusion :) Indeed, you see that sensing just is! But clearly sensing is experienced, it is known., how can there be sensing without an experience, without awareness of that sensing?
Can there be hearing without the experience (or the awareness) of hearing? How would it be known? (note: known, not understood!)?

The word  experience does not equate an understanding - that's what thought does - it "explains" what was experienced, and yes, the thought itself is also experienced!

If this is clear, please look at a glass of water for a while, and tell me:
What is the raw experience?
What is the interpreted experience? 


Regards
Ron
The truth is simple. If it was complicated, everyone would understand it. - Walt Whitman

User avatar
kwwadi
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:29 am

Re: two is one

Postby kwwadi » Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:51 pm

Hi Ron,

I am sorry for not writing to you yesterday.
We went camping for one night and after arriving I realised there was no mobile network reception there.
I could not even write you a short info to you to say what was happening.

We are back home, but I am too tired to write now.
I am work all day tomorrow (I do a weekend jobs occasionally).

I should be able to write on Monday.

Have a nice the rest of weekend.
Tomasz

User avatar
Ronaldo
Site Admin
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:06 am
Location: New England, USA

Re: two is one

Postby Ronaldo » Sun Jul 19, 2020 12:22 am

OK, thanks for letting me know.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend, and looking forward to chatting Monday.
Best
Ron
The truth is simple. If it was complicated, everyone would understand it. - Walt Whitman

User avatar
kwwadi
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:29 am

Re: two is one

Postby kwwadi » Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:00 pm

Hi Ron,

Why is it not the end or ultimate truth and why is it holding you back? First, it is as a logical understanding, it makes perfect sense and quickly becomes a belief! Any and every observation you make is being molded to fit this vision, "T: I am something which is watching my thoughts", "T: The sensation in my head is NOT me who is aware of thoughts." Here you assume that you are the observer. However, that is an assumption, and a belief. You are not the observer, there is no you, that 'self' is by itself a mere thought, and that thought is not known by the Tomasz character!. An observer implies duality, and reality is nondual - but that is not something I can explain, that is something you can experience.
Ok, so there is no one who is sensing or experiencing.
There is pure sensing and experiencing only.
It is like the observer is immersed with the activity like reading a good fiction book, watching a good film, gaming, creating, etc
The Tomasz character becomes one with a main character of the book for the time of reading.

Can you get to a point where you are focused on the sensation alone, and simply feel it?
1. Does it have a shape, a form?
2. Does it indicate what it's made of?
3. Is it possible to express in words exactly what it feels like?

I touched an inside surface of the car doors (my wife is driving :)

1. The sensation of touch does not have a shape. It is a gentle vibration on the tops of my fingers.
2. I can sense a soft texture. It is not definite what it is made of
3. Not really, it like one cannot explain the colour red in words (see your kiwi example)


This is an assumption based on the witness, why is there a mandatory experiencer? What if there is just sensing, by no one?

Yes, that was only my interpretation of the word experience. I am fine with you saying it was not the best one.
Is an experience the same as the interpretation of that experience?
Ok, so sensing can be experienced and then that experience can be interpreted by thoughts.

Have you ever seen an object that you don't know and just couldn't identify? Are you saying there was no experience in just looking if you can't call it a name?
Are you sayng that sensing is a synonym of experiencing?



I think you're meaning the right thing, but there's a bit of confusion :) Indeed, you see that sensing just is! But clearly sensing is experienced, it is known., how can there be sensing without an experience, without awareness of that sensing?
Can there be hearing without the experience (or the awareness) of hearing? How would it be known? (note: known, not understood!)?

‘Sensing’ and ‘experiencing’, interpreted experience’, ‘perceiving’, ‘percept’ …
There are all meaningless words unless we give them meanings.

See how many synonyms the word experiencing has on thesaurus.com https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/experiencing?s=t

Also some words look very similar in different languages so their meaning can be additionally confused but multilingual people.

May I suggest, you will suggest a specific meaning of a certain word instead of me trying to guess what is your preferable interpretation.


If this is clear, please look at a glass of water for a while, and tell me:
What is the raw experience?
What is the interpreted experience?
I look at the plastic bottle of water in a moving car.
The raw experience is seeing the half of shiny plastic bottle stuck in the holder and a moving surface of water inside.

The interpreted experience is.
I can see only a half of the bottle because the rest of the bottle is hidden inside a holder. There is still some water in that bottle so I can drink some if I want.

Thank you,
Tomasz

User avatar
Ronaldo
Site Admin
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:06 am
Location: New England, USA

Re: two is one

Postby Ronaldo » Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:16 pm

Hi Tomasz,
The Tomasz character becomes one with a main character of the book for the time of reading.
Reading a book, watching a movie etc. involve sights, sounds, thoughts, feelings and emotions  What you describe is an identification with a character or a situation which is similar to the "normal" identification with a presumed self, we do it so well. But it's not Tomasz who is identifying with another character, a thought cannot identify with anything, it can tell a story. 

We're looking at the most basic and simple sense perceptions, this takes some practice and focused dedication.
Try to focus on the taste of your coffee/tea, or the smell of toast for example.In the taste  -
is there a taster? is there a Tomasz? Or is there just taste? Note that a Tomasz may indeed appears to be involved in the tasting, so be vigilant and spot that subtle thought,
Is Tomasz really part of the tasting, or is it snuck in as a thought that says "I am" tasting?

I touched an inside surface of the car doors (my wife is driving :)
1. The sensation of touch does not have a shape. It is a gentle vibration on the tops of my fingers.
Hmm, It will be pointless to just answer from memory again - As silly as it may seem, please do it again, sense, focus on the sensation alone, then answer.
Can you actually sense the tips of your fingers? Or is that a belief/assumption/thought?
In the sensing, are there fingers, is there a "me sensing"?

R: This is an assumption based on the witness, why is there a mandatory experiencer? What if there is just sensing, by no one?
T: Yes, that was only my interpretation of the word experience. I am fine with you saying it was not the best one.
There may be a subtle point of misunderstanding (as you pointed out) that I want to clarify again that for this discussion I use these terms synonymously. 
"knowing" = "experiencing" 
Language always assumes a subject and an object, seen and see-er, an experience and an experiencer, we have to work with that and still be able to express clearly.  My poiner here was not which expression is better, but that you assumed a witness - a subject-object relation but in reality there is no 'knowing' and 'known' - there is just "knowingknown".  Let's explore that closely:

Please sit in a place you're not going to be disturbed, close your eyes and listen. Find a sound and focus only on that sound. 
Is the experience of hearing just the heard? Or is there a sound + knowing of that sound?
Can you find a separation, a line between the sound and the knowing (the experience) of the sound? 


Next feel/sense your hands (that tingling/energy). Hold that focus and be with is... This is very subtle, so please be patient and curious. 
Can you find a separation between the sensation and the experience of sensing your hands?
Is there a "me sensing my hands" in that simple, raw sensation? Or is "me sensing" is a thought commenting on a raw experience?


T: I look at the plastic bottle of water in a moving car.The raw experience is seeing the half of shiny plastic bottle stuck in the holder and a moving surface of water inside.
It's great to observe things in any situation, but I would recommend also doing these experiments in a quiet and undisturbed environment, or you are likely to miss out.  
How can there be a shiny plastic bottle in raw experience (what is seen)? 
Would you say this Is that what a 3 year old would experience?  This is full of interpretation brought about by thinking - can you see that?
It's true that any translation from what is seen to words will cause distortion and twisting of the raw reality, but I think you can do better than "a plastic bottle" :)
So what is seen when looking at a plastic bottle and not interpreting? (hint, is 3D an interpretation or is it really what's seen?)
What is the difference between looking at Stonehenge and looking at a really big and high resolution picture of Stonehenge?

The interpreted experience is.
I can see only a half of the bottle because the rest of the bottle is hidden inside a holder. There is still some water in that bottle so I can drink some if I want.
"A plastic bottle, half filled with water" is an interpretation,  The rest is perhaps a short story :)

Please try that again, quiet place, a glass with water or no water...
Please describe what is seen, and only what is seen.

Thank you
Ron
The truth is simple. If it was complicated, everyone would understand it. - Walt Whitman

User avatar
kwwadi
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:29 am

Re: two is one

Postby kwwadi » Tue Jul 21, 2020 10:27 pm

HI Ron,

I am getting confused, but it makes it only more interesting :)
I had very busy day today and I am too tired to write now.

I will have long days at work tomorrow and on Thursday.
I should be able to write on Thursday evening or Friday.

Please, be patient with me.
Thank you,
Tomasz

User avatar
Ronaldo
Site Admin
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:06 am
Location: New England, USA

Re: two is one

Postby Ronaldo » Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:06 pm

Hi Tomasz,

I think it's going to be quite challenging to make continuous strides with your schedule, and I have to assume it also affects how much time you set aside for actual looking. I am willing to cater to that for now but perhaps you should consider dropping this and coming back when things change and you can see this as a priority. I'm not passing judgement on your choices and life situation, but I doubt this will be fruitful without a much greater dedication and commitment.

The confusion could be caused by over thinking, try to answer each question from direct observation and answer with a single sentence, reality is simple. Example: I ask you what color socks you wear, you can (1) think and remember what you put on this morning and tell me they are blue wool that you really like when it's cold, or (2) look and say "blue". I want option 2 please :)

Thanks
Ron
The truth is simple. If it was complicated, everyone would understand it. - Walt Whitman

User avatar
kwwadi
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:29 am

Re: two is one

Postby kwwadi » Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:23 pm

Hi Ron,
Try to focus on the taste of your coffee/tea, or the smell of toast for example.
In the taste -
is there a taster? is there a Tomasz? Or is there just taste? Note that a Tomasz may indeed appears to be involved in the tasting, so be vigilant and spot that subtle thought,
I tested a lemon water and a biscuit.
On direct sensing there is gentle tingling (gentle vibration) which starts and then ends.
Is Tomasz really part of the tasting, or is it snuck in as a thought that says "I am" tasting?

There is no thought.
There is just testing.
Can you actually sense the tips of your fingers? Or is that a belief/assumption/thought?
In the sensing, are there fingers, is there a "me sensing"?

I touched the surface of the table with eyes closed.
Again on direct sensing there is a gentle vibration (tingling) unnamed.

Please sit in a place you're not going to be disturbed, close your eyes and listen. Find a sound and focus only on that sound.
Is the experience of hearing just the heard? Or is there a sound + knowing of that sound?
I was listening to soft jazz.
My initial idea was to write – ‘I am aware of that music’
After some time the music just was.
Can you find a separation, a line between the sound and the knowing (the experience) of the sound?

There is no clear separation.

Next feel/sense your hands (that tingling/energy). Hold that focus and be with is... This is very subtle, so please be patient and curious.
Can you find a separation between the sensation and the experience of sensing your hands?
No there is not a clear cut line.
The gentle tingling is present.

Is there a "me sensing my hands" in that simple, raw sensation? Or is "me sensing" is a thought commenting on a raw experience?
In a raw experience it is quiet sensing.


It's true that any translation from what is seen to words will cause distortion and twisting of the raw reality, but I think you can do better than "a plastic bottle" :)
So what is seen when looking at a plastic bottle and not interpreting? (hint, is 3D an interpretation or is it really what's seen?)

A circular, long shape.


What is the difference between looking at Stonehenge and looking at a really big and high resolution picture of Stonehenge?
There is a space, a third dimension in real Stonehenge.

Please try that again, quiet place, a glass with water or no water...
Please describe what is seen, and only what is seen.

I am looking at the mug standing on the table.
There is a shape, small, round, shiny, with a pattern on the surface.

I think it's going to be quite challenging to make continuous strides with your schedule, and I have to assume it also affects how much time you set aside for actual looking. I am willing to cater to that for now but perhaps you should consider dropping this and coming back when things change and you can see this as a priority. I'm not passing judgement on your choices and life situation, but I doubt this will be fruitful without a much greater dedication and commitment.

Thank you for trying to be flexible.
I would rather continue if it is possible.
We are going on holidays in a week so it might be a good time for looking, hopefully :)


The confusion could be caused by over thinking, try to answer each question from direct observation and answer with a single sentence, reality is simple. Example: I ask you what color socks you wear, you can (1) think and remember what you put on this morning and tell me they are blue wool that you really like when it's cold, or (2) look and say "blue". I want option 2 please :)

Good example.
I will remember it :)


Thank you,
Tomasz

User avatar
Ronaldo
Site Admin
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:06 am
Location: New England, USA

Re: two is one

Postby Ronaldo » Sat Jul 25, 2020 5:20 am

Hi Tomasz,
Good, you actually looked! 

We use the term "direct experience" or "actual experience" (AE) which is what is conceived directly from the 5 senses without interpretations, without thought.
Can you say that it is clear that in actual experience there is no "me" and there are no body parts of organs involved in the sensing? 


Are only thoughts suggesting that it is "my ear" hearing the sounds?
If there are doubts, keep looking for anything else existing in what you hear or smell or taste, catch these thoughts that come and tell a different story. 

R: Can you find a separation between the sensation and the experience of sensing your hands?
T: No there is not a clear cut line.
The gentle tingling is present.
Would you say that from AE what is sensed is always immediately and already known (experienced)?
You may recall Vivien's signature - it should now make some sense to you: 
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha (she got him on tape).

An excellent practice is to simplify everything you perceive, focus, undo and expose that process of interpretation and assumptions in what you see and hear and sense. You can't stop it from happening, but you can always notice it once you've seen it in action. 

R: So what is seen when looking at a plastic bottle and not interpreting?
T: A circular, long shape.
Aren't "circular" and "longs" just tags?
Isn't even the shape that you see outlined nothing more than color difference at the periphery vs the background? You would not see a black circle on a black background.
Wouldn't you agree that at the very basic level what is seen in AE is just color?

There is a space, a third dimension in real Stonehenge.
If you closed one eye, would you still claim you can see the 3rd dimension, or that it's imagined/simulated? Is the flat 2D picture really different from the actual scenery then?
Try this when you look out the window or in nature - imagine that everything in your field of vision is laying flat on your face at zero distance from your pupils... Would you know? Could it be that there is no real depth? No real distance from you to that tree? That it's only a very sophisticated trick? It's really no different than a simulator you wear on your face. This takes practice and it's fun to go about and flatten images at will.


Do any of these sense perceptions (without the interpretation and thinking part) take ANY effort?
Do you DO anything to hear or see or smell?
Can you control any of these raw "inputs"?
(if you close your eyes or ears you still see and hear, so don't tell me that).

How about thoughts? Do you make them appear? Is that something that you DO?
Or would you say they are much like the other senses, you notice them without any action or effort? 


As you keep looking through your day, and noticing these pure, raw perceptions, notice there is no YOU as the perceiving whiteness; notice that only thoughts point to this "me" as the one who perceives, but in your direct, actual experience, is that really the case? Are these only thoughts that insert this "me" everywhere and all the time?

Regards
Ron
The truth is simple. If it was complicated, everyone would understand it. - Walt Whitman

User avatar
kwwadi
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:29 am

Re: two is one

Postby kwwadi » Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:51 pm

Hi Ron,

Can you say that it is clear that in actual experience there is no "me" and there are no body parts of organs involved in the sensing?
Yes, in AE there is no me.
However, I can often notice the direction from which certain sensation is coming.
For example, a sense of touch is coming from the front or below me, sounds are coming from different directions (unless I use headphones), vision is coming from the front.
It gives the impression that there is ‘I’ I in the middle of all of this.

Are only thoughts suggesting that it is "my ear" hearing the sounds?
No there are not thoughts commenting on that.

Would you say that from AE what is sensed is always immediately and already known (experienced)?
Yes, it is.
Thoughts which comment on whatever was sensed come later.

An excellent practice is to simplify everything you perceive, focus, undo and expose that process of interpretation and assumptions in what you see and hear and sense. You can't stop it from happening, but you can always notice it once you've seen it in action.

Could you give an example for that?


Wouldn't you agree that at the very basic level what is seen in AE is just color?

Yes. I would also not see a single drop of water in the water unless the drop has different colour.

Do any of these sense perceptions (without the interpretation and thinking part) take ANY effort?
Yes, when I want to see a tiny detail without my glasses I strain my eyes and they hurt.
This is an only example I can think about now.

Do you DO anything to hear or see or smell?

No, I do not have to use any muscle in order to hear, to smell, to taste, to feel my balance, to feel my inner body.
I sometimes need to use tiny muscles inside my eyeballs to see a tiny details.

Can you control any of these raw "inputs"?
The sensory input is constant but I can distract myself on purpose and stop noticing my back pain for a moment.



How about thoughts? Do you make them appear? Is that something that you DO?
Thoughts come and go effortlessly.
However, when I think hard, analysing something or I try to recall something I tense my muscles. And them it feels I am doing something.

Or would you say they are much like the other senses, you notice them without any action or effort?
Yes, there is no effort involved.
However I can trigger some thoughts and I can decide to what to think about.
For example, I can start thinking about shoping I did today with my family.



Thank you,
Tomasz

User avatar
Ronaldo
Site Admin
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:06 am
Location: New England, USA

Re: two is one

Postby Ronaldo » Sun Jul 26, 2020 4:51 am

Hi Tomasz,
I feel like we've made a few small steps but you're not always seeing clearly the difference between the simple sensory experience and the interpretation of that experience.   
Interpretation is rapid, e.g. you see something small, colorful and flying and a thought tags "bird!!!" - you don't even notice that your experience of that magical flying creature was just replaced with a dead word that merely points to some lifeless version of a bird.  

We're having a jolly chat here, but if you recall my kiwi example, here we are discussing the taste of the kiwi and you're not putting it in your mouth. There is no way around this, it needs to be seen through experience. 
In the following exercise you are a 6 year old and this is the most important make-belief you've ever played, no cheating, let go your pride, be alone and undisturbed because it will be embarrassing.  This is serious business because we are going for an experience, not for an intellectual understanding. 

It's important to also observe your emotions when reading this and doing it - notice any resistance,  feeling stupid, maybe feeling that I'm treating you like a child? I want to know the truth about how you felt. 

Let's do it:
1. pick some fruit, best if aromatic and juicy, a piece of apple is great  - a food you're very familiar with.
2. place it on the table in front of you.
3. With eyes closed, PRETEND that you are picking it up slowly, feel it, smell it, put it in your mouth. Chew it slowly and taste the pretend fruit, bring all your amazing memory and every bit of your imagination into this! Feel the texture and the taste, finally swallow it this pretend fruit. 
4. did you actually do it?

In your most simple and immediate experience of smelling and tasting the pretend fruit:. 
(a) What is the pretend smell made of?  (what is it?)
(b) What is the pretend taste made of?

5. take the actual fruit, smell it for real, put it in your mouth, taste it carefully, chew and finally swallow.
Describe  the real smell and taste 
Describe the real texture
When you compare the two experiences, one composed of thoughts and imaginations about eating this apple, to eating the apple - what are your conclusions?


Please tell me how you felt, what emotions and thoughts went through while doing it?

Regards
Ron
The truth is simple. If it was complicated, everyone would understand it. - Walt Whitman


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest