In need of a nudge (or two)

[winkwink]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
The “self” is actually the interplay of accumulated beliefs, memories and conditioning which somehow coalesce as thoughts which are then somehow identified with and lead to the concept of “I” or “me”. This self/ I/ me is therefore not a real independently existing thing in itself but is simply the product of these thoughts.

What are you looking for at LU?
The hope is to get some direction from a guide that will nudge the currently existing conceptual understanding of the self on a path that will facilitate a transformation into an experiential understanding.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
A requirement is that the guide is someone who works with the Fetters. The guide will be relentless in pursuing a line of inquiry until a desired outcome is achieved and in return can expect full attention and commitment. Now retired, there is plenty of time available to devote to this task, and daily (or more) communications will be absolutely fine.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
Since retiring six years ago, it has been a daily practice to read widely for several hours each day across a wide area including philosophy (eg Platonism, Spinoza), quantum physics (just basic), pyschology (eg William James), advaita vedanta (teachings on YouTube), and there is a particular fondness for Adyashanti (his writings more so than his talks). Recently the videos by Angelo Dilullo have been appearing in the Youtube feed and these have been “enlightening”. 30 minutes meditation each morning.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self? 11

[poppyseed]

Hi winkwink
(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. Please confirm that you have read them
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

[winkwink]

Thankyou Rali for offering to help with this process. It’s deeply appreciated.

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

My name is Ian and yes, please use that name in our discussions.

What time zone are in?

The time zone here in Australia is AEST (UTC+10) - at the time of writing this it is just after 6:30am.

Please read through “Liberation Unleashed is not …” in the FAQ’s of LU. Please confirm that you have read them

Just confirming - the information at “Liberation Unleashed is not …” has been read through.

Over the past week while I have been waiting for you to contact me, I have been reflecting on how flippantly (without awareness) the self-referential words “I”, “me” etc are used in communication with others. Just looking at that last sentence there are several instances of those words! This is perhaps one key reason why it seems that “I” am so glued to the concept of “me”. Perhaps one way to deal with this is to make the effort to become aware when these words are used and experiment with restricting their use for a while until the self-referential element of those words evaporates. On waking just a few minutes ago, there was a realisation that yes, no “I” can be located. This has been something that is conceptually very clear. BUT, strangely, the ASSUMPTION that an “I, “me” remains somehow in the background - probably due to habit, training, conditioning since birth - and that this “I” really exists. This ASSUMPTION colours everything that is done or said. So, if you can help to prise off this “I” assumption it would be a great gift.

[poppyseed]

Hi Ian

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 :).

The time zone here in Australia is AEST (UTC+10) - at the time of writing this it is just after 6:30am.

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

Over the past week while I have been waiting for you to contact me, I have been reflecting on how flippantly (without awareness) the self-referential words “I”, “me” etc are used in communication with others. Just looking at that last sentence there are several instances of those words! This is perhaps one key reason why it seems that “I” am so glued to the concept of “me”. Perhaps one way to deal with this is to make the effort to become aware when these words are used and experiment with restricting their use for a while until the self-referential element of those words evaporates. On waking just a few minutes ago, there was a realisation that yes, no “I” can be located. This has been something that is conceptually very clear. BUT, strangely, the ASSUMPTION that an “I, “me” remains somehow in the background - probably due to habit, training, conditioning since birth - and that this “I” really exists. This ASSUMPTION colours everything that is done or said. So, if you can help to prise off this “I” assumption it would be a great gift.

Yes, “I” is a word in language. It serves the purpose of communication. We’ll explore if it can be found anywhere else.

Just confirming - the information at “Liberation Unleashed is not …” has been read through.

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

[winkwink]

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

Both of your posts so far have been waiting there when I wake up in the morning so that’s been good because as a morning person there is more clarity at that time of the day and responses to your questions will be better.

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

Conceptually - through logically working on this for some time now - it’s understood that there is no separate self. But that is knowledge. That’s using thought. Experientially feeling it 24/7 is another thing. What will be different? It is likely “the witness”, “the judge” and the “doer” will evaporate and what will be left is just pure experience without thought or, more accurately, thought will still be available but just used for functional purposes. Thought likely won’t be felt to be the driver of action.

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

It’s difficult to imagine how some things will get done without having the experience of the witness, the judge and the doer but in saying that it’s obvious that it happens now all the time eg when driving the car it often happens that there is no memory of getting from point A to point B. But that process is executed perfectly each time without conscious thought. So, it’s a guess, but life will likely be experienced as just “happening” without having the experience of a witness observing, a judge analysing, and a doer making things happen.

3. What do you want not to happen?

There is no fear about what may happen or what may be lost. Most attachment to people, things, events etc has already fallen away.

4. What are you hoping for?

To experience life naturally and fully without the delusion of being a separate self which is capable of controlling anything.

5. What is missing?

The sense of connection to others and everything else that is seen, heard, tasted, smelled, touched. Not sure about this but it feels like “connection” is what allows for or coincides with the experience of “love”. Connection is missing and therefore love is not felt, or very rarely. Interestingly, as a result of thinking through this question “What is missing?” just now, there is a realisation that connection/love actually is related to the goal expressed in 4. above. And perhaps this is even a requirement to be able “to experience life naturally and fully”. The “doer” can’t do anything to make connection happen or to make love happen - connection/love must therefore be a by-product of something. What this “something” is has just appeared as a thought as this writing is happening….. it’s when the separate self falls away - that’s the answer isn’t it? That’s when connection/love “happens”.

Thank you Rali,
Ian

[poppyseed]

Hi Ian

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?

It’s difficult to imagine how some things will get done without having the experience of the witness, the judge and the doer but in saying that it’s obvious that it happens now all the time eg when driving the car it often happens that there is no memory of getting from point A to point B. But that process is executed perfectly each time without conscious thought. So, it’s a guess, but life will likely be experienced as just “happening” without having the experience of a witness observing, a judge analysing, and a doer making things happen.

Well… Was there ever a doer/a witness/… ? It’s not like they existed and then they stopped. They simply have never been there. Why do you expect that “things” will happen in a different way? This is just about a change in perceptions, seeing the illusion – something that just looks like something else. OK?

You probably believed in Santa when you were little. There was magic and joy, and love, and giving, and caring. When you realised that Santa is not real, did Christmas change? Did the spirit of Christmas disappear or just the belief in Santa?

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

[winkwink]

Hi Rali,

Your last message arrived just as I was going to bed hence the short delay in responding. It was good timing actually as sleeping on important ideas often leads to more clarity in the morning.

with so many people sharing their experiences, and “teachers” preaching how it supposed to look and feel

Very aware of this and agree with you on this being an issue to be aware of as it is easy to fall into the trap of perceiving things with blinkers on.

Your expectations are somewhat reasonable

Had to really dig deep to find that “expectation” in the last post - it’s not front and centre of attention actually and is not a driver in the attempt to realise experientially, as opposed to conceptually, the non-existence of a separate self.

expectations are a hindrance

Yep, spot on. Learnt that a long time ago, but appreciate the reminder. Went to bed with “expectations” as the topic for further reflection and it was the first thought that popped up on waking up. The thought is still reappearing now and again.

When realisation happens, it can be very subtle … there will be no fireworks; it is just a subtle shift in perception!

Phew. Thank you for pointing this out. Very important.

The only true expectation, that you can have, is that the seeking will end.

Again, thank you for this. Also, very important.

Is that OK with you?

Absolutely.

Was there ever a doer/a witness/… ?

Nope. Never. Understood.

Why do you expect that “things” will happen in a different way? This is just about a change in perceptions, seeing the illusion – something that just looks like something else. OK?

There is no expectation that anything will happen in a different way. The expectation that was expressed in the previous post was simply that the perception of what is experienced will be different (as per your explanation in the quote just above). Perhaps this was not expressed clearly enough in my response and misrepresented the idea that was meant to be conveyed.

When you realised that Santa is not real, did Christmas change? Did the spirit of Christmas disappear or just the belief in Santa?

Can’t remember having a realisation of Santa being real then not being real - probably it was seen through very early on and was not a big deal. To be honest, from a young age Christmas was experienced as being a fraudulent, commercial activity actually - the memory that remains is of my mum’s amazing Christmas lunches and puddings. So, no magic, joy, love, etc unfortunately. This was not the point you were trying to make though - your meaning was probably that we can’t unknow what we know (when we know Santa is not real we can’t unknow it). Your point is very clear and understood.

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?

Looking for an “I” draws a big blank. “Where did you look?” - I simply can’t answer that, I have no idea. To look actively for an “I” brings about an uncomfortable tension, a striving, gnawing, empty feeling in the chest and a frustration that the goal (to find something - the “I”) can’t be achieved. It’s really quite unpleasant. The feeling is possibly like the feeling the donkey has that has the carrot dangling in front of his nose and as he moves towards the carrot it moves away and he can never reach it. After this failure - and every time this process of looking for the “I” is done there is a failure - there is a resignation, a defeat, and eventually a surrender. What follows is an automatic cessation of the struggle and a feeling of falling/settling in to a void. To express this in a different way, the same void appears when attempting to answer a question from memory and the answer does not spontaneously appear - experience has shown that to find an answer all that is required is to stop trying to find the answer, stop thinking, go to the quiet place, the void, and more often than not the answer arises without any effort.

There is no “I” involved in any of this, that is quite clear. There is no experiencer, witness, doer. Reflecting on this now, it can only be described as just “happening”.

Looking forward to hearing from you again,
Ian

[poppyseed]

Hi Ian

Can’t remember having a realisation of Santa being real then not being real - probably it was seen through very early on and was not a big deal. To be honest, from a young age Christmas was experienced as being a fraudulent, commercial activity actually - the memory that remains is of my mum’s amazing Christmas lunches and puddings. So, no magic, joy, love, etc unfortunately. This was not the point you were trying to make though - your meaning was probably that we can’t unknow what we know (when we know Santa is not real we can’t unknow it). Your point is very clear and understood.

Weren’t your “mum’s amazing Christmas lunches and puddings” the joy and love that we associate with Christmas? It is exactly the same with the illusion of “I”. Similarly to Santa it never existed but everything else we associate with it is still there. We’ll talk about the “unknowing” later :)

Looking for an “I” draws a big blank. “Where did you look?” - I simply can’t answer that, I have no idea. To look actively for an “I” brings about an uncomfortable tension, a striving, gnawing, empty feeling in the chest and a frustration that the goal (to find something - the “I”) can’t be achieved. It’s really quite unpleasant.
…

Thank you for your honest reply. 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:
Looking is a matter of noticing what is already here, not inventing or imagining something. If I asked you to tell me what is behind your back right now, you could answer by doing one of two things: by thinking and remembering, or by turning your head around and actually looking back and describing what you see. If I ask you to look for your phone or keys, you would quite naturally, take a look and locate them. That’s how to look.
Looking is finding out what is true in experience. It is a nonverbal action of focusing attention on a target. Thinking is verbal—it is naming experience. Both work together as one mechanism. If you can’t see for yourself, you cannot describe it in your own words (but you can attempt to describe it using someone else’s words, from memory).

So 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
Feeling (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

[winkwink]

Hi Rali,

"The moment I am aware that I am aware I am not aware. Awareness means the observer is not" ― Jiddu Krishnamurti

Sublime quote. Felt a lot of joy when spotting that in the footer below your post. Forgot to mention to you before that my earliest introductions to non-conventional views (aka “spiritual” - not fussed on that term) was when I read, and re-read many times “The First and Last Freedom” during my early 20s. Didn’t understand what he was saying but was drawn to it nevertheless. A little chuckle arises when watching the faces of his audience at his talks in the old videos. They have the same look of non-comprehension that I had at the time!

Weren’t your “mum’s amazing Christmas lunches and puddings” the joy and love that we associate with Christmas?

Honest answer is that the joy was for the food and all the chaos that went in to its preparation at this time of year and watching mum bring the whole thing together! But there is no associaton with Christmas. Christmas had nothing to do with this performance except for being the pretext for it. Will never forget it!

It is exactly the same with the illusion of “I”. Similarly to Santa it never existed but everything else we associate with it is still there.

Don’t understand this - can’t seem connect this to the question that preceded it. It seems important though - is it possible to re-phrase it if you think it's important?

You will agree that only by looking you could be 100% certain, right?

Absolutely agree. Your explanation of noticing/looking/non-verbal/seeing V imagining/thinking/verbal/knowing was just so spot on. This is the first time that the DE/AE idea has really landed for me.

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?

Your explanation of the apple is beautifully simple and clearly expressed. So with that as a guide it has to be acknowledged that the apple as a thing-in-itself is not actually known. What is known is colour, shape, etc. “Apple” is a concept that is constructed by the mind by collecting together all the known perceptions (the photo has colour and shape and elicits a thought saying “apple”, but a real apple would also include sensation, smell and taste) and when bundled together these elements are collectively labelled/named “apple”.

Why bother to label it? is the question that has subsequently just arisen. In order to communicate with others about that bundle of known perceptions? Is there any other reason? Can’t think of one, but please share it/them with me if there are any more! The term “apple” is indeed a convenient way to communicate with someone else if you want them to give you the red, roundish, sweet/crunchy tasting thing. Saying just “apple” is definitely very efficient.

“Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?”….. given the above …. it appears not ….. will to have to babysit that question for a while until it sinks in. Thank you for leading me here.

And very happy for you to probe this a bit further to make sure it has been grasped. Still feeling like it’s necessary to go back over your explanation because my grasp is still a bit wobbly.

Your guidance is much appreciated,
Ian

[poppyseed]

Hi Ian

Your guidance is much appreciated,

It’s only my pleasure :)

Don’t understand this - can’t seem connect this to the question that preceded it. It seems important though - is it possible to re-phrase it if you think it's important?

No worries! Let’s not get lost in analogies, it all will make sense eventually :)

Absolutely agree. Your explanation of noticing/looking/non-verbal/seeing V imagining/thinking/verbal/knowing was just so spot on. This is the first time that the DE/AE idea has really landed for me.

Great! Hold on to it

…it has to be acknowledged that the apple as a thing-in-itself is not actually known. What is known is colour, shape, etc. “Apple” is a concept that is constructed by the mind by collecting together all the known perceptions (the photo has colour and shape and elicits a thought saying “apple”, but a real apple would also include sensation, smell and taste) and when bundled together these elements are collectively labelled/named “apple”.

Yes, “apple” is a thought/label that points to sensations, taste, smell, and colour, but there is no an actual apple as an “object”. “Object” is another general label/thought that points to a set of just hearing (sound), seeing (colour), feeling (sensation), smelling (smell), and tasting (taste). Clear?

Why bother to label it? is the question that has subsequently just arisen. In order to communicate with others about that bundle of known perceptions? Is there any other reason? Can’t think of one, but please share it/them with me if there are any more! The term “apple” is indeed a convenient way to communicate with someone else if you want them to give you the red, roundish, sweet/crunchy tasting thing. Saying just “apple” is definitely very efficient.

Well, you can come up with various explanations – communication, evolution/survival, replication of memes – but all of these would be just more stories/guesses ABOUT What IS. We are not interested in “why's” in this inquiry but in “what” is real/here and what is not

“Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?”….. given the above …. it appears not ….. will to have to babysit that question for a while until it sinks in. Thank you for leading me here.

And very happy for you to probe this a bit further to make sure it has been grasped. Still feeling like it’s necessary to go back over your explanation because my grasp is still a bit wobbly.

There is experiencing/THIS that IS colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation and thought.

Seeing, for example, can be likened to an abstract painting and if you look at an abstract painting you start to see shapes etc within the painting itself. Those shapes aren’t really there – colours can be grouped in so many other ways. So from that perspective...do the shapes really exist, without the labels/descriptions/identification of shapes? When you look at the painting…all there is, is the paint/colour, only thought divides it into things/objects.
Can you see this?
Sounds overlap each other, and there is a thought that says “I can separate bird song from car horns." But what is actually appearing is sound, with perhaps a mental image (aka thought) of a bird and a mental image of a car, and thoughts ABOUT sound appearing as a bird and car!

What separates things? What makes up the borders? Can we pluck a thing out of the scenery in front of us (e.g. the bird from the sky)? If not, is it truly separate or is it thought about variation in observed qualities which makes it so?

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

[winkwink]

Hi Rali,

Just want to ask one direct question now and if you could get back to me on this first with a short answer it will help me to respond to the second half of your last message which will be sent tomorrow morning (it’s about 8pm here now and the old brain fizzles at about this time). Is that OK?

there is no an actual apple as an “object”. “Object” is another general label/thought that points to a set of just hearing (sound), seeing (colour), feeling (sensation), smelling (smell), and tasting (taste). Clear?

So what you are saying is that when seeing an object (eg an “apple”), or smelling an object or even (gulp) feeling an object, it APPEARS as if the object is there but it is just an APPEARANCE - there is nothing actually there. What appears is “something” that allows the sense organs to notice a sensation, a colour, a shape, a smell etc, but it is not actually an “object”. Thought labels it “object” as shorthand for (in the case of the apple) the red, roundish, sweet tasting, crunchy whatever.

There is a millisecond of clarity and then it just slips through my fingers. The above is just my best shot at describing that millisecond.

My best,
Ian

[poppyseed]

Hi Ian

So what you are saying is that when seeing an object (eg an “apple”), or smelling an object or even (gulp) feeling an object, it APPEARS as if the object is there but it is just an APPEARANCE - there is nothing actually there. What appears is “something” that allows the sense organs to notice a sensation, a colour, a shape, a smell etc, but it is not actually an “object”. Thought labels it “object” as shorthand for (in the case of the apple) the red, roundish, sweet tasting, crunchy whatever.

You don’t have to believe anything I say, I’m just here to point and you see for yourself. But, yes your summary reflects my experience. It’s not that there is nothing there – there is seeing (colour), hearing (sound), tasting (taste), smelling (smell), feeling (sensation) and thinking (thought/label). The label is description of experience, is it not? Can you actually know if anything exist beyond your experience (i.e. of it)? In fact, "of it" is just a thought/description added to the experience.

Look at your screen right now. Is that screen separate somehow of seeing? Is it outside of seeing? Is seeing happening like in language where you have a subject doing something on an object? Where is the border that shows where seeing ends and the object begins?
Are there many objects (colours) or just colour without thought content? What defines the border where one colour ends and the other starts (without thought - the names of the colours)?
It’s like a picture that everything is drawn in pencil on paper – the illusion of separation is created by different colours used – otherwise it’s all paper.

Different colours in seeing create the illusion of things but all that is there is seeing
The same goes for hearing. Are there any objects in hearing? Are there any birds in a bird song (with eyes closed)?

Clear?

[winkwink]

Picking up from the message prior to the last one you sent yesterday, under the image of the colour painting ….

So from that perspective...do the shapes really exist, without the labels/descriptions/identification of shapes? When you look at the painting…all there is, is the paint/colour, only thought divides it into things/objects.
Can you see this?

This is very clearly seen and understood. There are no shapes in the painting but the mind tries to make sense out of what is seen by imposing some structure on it - by identifying shapes and mapping them on to images from past experience. It’s interesting to watch how this process unfolds ….. But wait, there’s more … Just now while writing this am becoming aware of the visual space surrounding that image including the space on the screen (the LU webpage with the black and white and blue of your post then outwards from that the orange and black patches that represent a lake and mountains) and outwards past the edge of the screen to the extremities of the visual space in the room in which this screen is located. The different “objects” are blended and everything in the visual field has become one mass of colour and shapes. Woah, never experienced this before (except this is what I only ever see but haven’t realised, right?) - seem to have lost my bearings a bit - not seeing discrete objects just patches of colour like in the painting.

Thank you for putting that painting there in the post. That has facilitated a bit of a shift.

A few minutes later… have paused for a while to observe …. an extaordinary feeling is being experienced, very calm and … can’t describe it.

Sounds overlap each other …

Am now trying to replicate that visual experience with sounds. There’s also a mosaic of sound as there was a mosaic of colour - but this time thought is insistently intruding to name the sounds “birds”, “traffic”. Thought wants to put an edge around each sound, to classify it and manage it somehow …

What separates things? What makes up the borders? Can we pluck a thing out of the scenery in front of us (e.g. the bird from the sky)? If not, is it truly separate or is it thought about variation in observed qualities which makes it so?

Thought is separating things. There is a this-not this thing happening with the visuals. But with sounds, thought has a firm grip and sounds are being separated into categories seemingly instantaneously. I just need to sit with this for a while ….

Daily activity exercise …

Have noticed that when two or more senses are engaged (eg hearing and tasting) and attention is split between them that experience gets muddied somewhat and attention the drifts.

Seeing a glass, simply = image/colour (seeing)
Hearing the carbonated water being poured in to the glass, simply = sound (hearing)
Smelling a glass of carbonated water, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling the coolness of the glass of carbonated water, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting the carbonated water, simply = taste (tasting)
Hearing the carbonated water passing down the throat, simply = sound (hearing)
Feeling the prickling of the carbonated water passing down the throat, simply = sensation (feeling)
Thought about drinking the carbonated water, simply = thought (thinking)

Seeing a bowl, simply= image/colour (seeing)
Smelling curry, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling the warmth of the bowl, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting the curry, simply = taste (tasting)
Hearing the spoon on the bowl, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about eating the curry, simply = thought (thinking)

The below addresses questions/points in your last message …

The label is description of experience, is it not? Can you actually know if anything exist beyond your experience (i.e. of it)?

Yes, the label simply describes the experience. Quite clear. And, regarding the second question, no it’s not possible to know if anything exists without a direct experience of it. That seems absurd.

Is that screen separate somehow of seeing? Is it outside of seeing?

If these questions are asking if the screen exists without the direct experience “of it” through seeing, then no it doesn’t exist.

Is seeing happening like in language where you have a subject doing something on an object?

Don’t know how to answer this.

Where is the border that shows where seeing ends and the object begins?

Don’t understand this question either.

Are there many objects (colours) or just colour without thought content?

Just lots of different patches of colour. But adding thought seems to allow objects to appear.

What defines the border where one colour ends and the other starts (without thought - the names of the colours)?

Heck, difficult to answer this question. Blank. “Defines the border?” What does that mean? There is a “this colour-that colour” thing happening but there’s no definite border unless thought comes in to define a border.

the illusion of separation is created by different colours used – otherwise it’s all paper.

This example provided a wonderful “ah-ha” moment. Thank you for adding this graphic. In fact, it was a section of colour in the “roof” that allowed the “penny to drop” so to speak. Specifically, this part ….

(couldn't work out how to paste a graphic but anyway it was just a section of the roof that was pink)

Looking at this “part of the roof” there is no way that this is a roof. It’s just colour. It’s only when the view is expanded and more elements of the drawing are revealed that the mind is able to speculate and give it the meaning/thought of “roof”. But really the only thing that is happening is that there are more lines and colours being added to the image. There’s no “roof”. There’s no “house”. There are lines and colours placed on top of the only thing that ever existed which is the paper on which they are placed.

Are there any objects in hearing? Are there any birds in a bird song (with eyes closed)?
Clear?

In Direct Experience all there is is sound. No birds. Yep, got it.

Thanks Rali.

[poppyseed]

Hi Ian

But wait, there’s more … Just now while writing this am becoming aware of the visual space surrounding that image including the space on the screen (the LU webpage with the black and white and blue of your post then outwards from that the orange and black patches that represent a lake and mountains) and outwards past the edge of the screen to the extremities of the visual space in the room in which this screen is located. The different “objects” are blended and everything in the visual field has become one mass of colour and shapes. Woah, never experienced this before (except this is what I only ever see but haven’t realised, right?) - seem to have lost my bearings a bit - not seeing discrete objects just patches of colour like in the painting.

Thank you for putting that painting there in the post. That has facilitated a bit of a shift.

A few minutes later… have paused for a while to observe …. an extaordinary feeling is being experienced, very calm and … can’t describe it.

Good!
Let me remind you that THIS is not about special temporary states – they come and go as everything else. Have you heard of the zen saying:

"Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and rivers once again rivers."
How would you interpret it in terms of your experience?

Seeing a bowl, simply= image/colour (seeing)
Smelling curry, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling the warmth of the bowl, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting the curry, simply = taste (tasting)
Hearing the spoon on the bowl, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about eating the curry, simply = thought (thinking)

Great! Thank you for doing such wonderful looking! :) It is now to incorporate that looking into your everyday….make it a habit. Please include a couple of examples with each reply!

How does it feel to see what actually is?

Is that screen separate somehow of seeing? Is it outside of seeing?

If these questions are asking if the screen exists without the direct experience “of it” through seeing, then no it doesn’t exist.

Is seeing happening like in language where you have a subject doing something on an object?

Don’t know how to answer this.

Is seeing separate from what is seen (e.g. your screen)? Can what is witnessing ‘seen' be found?
Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me'/Ian be found that is seeing/witnessing the ‘seen'?
Is the “seen” seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes) or is it like a windscreen view? Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. What do you find?
Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found? Would anything that is suggested as the see-er, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
Are there subject (seer), object (seen) and action (seeing), OR just seeing (the verb as it is a flux)?



Love
Rali

[winkwink]

Hi Rali,

the zen saying ….. How would you interpret it in terms of your experience?

This saying has popped up a few times in the past, yes. There have been a enough experiences of the kind related in the previous message to you to know that they come and go just like the mountains and rivers, and rest assured they hold no particular attraction - just experiences along the way. As for the mountains and rivers becoming mountains and rivers again, this is interpreted as meaning that what is seen looks as it always did (ie not the altered version), but is now realised to be an appearance rather than the real thing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the yoga mat, simply= image/colour (seeing)
Smelling the mat, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling the smoothness of the mat, simply = sensation (feeling)
Hearing the birds and traffic while holding a stretch, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about the exercise routine, simply = thought (thinking)
Smelling the 15kg weights, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling the weights, simply = sensation (feeling)
Feeling the muscles working, simply = sensation (feeling)
Seeing the mat, the floor, the surrounds = image/colour (seeing)
etc etc
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How does it feel to see what actually is?

In a word, exhilarating. During my daily exercise routine of stretches and strength exercises this morning it was the first time to incorporate ‘categorising’ while doing the routine. Sensing all visuals as a continuous mosaic and labelling this whole scene as image/colour changed the exercise experience radically. It was then rather straightforward to incorporate the mosaic of sounds (the kookaburras and traffic and little birds heard but not labelled as such - simply as sound) alongside the visual. Then smells came. Then of course sensations came to the forefront as the body moved.

Two things became obvious during this. One, the level of input from the visual, sounds etc was at times almost overwhelming - so much information coming in. A realisation occurred that perhaps this hasn’t been felt in the past because somehow it was being dampened down because there was so much information? Not sure. Two, while the sensations were cranked up so high, there was no room for errant stray thoughts to intrude into the exercise routine. Usually random thoughts just flitter in and out often with no apparent reason.

On reflection, perhaps it is the process of dampening down of sensations which allows for thoughts to build in strength and then populate the conscious space. Could you comment on this please Rali?

Also, could you comment on whether it is possible to give complete attention to all senses at one time or is it possible to only focus on one sense (eg sounds) at a time thereby muting the others?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing a basket of wet clothes, simply= image/colour (seeing)
Smelling the wet clothes, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling the dampness of the clothes, simply = sensation (feeling)
Feeling the clothes pegs, simply = sensation (feeling)
Hearing the pegging of the clothes, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about hanging out the washing, simply = thought (thinking)

Comment: Again, no sense of ‘I’/‘me’ appeared during this process. But ‘I’/‘me’ starts to re-emerge as thoughts start to flow again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is seeing separate from what is seen (e.g. your screen)?

During the categorising activity above, when engaging with the sense data as a mosaic of colour or sound etc, there was no impression of a seer seeing an object, a listener hearing a sound, a doer doing something. So, no, no separation was experienced during that exercise .

Can what is witnessing ‘seen' be found? Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me'/Ian be found that is seeing/witnessing the ‘seen'?

In addition to there being no impression of a seer, a hearer, a smeller etc there there was no impression of a witness witnessing the ‘seen’. There was even no recognition of an 'I' / 'me'/Ian come to think of it. Everything just seemed to be “here/there” (?) and “happening”. Interestingly, there was also no reflection happening. If reflection happens this would imply a witness - but that just didn’t arise in the exercise. As JK said, “Awareness means the the observer is not”. Got that now. Had no idea what he meant before.

Is the “seen” seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes) or is it like a windscreen view?

Thought that was a weird question when I first read that last night to be honest. But after the exercise this morning it has to be said that in the exercise above it was a windscreen view and reflecting on prior experience all seeing till now has been done through two windows.

Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. What do you find?

Not sure exactly what you mean by “zoom back in”.

Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found? Would anything that is suggested as the see-er, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

There was no see-er or witness present when the daily activities above were being carried out ….. Just noticing that your questions are getting harder to focus on now - just sitting here drawing a blank. Seems like this concept of see-er has been disrupted somehow by the exercise and it’s not clear what it means at the moment/ if it makes any sense. Yes, I guess I have to think about ‘I’/‘’me’ or ‘see-er’ for those terms to mean something. Or maybe I’m just getting tired.

Are there subject (seer), object (seen) and action (seeing), OR just seeing (the verb as it is a flux)?

There was just seeing when doing the exercise. It is only when thought arose later and started commenting on things and events that individual objects seemed to appear.


I have no idea what that graphic at the bottom is about.


Hit a bit of a wall just now when trying to answer your questions this afternoon. Not sure why. This morning after the exercise was fine. Some of my answers above may not make sense but I’ll send them on anyway.

Thanks Rali again for your patience,
Ian