A hard case?

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Where else would you see it?

I believe that may or my not exist things outside of conscious experience. So, who knows what is happening there.

At best, thought content is an approximation, never accurate. What is exactly accurate about the statement “It’s raining here”? Does it describe how it feels on your skin, the temperature, the shades of grey, etc? Can I experience rain just by you telling me about it – the wet drops on my skin, the humidity in the air…? Can I get wet just by thinking about it?

Indeed. “Approximation” is a much better word. Also, a thought is never the real thing. Thoughts are pointers, that can point to real or imaginary things (more thoughts).

Even further, if I describe something that you are not familiar with at all… Like for example “sour soap” (a local fruit). If I describe it to you - that it taste sweet and sour and it has a pulpy texture - would you be able to smell it and taste it?

Certainly, not.

Well any attempt to describe or define “yourself” is ultimately a thought or a concept, right? Even if it is “what is aware” :)

Right :)

What sensory experience is ‘awareness’ the name for?

The experience of “things” appearing and disappearing.

IF you found a sensory experience that is called ‘awareness’, where in this sensory experience is the information that this is YOU?

Great question. This information exists as an idea (or thoughts). There is this notion that “I” am having this experience, and “I” is a pointer to this “body,” which, in turn, is a pointer to these colors and sensations.

These colors and sensations, certainly, can't be the ones having this experience. But the fact that this “body” can talk about the experience reinforces the idea that it is having this experience.

However, saying that the “body” can talk about the experience is not exactly accurate. It is more precise to say that talking about the experience simply happens.

The fact that only the sensations of this body are here also reinforces this impression.

Please pick an exploration from my last questions that you liked. Do it again. While exploring, find out which entity in you is exploring the question and noticing the results?

Attention is wandering and there is a story about an “I” that is looking.

The shift does not happen by intellectually getting it but by looking. And also not by not finding anything (the interpretation) but by looking/being

Thank you for pointing this out. In a way, I've been trying for many years to logically convince myself that there is no self by looking and not finding one.

Best,
Nelson

[poppyseed]

Hi Nelson

I believe that may or my not exist things outside of conscious experience. So, who knows what is happening there.

Is there unconscious experience? How is it known (or is it assumed)? If there isn’t why is the “conscious” label relevant?
You state it correctly – it is a belief. Where exactly is this “there”? Do you see any borders in seeing, or in hearing, etc that can mark where the seeing ends and the world outside begins?? If it is seen inside or outside, where is the border where the image crosses over from being outside to being inside of you? What does the border consist of? And most importantly, would you ever know if all you have are the senses, and how is it relevant then? Also are you the knower of things? Where is this entity that is exploring this question and considering the consequences of that? Or this is just a story about mysteries which has nothing to do with here/now?

The idea of something outside of our perceptions comes from the belief that eyes see, the nose smell etc – so here are our sense organs that bring an interpretation of the world outside of our senses. But we saw already (I hope) that there are no eyes involved in seeing there is just seeing. Our experience of reality is constructed by our senses and our mind. We do not perceive the world directly, but rather through a filter of thoughts: interpretations, memories, and beliefs. This creates a "bubble of reality" that is unique to each "individual". Any attempt to define or explain experience ultimately relies on thought constructs, which are themselves part of the perceived world. This leads to the paradox that the tools we use to understand reality are themselves products of our limited perception/thought. However, reality can be accessed through direct experience - (not through thought), by letting go of the conceptual mind and simply being the flow of life as it unfolds...

What sensory experience is ‘awareness’ the name for?

The experience of “things” appearing and disappearing.

These colors and sensations, certainly, can't be the ones having this experience.

So are there two things – experience and the entity that experiences? Or just the experience (remember “blackness”exercise)? Look don’t guess! You are saying experience appears and disappears… Is there time when there is no experience – no sensations “aliveness”, “breathing”, “being”, no seeing even "blackness", no neutral smells, etc? Are there discrete experiences or just one never ending happening with different labels? Is there experience at all or just “is-ness”? What is the difference between seeing and being aware of seeing? Is life happening to a being or as being (verb) – feeling_seeing_smelling_tatsing_hearing_thinking? Is the experiencer/witness even needed for there to be THIS? Is life happening like in language where you need to have a subject performing an action over an object?

Which picture reflects DE the best

While exploring, find out which entity in you is exploring the question and noticing the results?

Attention is wandering and there is a story about an “I” that is looking.

What is “attention”? Are you in control of it? See how it moves to ”breath”, to sounds, to smells… Do you decide where it goes or it happens on its own?
Furthermore, what is attention made of? Is it like a torch that you point at stuff? Are there “things” to be pointed at (or just labels)? So how exactly is attention different from labelling THIS?

However, saying that the “body” can talk about the experience is not exactly accurate. It is more precise to say that talking about the experience simply happens.

Is the body talking or are there just thoughts about “experience”? Can sensations talk? Can seeing talk? Can thoughts talk (to whom), or they just ARE?

In a way, I've been trying for many years to logically convince myself that there is no self by looking and not finding one.

Please answer ALL questions individually! No summaries! I want to see that you spent time with each and every question, looking!
Love
Rali

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Is there unconscious experience?

It is a belief.

How is it known (or is it assumed)?

Just assumed.

If there isn’t why is the “conscious” label relevant?

The label just makes sense because of the belief.

Where exactly is this “there”?

In an imagined “outside” of DE.

Do you see any borders in seeing, or in hearing, etc that can mark where the seeing ends and the world outside begins??

No, it is just imagination.

If it is seen inside or outside, where is the border where the image crosses over from being outside to being inside of you?

There isn't an inside and outside in DE.

What does the border consist of?

There is no border.

And most importantly, would you ever know if all you have are the senses, and how is it relevant then?

I guess I will never know. But I believe it is relevant, in the same sense that I believe it’s relevant to take care of my back, even though it’s never in DE, except as sensations and an occasional image in the mirror.

Sorry for insisting on this point, I am just being honest with you and myself.

Also are you the knower of things?

In DE, there is no knower of things.

Where is this entity that is exploring this question and considering the consequences of that?

In DE, there is just the exploration happening, and a story (tought) about an explorer.

Or this is just a story about mysteries which has nothing to do with here/now?

Yes, it is just a story about mysteries.

Our experience of reality is constructed by our senses and our mind. We do not perceive the world directly, but rather through a filter of thoughts: interpretations, memories, and beliefs. This creates a "bubble of reality" that is unique to each "individual". Any attempt to define or explain experience ultimately relies on thought constructs, which are themselves part of the perceived world. This leads to the paradox that the tools we use to understand reality are themselves products of our limited perception/thought. However, reality can be accessed through direct experience - (not through thought), by letting go of the conceptual mind and simply being the flow of life as it unfolds...

Thank you for this clarification.

Is there time when there is no experience – no sensations “aliveness”, “breathing”, “being”, no seeing even "blackness", no neutral smells, etc?

Maybe in deep sleep, when I am not dreaming. But this is, again, something presumed.

Are there discrete experiences or just one never ending happening with different labels?

There is just one never ending happening with different labels.

Is there experience at all or just “is-ness”?

“is-ness” is a better word, because "experience" carries too much meaning, and almost implies an experiencer.

What is the difference between seeing and being aware of seeing?

None.

Is life happening to a being or as being (verb) – feeling_seeing_smelling_tatsing_hearing_thinking?

This is an awesome pointer, thank you. Life is happening as being (verb) - feeling_seeing_smelling_tatsing_hearing_thinking.

Is the experiencer/witness even needed for there to be THIS?

I don't know. In DE, at least, there is no experiencer/witness.

Is life happening like in language where you need to have a subject performing an action over an object?

Another great pointer. No, life doesn't happen in a subject/object structure like our language.

Which picture reflects DE the best

The third one. There is no seer, nor seen, just seeing (perception).

What is “attention”?

Attention is when a “part” of experience dominates the experience.

Are you in control of it?

No. It just "goes after" “parts” of experience, especially, changes in it.

Do you decide where it goes or it happens on its own?

It happens on its own.

Furthermore, what is attention made of?

As a label attention is a thought. But it points to a “part” of experience dominating the experience. This “part” is made of perception, like everything else.

Is it like a torch that you point at stuff?

No. There is no separation.

Are there “things” to be pointed at (or just labels)?

There are no things.

So how exactly is attention different from labelling THIS?

Attention is a label to a “part” of experience dominating the experience.

Is the body talking or are there just thoughts about “experience”?

Just thoughts about experience.

Can sensations talk?

No.

Can seeing talk?

No.

Can thoughts talk (to whom)?

This is a trick one. Thoughts are the mental talking itself. It doesn't talk.

Or they just ARE?

Indeed. Sensations, seeing, and thoughts just are.

I've been noticing a subtle change in experience, like a pull to rest in what is.

Best,
Nelson

[poppyseed]

Hi Nelson

Really good!

I guess I will never know. But I believe it is relevant, in the same sense that I believe it’s relevant to take care of my back, even though it’s never in DE, except as sensations and an occasional image in the mirror.

Sorry for insisting on this point, I am just being honest with you and myself.

You believe it is relevant because of the fear of unknown/unsafe future. What is this fear protecting? Taking care of your back is a productive thought – there is pain (aka sensation labelled "sore back" – something real) and there is an actionless “action” of “taking care of your back”... But what about the thought “I believe that may or my not exist things outside of conscious experience. So, who knows what is happening there.” (inderect answer to the question: "Can you see anything that is separate from the thought and does the thinking?") What is been protected here? Where is the relevance of this thought when it comes to what is happening right now (NOW! Look!)?

We can look at “fear” and we can look at “time” (as in future)
Which do you think we should start first?

As a label attention is a thought. But it points to a “part” of experience dominating the experience. This “part” is made of perception, like everything else.

Is there a dominating experience (i.e. over a neutral experience)? Or it is just thought that makes it "dominating" - just labels layered (sicky notes) over "what is happening"? When you label THIS it becomes a something when it wasn’t before that - you cut it out. But can you cut the bird out of the sky in seeing? Labelling creates separation (as in “parts”)– you have sensations, or seeing, or hearing – but in reality there is just happening. So how can there be any “attention” to different “parts” of what IS? Thought can describe only one thing at a time (which also creates the illusion of time). I think I gave you the analogy with the lava lamp. The wax may seem to change shape, and the shapes it seems to take may seem to be present one moment, and absent the next. But all that is known is the wax. Nothing actually changed and nothing was ever born or lost, although it may have seemed to. All that is known is THIS - nothing can be added to it, nor taken away. So is attention different from labelling, and how if it is? I want a straight honest answer
Love
Rali

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

I am so confused... I'll answer you tomorrow, ok?

When investigating this feeling of confusion, I've noticed that the mind is projecting an "I" that is confused and sad, based on sensations and thoughts associated with confusion and sadness.

But in DE, there are just colors, sensations, thoughts, smells, tastes, and none of that can be confused or sad. So, only an imagined "I", in a story about "me", can be confused and sad.

But I guess this still have so much power over me, because I am still very identified with thinking. It feels so much like "me" thinking, although in DE there are just thoughts.

This mental drama sucks.

Best,
Nelson

[poppyseed]

Hi Nelson

But in DE, there are just colors, sensations, thoughts, smells, tastes, and none of that can be confused or sad. So, only an imagined "I", in a story about "me", can be confused and sad.

OK, emotions in general will be next… What is the confusion about? Please also look into the previous questions so we are all caught up

Love
Rali

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Feeling my hand on the table, simply = sensations (feeling)
Hearing the rain outside, simply = sounds (hearing)
Hearing the music inside, simply = sounds (hearing)

What is this fear protecting?

I guess it is protecting my life and my hopes for the future. It is as if I don’t want to admit that there is no control over life, and, ultimately, that there is no 'Nelson'.

Where is the relevance of this thought when it comes to what is happening right now (NOW! Look!)?

Good question, I guess none.

Which do you think we should start first?

Emotions, please.

Is there a dominating experience (i.e. over a neutral experience)?

There is just what is happening. But, for example, if attention goes to a sound, the sound gets clearer, while other things get fuzzy.

Or it is just thought that makes it "dominating" - just labels layered (sicky notes) over "what is happening"?

Just a thought.

But can you cut the bird out of the sky in seeing?

No. There are just colors.

So how can there be any “attention” to different “parts” of what IS?

Yes, there is no parts.

So is attention different from labelling, and how if it is?

Attention is a label for a pattern in what is happening – the pattern of some aspects of experience becoming clearer while others become fuzzy. But I don’t mean any form of separation.

What is the confusion about?

It’s about many topics, like free will, planning, God, etc. It feels kind of lonely when you consider that there is only what is happening, only one "thing". When in need, whom to pray to? Whom to call for help?

But I guess these questions only arise because reality is still being filtered through the lens of the 'self.'

Thank you for still being there.

Best,
Nelson

[poppyseed]

Hi Nelson

Thank you for still being there.

It’s my pleasure guiding you :)

I guess it is protecting my life and my hopes for the future. It is as if I don’t want to admit that there is no control over life, and, ultimately, that there is no 'Nelson'.

I guess I will never know. But I believe it is relevant, in the same sense that I believe it’s relevant to take care of my back, even though it’s never in DE, except as sensations and an occasional image in the mirror.

Knowing is a story based on concepts (like apples). So knowing cannot go beyond the concepts and the conditioned meaning behind them. Even maths is valid only within the parameters set. If you take two integers and use the standard addition law, then, yes, two plus two equals four. But there are many other things those numbers could stand for and many other addition laws, and depending on your definition, two plus two might be two or one or five or really anything at all. The point is that two plus two is a symbolic representation for the properties of elements of a group. And the result depends on what the 2s refer to and how the mathematical operation “+” is defined. Strictly speaking, without those definitions 2+2 can be pretty much anything :).

Concepts are like fingers pointing to the moon but they are not the moon and they will never be.
Furthermore, even in a conventional language, to believe is to not know something but to pretend that you do (also reflected in “I guess”). Once this is truly understood, all beliefs are abandoned effortlessly. The alternative to believing is to simply admit to yourself that you don't know. All you have to do is dive into the fact that you don’t know. We live our whole lives quite sure that we do know - and that’s our whole experience (i.e. thinking). What’s the experience of not knowing? What does it really feel like to not know? What sensations are there?

Lastly…
What doesn’t want to admit that there is no control over life? Have a proper look. What is doing the resistance to no control? Don’t just say “thought”. Have a proper look into the mechanism of resistance. What is doing the resistance and how is “resistance” experienced? Do you see something resisting another thing?
The following exercise (at the bottom) into confusion might be helpful…

Wanting to have control over life is the flip side of lacking control. Wanting is a sign that something is incomplete, or missing. Here is another angle. Wanting control is just that— wanting/thought. Spontaneous actions are happening, and so is the story. There are thoughts about trying to be in control and not succeeding and the feelings of fear, guilt and shame that arise with the failure. It is interesting to watch how all this works, how thoughts of lacking and wanting are “stirring up” sensations, and how you can’t control any of it. Sensations arise; take a look at them. Which one of them is the sensation of “being in or out of control”? Can you pinpoint it? What is that sensation without the label? Is there a connection/bridge between the want (thought) and the sensations?
At the bottom of all wants/aversions are “unpleasant” sensations, sensations that at some point have had an “unpleasant” sticky note attached, on top of which other stories explaining why, etc…

It’s about many topics, like free will, planning, God, etc. It feels kind of lonely when you consider that there is only what is happening, only one "thing". When in need, whom to pray to? Whom to call for help?

So of course (like you acknoledge) this is about an identification with thought. Many people have difficulty discerning whether they have actually seen through the self-illusion or not. Should the sense of a ‘me’ doing or experiencing
something is still here, this means that it hasn’t fully gone. Simply continue looking for the ‘me’ until it completely falls away. So when there is doubt always look: Is there truly a ‘me’? If so, how is it known (proof)? Is this what thinks and experiences, decides and acts? Once it’s clearly seen that there is no actual me (just thoughts), there is no place for the story to stick (to form an identity). Whatever happens feels okay. Of course, there is no one to identify with anything, but just a thought saying that it can do (identification with sensations), think/know, plan, choose, be lonely (again sensations), be helpless. Can a thought do any of these? However, these thoughts should be used as pointers to what needs to be seen further, not just dismissed because there is no I (which is bypassing). Life needs to be seen in the light of no self, this is about unlearning

Finally, unpleasant emotions…

But in DE, there are just colors, sensations, thoughts, smells, tastes, and none of that can be confused or sad. So, only an imagined "I", in a story about "me", can be confused and sad.

Emotion = thought + sensation
You can do two things:

1. Look for the entity that is confused, angry, fearful, lonely, helpless, hopeless… Don't just say "there is no one/no experiencer, just thought". Have a look! Look again and again, until there is certainty beyond any doubt. So in a way hard emotions become an ivitation for looking. Is there truly a ‘me’? If so, how is it known? Is this what experiences? Look for the owner of the feelings and the body.

2. Welcome and allow all the feelings. Let feelings come and listen to the stories that come from them. This is very simple but extremely effective.
Whenever a strong emotion arrives, try and deconstruct it down to bodily sensations. See that certain sensations tend to be labelled in certain ways, e.g. the thought label “fear” may be habitually applied to a knot-like sensation in the stomach area. “Anxiety” may be the thought label for trembling hands and nausea, etc. This varies for different people, so it helps to be aware of what it is for you. Can you give an example of this for the particular emotion that you are working with?
Divested of the story that is attached to that sensation labelled ‘fear’ (for example), what is the sensation itself? Explore the sensation. Notice it, observe what it does. It’s like the sensation is continually changing / pulsating. It moves around, it becomes more intense, it becomes less intense; always changing its shape. Go deeply into that sensation (i.e. the vibration)
If you had to describe this sensation, how would you describe it? Is it describable?
It’s morphing, it’s changing, it’s vibrating, but the vibrating is itself a sensation.
Is it really unpleasant? Is the actual sensation itself unpleasant, or is unpleasantness added by thought?
Just leave your thoughts in the background, turn the volume down and refer directly to the sensation.
If you don’t think about it, do you know that this sensation is something called ‘fear’? Is there any inherent fear in the sensation itself?
Go to the sensation “at the soles of the feet”. Would you label that sensation ‘fear’? Or is it just a neutral, undefined tingling sensation? Now compare the sensation of the soles of the feet – which is just neutral sensation – and the sensation “in your chest” (labelled ‘fear’)…what is the difference between them? A little bit more intense, but apart from that – any difference?
Once you’re down to the bare sensation – having taken the thought label off it, the story can hardly go unnoticed. A knot in the stomach is a knot in the stomach, and nothing more (even that is a label) – not fear, and not a story about something that brings fear. Fear is not inherently existing, it is just a sticky note (an illusion) over a sensation.
The question is: Can you be in a body where there is fear (confusion, loneliness, etc)? Can you stay just with the sensations, allowing it to be seen that they are ok? Just stay there!
Again, I’m not referring to consciousness here, it’s just language (an instruction for DE) – an actionless action, effortless effort :). “Noticing”, “allowing”, “letting” are all words pointing to DE.
Love
Rali

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Furthermore, even in a conventional language, to believe is to not know something but to pretend that you do (also reflected in “I guess”). Once this is truly understood, all beliefs are abandoned effortlessly. The alternative to believing is to simply admit to yourself that you don't know.

This is gold.

What’s the experience of not knowing?

First this opportunity to see things fresh, without trying to impose beliefs over reality, was a relief. But then, there was fear.

What does it really feel like to not know?

First a relaxation, then fear.

What sensations are there?

A knot-like sensation in the stomach and throat.

What doesn’t want to admit that there is no control over life?

I can’t pinpoint what it is that doesn’t want to admit there is no control over life. At best, I can concoct theories. One thing is clear: when I start considering that there is no control over life, the mind goes into denial. There’s a mix of avoidance, as if the mind doesn’t want to go there, and also the idea that I am not seeing the whole picture.

What is doing the resistance to no control?

In DE, resistance simply arises.

What is doing the resistance and how is “resistance” experienced?

In DE, the resistance simply arises as a knot-like sensation in the stomach and throat, and thoughts.

Do you see something resisting another thing?

There is always the tendency to say the body/Nelson is resisting, but in DE resistance simply arises.

Rali, I will need more time to explore the other questions.

Best,
Nelson

[poppyseed]

Hi Nelson
Sure! Take your time playing with these :)
Love
Rali

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Which one of them is the sensation of “being in or out of control”?

Great pointer. The sensations of the hands moving is the same as the heart beating. There is no indication, in DE, that one is in control, while the other is not, except for thoughts saying so.

Can you pinpoint it?

When moving the hand, sometimes there are thoughts "planning" the movement (thoughts can't plan), and generally there are posterior thoughts saying that “I did it”.

What is that sensation without the label?

Just a sensation.

Is there a connection/bridge between the want (thought) and the sensations?

Both are labeled as “done by me”, and this is what creates this impression that they are connected. But, in DE, they are both just happenings.

Is there truly a ‘me’?

By “me”, I understand someone separated from everything else, doing things and experiencing this moment.

Is there someone separated from everything else? In DE, there are just sounds, sensations, colors, smells, tastes, and thoughts - or this. And it is not possible to find where this someone ends, and the universe begins. Although thoughts label this skin (colors and sensations) as the border.

Is there someone doing things? In DE, there are just sounds, sensations, colors, smells, tastes, and thoughts - or this. Some movement sensations are labeled as done by ‘me’, but these sensations are no different from the others. Thoughts are also labeled as done by ‘me’ - I still have difficult with this one.

Is there someone experiencing this moment? In DE, there are just sounds, sensations, colors, smells, tastes, and thoughts - or this. It is not possible to find where an experiencer ends and the experience begins. Although this experience is labeled as “my” experience.

If so, how is it known (proof)?

I can't find proof, but I am still looking. I almost laughed when I wrote 'I am still looking' because this is probably a sneaky way in which the illusion is perpetuated.

I still have this strong feeling that “I am thinking”. Although, I can’t find a thinker.

Is this what thinks and experiences, decides and acts?

I can’t find someone (a “me”) experiencing, deciding and acting - there are just sounds, sensations, colors, smells, tastes, and thoughts.

I will meditate a little more on this, and then deal with the unpleasant emotions, ok?

I will answer these last questions tomorrow.

Best,
Nelson

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

My day was a bit unusual today. I won't be able to answer the questions.

I'll do it tomorrow, ok? Sorry.

Best,
Nelson

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

Is there truly a ‘me’? If so, how is it known? Is this what experiences?

No matter where I look, I can’t find a proof the a “me” exists - someone separated from everything else, doing things and experiencing this moment.

The mind plays a trick here, suggesting that I also don’t have a proof that an 'I' doesn't exist. Do you have any advice on this?

But I’m looking again, again and again, I see this really helps.

Can you give an example of this for the particular emotion that you are working with?

Yes, insecurity.

There is a sensation of pressure in the chest, a knot-like sensation in the throat, and thoughts suggesting that “I am not enough, never will be, and that others are better than me” - this internal narration is lovely :)

what is the sensation itself?

It is a pressure sensation in the chest and a knot-like sensation in the throat.

If you had to describe this sensation, how would you describe it? Is it describable?

When looking closer it is difficult to describe because it is always changing. For example, now there is a stronger sensation in the chest and the heart is racing.

Is it really unpleasant?

No.

Is the actual sensation itself unpleasant, or is unpleasantness added by thought?

It is certainly added by thoughts - the narrative, memories and negative projections about the future that it brings, and, also, the belief that they are true.

If you don’t think about it, do you know that this sensation is something called ‘fear’?

Great pointer. No.

Is there any inherent fear in the sensation itself?

No.

Would you label that sensation ‘fear’?

No.

Or is it just a neutral, undefined tingling sensation?

It is just a neutral undefined sensation.

Now compare the sensation of the soles of the feet – which is just neutral sensation – and the sensation “in your chest” (labelled ‘fear’)…what is the difference between them?

Both are just sensations. But the sensation in the chest is labelled “I don’t want to feel this”.

A little bit more intense, but apart from that – any difference?

Just sensations.

Can you be in a body where there is fear (confusion, loneliness, etc)?

I can totally accept the sensations. They are just inherently neutral sensations.

But I would be lying if a say that I accept the narrative.

Can you stay just with the sensations, allowing it to be seen that they are ok?

Yes. I will try to stay just with the sensations. Thank you :)

Best,
Nelson

[poppyseed]

Hi Nelson
You are doing great!

There is always the tendency to say the body/Nelson is resisting, but in DE resistance simply arises.

Is there resistance at all, or just sensations with a thought story about how things should be different? What makes the experience “resistant”?

What’s the experience of not knowing?

First this opportunity to see things fresh, without trying to impose beliefs over reality, was a relief. But then, there was fear.

What does it really feel like to not know?

First a relaxation, then fear.

What sensations are there?

A knot-like sensation in the stomach and throat.

There is a sensation of pressure in the chest, a knot-like sensation in the throat, and thoughts suggesting that “I am not enough, never will be, and that others are better than me” - this internal narration is lovely :)

It is certainly added by thoughts - the narrative, memories and negative projections about the future that it brings, and, also, the belief that they are true.

But the sensation in the chest is labelled “I don’t want to feel this”.

When sensations are just on their own they are just neutral, but sensations + story makes them “unwanted”. Do you see where the problem is? The problem is not merely with the label (fear, insecurity, resistance, etc). The problem is mostly with the additional layers of sticky notes – of not being enough, not being loved and understood, etc – protecting “something” from experiencing these “unpleasant” sensations. Fear is more like readiness to “act” – there is an “adrenalin rush” to it if you look carefully, long associated with survival. Some languages don’t even have a concept for fear (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XINQvKb ... 4&index=43).
At some point (when you were a child maybe), there must have been a moment when these neutral but strong sensations were wrongly associated with a misunderstanding – it could have been something that it doesn’t even make sense today, like your parents praised your sibling for eating their vegetables first, or your teacher scolded you for colouring with the wrong colour and so on. Since then these beliefs have just been copied and pasted over the sensations without a second thought (excuse the pun) – an identity/personality has been born around an identification with the thoughts of “not being enough”. The whole “world” has been seen through these “lens”, “others” included (being better). Since then “actions” were developed to avoid feeling these “unpleasant sensations” – like planning for a better future, self-improving (the biggest one being enlightened), etc. All of this designed to keep “you” away from feeling “not enough”. Thus, the more you stay with these sensations (labelled “I am not enough”), the more you see that all of it is just added, an illusion, the more sensations are just left in peace to come and go. When you “believe” it and “act” accordingly you are deluded. When you recognize that you are being deluded it is illusion.
Illusion is when your senses tell you something that mind can't accept. ..or, maybe more accurately, illusion is when your mind is contradicted by sense input. Which brings doubt:

No matter where I look, I can’t find a proof the a “me” exists - someone separated from everything else, doing things and experiencing this moment.

The mind plays a trick here, suggesting that I also don’t have a proof that an 'I' doesn't exist. Do you have any advice on this?

Some movement sensations are labeled as done by ‘me’, but these sensations are no different from the others. Thoughts are also labeled as done by ‘me’ - I still have difficult with this one.
Although this experience is labeled as “my” experience. I still have this strong feeling that “I am thinking”. Although, I can’t find a thinker.

I can totally accept the sensations. They are just inherently neutral sensations.
But I would be lying if a say that I accept the narrative.

You know by now that seems like, feels like = thought content. The big question here is what is outside of THIS that is deluded, that believes the thoughts, have difficulties with them, accepts them or rejects them? What experiences thoughts, furthermore believes them, suspects that might even think them? Just because (doubtful) thoughts are appearing, does that mean that there is something listening to them? If I say something in Zulu, would you understand it ( remember the ears are on you)? So does this something understand mostly English? Are there thoughts and a listener or this is how thoughts appear? Is the thinker necessary for thoughts to appear?

Here is a fun exercise for you to explore
Please note that you will have to check the link when using this exercise, to make sure it is still viable, as sometimes they are removed from Youtube.

The following link is a 7 minute clip of a soccer game. If you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5pL-myDzw

1. Watch one minute with the sound turned OFF, watching ‘people’ messing about with a round thing on a field, up and down, up and down. Let it sink in, the whole experience.

2. Once the first minute is completed, now watch another whole minute with the commentary turned ON.

Notice the differences.
Notice how the commentator (thought) offers lots of know-how, even advice. It seems to feel as though they can influence, somehow, what is going on, as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome. The commentary may seem to heighten any supporter feelings which are there, and call for an identification with one team or other, and with the importance of the game itself.

3. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary, the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Again notice all the differences in what is appearing as experience.

4. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know thought is talking about, and just notice it as sound.

What did you find when doing this exercise? Is the commentary on the soccer game a necessity for the play to happen?
And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

Here is also another fun video for your entertainment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXfltmzRG-g
Love
Rali

[Sunyata1]

Hi Rali,

You are doing great!

I feel so luck to have you as guide.

Is there resistance at all, or just sensations with a thought story about how things should be different?

Just sensations with a thought story about how things should be different.

What makes the experience “resistant”?

This is gold. Experience can’t be “resistant”, experience just IS.

When sensations are just on their own they are just neutral, but sensations + story makes them “unwanted”. Do you see where the problem is?

I see that sensations are neutral and that stories are the problem. However, for me, most of these stories make sense and are, in one way or another, related to my survival, so it makes sense to pay attention to them.

I guess this happens because of the “I/me” belief, right? As long as this belief in “I” exists, it will make sense to pay attention to anything that threatens “my” survival.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XINQvKb ... 4&index=43

Amazing.

The big question here is what is outside of THIS that is deluded, that believes the thoughts, have difficulties with them, accepts them or rejects them?

Great pointer. My heart almost jumped out of my chest when I read that. Just an “I” in a story can “do” all of this. Experience just IS.

What experiences thoughts, furthermore believes them, suspects that might even think them?

Just an “I” in a story can “do” all of this. Experience just IS.

Just because (doubtful) thoughts are appearing, does that mean that there is something listening to them?

No.

Rali, I will need more time to explore this “I” story thing, ok? I will answer the other questions tomorrow.

Thank you.

Best,
Nelson