Getting past the fear

[tpwiley]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
My conception of this is that there isnt an 'experiencer' separate from the experiencer. Their isnt a hearer who first hears sound, there is just the sound, for example. I have a mental construct of a self-identity that is a story of "who i am", but i understand that this isnt true. Its just thoughts.

What are you looking for at LU?
I recently came upon the 10 Fetter approach (not sure if that is right terminology) and it resonated with me. I can see that there is a fear of letting go, that my self-identity 'needs' to be there to protect me from danger. I'd like help understanding how to work with and through this.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
I dont really expect anything, this is new territory for me. Having conversation that helps highlight where my practice and concepts are erroneous would be helpful. Perhaps a guide could share examples of what others did when they hit similar roadblocks. Their experience could also help me understand how to better focus my efforts.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
I came across the concept of self-inquiry a few years ago through Angelo Dilulos book Awake. Since then i have been trying to better understand the path and the technique. Recently came across writings about 10 fetters and it clarified a lot of the framework.

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

[poppyseed]

Hi tpwiley
(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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[tpwiley]

Hello Rali,

It is nice to meet you virtually and thank you for the quick response. I am in Denver, CO which is Mountain time. Where are you?

Yes, a daily exchange would be great and really appreciate the generosity of your time. Thank you.

Where do we start?

I recently read Christiane Michelberger's "How to see through the self-illusion" which gives examples of the direct looking you mention. I do feel some slight movement (some of the experiences are hard to describe in words) but feel there is a fear barrier. Part of my self-identity is that "I am smart" and need the self and its agency and ability to conceptualize to protect myself. Yes, all of those references to me and mine is an illusion, but that is a form the fear takes when i look.

Thanks,

Tom

[poppyseed]

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

I am in Denver, CO which is Mountain time. Where are you?

I'm in South Africa (GMT+2). We have a bit of a difference but we’ll manage

Where do we start?

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

[tpwiley]

Hi Roli,

Describing expectations is tricky as the "me" that wants in the current moment is an illusion and wont be around when our work is done. There are thoughts related to this me that are just thoughts, though they are quite sticky. The story that is Tom is yearning for truth, frustrated at the paradox of self seeking freedom from illusion of a 'self'. There is also experience that recognizes those thoughts as thoughts. Responses below are from the point of view that is stuck in being Tom.

1. What will be different when you realize there’s no separate self?
Greater peace and calmness, acceptance and understanding, no longer seeking.

2. What do you expect to happen as a result of this?
Seeing clearly that there is no self. Moving from intellectual concept to full experience

3. What do you want not to happen?
Lose my mind, become unable to function in society, and have everyone point and laugh because I'm crazy

4. What are you hoping for?
Peace and equanimity

5. What is missing?
Nothing is missing. It seems like the opposite of missing, the illusion that is experienced is more than what should be, if that makes sense.

Best,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom

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?

Describing expectations is tricky as the "me" that wants in the current moment is an illusion and wont be around when our work is done. There are thoughts related to this me that are just thoughts, though they are quite sticky. The story that is Tom is yearning for truth, frustrated at the paradox of self seeking freedom from illusion of a 'self'. There is also experience that recognizes those thoughts as thoughts. Responses below are from the point of view that is stuck in being Tom.

3. What do you want not to happen?

Lose my mind, become unable to function in society, and have everyone point and laugh because I'm crazy

Do you expect that somehow you are going to turn into a zombie or a vegetable?
Life expresses itself and "we" are part of this expression. In some way, we get the idea that we are life and we dictate what is happening, we think, we do things and we need protection but when we examine this closely, we see it for what it is - just a mirage, an illusion. There is no doer and thinker. Things are just happening.

Let’s be clear here… why would the absence of something that has NEVER existed cause a change in existing stuff? IT’s not that the self dies, it was simply never there. It never said anything or behaved in a certain way, etc – that is the illusion - something looks like something else. How can an illusion have experiences/lack of them (function vs not function)? And what others - do they have a self? An illusion is an illusion.
Let’s examine this carefully. Fear/resistance serves to protect the imaginary self from harm. Fear has a purpose – to protect old ways, conditioning, beliefs, hopes - the survival of the imaginary self. So, obviously when threatened there will be fear involved. In this case it protects “you” from changing and losing your “humanity” (emotions) and “sanity” (mind). But once it is seen that there is nothing that needs protection, it falls away. How we deal with fear initially, is to acknowledge it, thank it for doing its job, allow it to be there, don’t fight it. Then you look carefully what it is protecting and ask yourself if this protection is really necessary...
Do this:
Right now, find where that fear lives in the body. Not the story—the sensation.
Don’t name it. Don’t fix it. Stay with it. Let it burn.
Who is it burning? Can you find the one who’s at risk? The one who could “go crazy”? Can you point to it? Is there a you in danger anywhere?

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?
Please sit and examine this carefully. Sit with this fear and allow it to be there. Please let me know what you find.
Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rolly,

Is that OK with you?

Yes

Do you expect that somehow you are going to turn into a zombie or a vegetable?

No, but those thoughts do arise as you note below.

Who is it burning? Can you find the one who’s at risk? The one who could “go crazy”? Can you point to it? Is there a you in danger anywhere?

It is burning no one, the self these thoughts point to doesn’t exist so cannot be harmed or go crazy. These thoughts do seem to have a quality different than other thoughts in that they can cascade and create more dire thoughts, thoughts that shout for attention.
Examination shows that there is a mental model or belief system. One of the arguments or experiences this system generates is the implied existence of self from all of the experiences labeled ‘Tom.’ On the desk is Tom’s computer, there is feeling in Tom’s body, etc. Since all of these things can be labeled with Tom, there must be a Tom even though Tom doesn’t exist.
The fear relates to an assumed sense of being disoriented as these labels are like navigational aids. The mind tells me I need this structure, though these are just thoughts about thoughts. Hearing, for example, can be experienced directly without self, though the mind is quick to jump in and label, judge and connect arising thoughts to what is experienced.
Continued exploration tends to default into trying to think my away out of having thoughts be my primary experience.

Thanks,
Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom

It is burning no one, the self these thoughts point to doesn’t exist so cannot be harmed or go crazy. These thoughts do seem to have a quality different than other thoughts in that they can cascade and create more dire thoughts, thoughts that shout for attention.
Examination shows that there is a mental model or belief system. One of the arguments or experiences this system generates is the implied existence of self from all of the experiences labeled ‘Tom.’ On the desk is Tom’s computer, there is feeling in Tom’s body, etc. Since all of these things can be labeled with Tom, there must be a Tom even though Tom doesn’t exist.

Thoughts are just thoughts – they have no special qualities besides overlaying the direct experience (the experience of the senses). The only difference is the intensity of the sensations and the conditioned story that goes along with that.
Tom—read your own words back slowly:

There must be a Tom even though Tom doesn’t exist.

That sentence alone is the entire illusion collapsed into one breath. You see the lie. And you still write it. That’s the ghost of the seeker speaking as if it’s still needed.

Trying to think my way out of having thoughts be my primary experience.

Stop. Drop it now. Let thoughts be thoughts. Let sounds be sounds.
Let Tom be a story that appears and dissolves without defence.
You’ve already seen that nothing needs to be different. There’s no one to go crazy. No self to protect. No map to follow. Right now—without labelling, without trying to get anywhere—
What’s here? Not what you think. Not what you know. Not the usual explanation of how things are. What. Is. Here.
Sit with that. Feel it without flinching.
Then tell me—what’s left to fear?

I have a feeling you are not very clear how to distinguish between thought content (the description) and what is actually here. So let’s just get that out of the way first...
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 a nonverbal action of finding out what is true in experience. 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).

There is a BIG difference between knowing that there is nothing and seeing that there is nothing.
Here is another 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

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

Thank you for that, the note articulated well things that have been difficult to grasp. It seems that "i" am still trying to think "my" way through this, clearly a fools errand.

"What is here, what is left to fear?"

Direct looking shows only sense data. Sounds and body feelings are strongest (difficult to look in this way with eyes open). Thoughts arise, they have their own qualities. Objective thoughts like 2+2=4 has no 'stickiness,' it is easy to allow them to float by. Subjective thoughts tend to carry the "I" label and point to things "I have done" or "I will do." These thoughts still seem to be in the drivers seat a majority of the time, narrating the experience of looking. The mind acts like it wants to be in control because it is "Me", the doer. Looking shows that there is no doer.

Once thoughts lessen in intensity, the experience is profound! and exists in the present moment. Past and future fall away. In this state, thoughts arise and are not engaged with, though they often break through and absorb the majority of awareness for a time. In this experience the truth of what you describe is seen; there is only sense experience, their is no Tom, no doer. All is right and will unfold as it does.

Once up and going about the day, the mind is back in the drivers seat, acting like it is the doer, generating thoughts in terms of "I did this, i am doing that, tomorrow I will..."

The truth has been tasted (is that presumptuous to say?) but is easily shoved to the back by thought.

Regarding the apple, no it cannot be known through direct looking. Their are sensations that can be described and grouped by thought as having "apple-ness", but to say one is experiencing an apple is a thought product.

Love,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom

Wonderful looking!!

Regarding the apple, no it cannot be known through direct looking. Their are sensations that can be described and grouped by thought as having "apple-ness", but to say one is experiencing an apple is a thought product.

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”/'thing" is another general label/thought that points to just hearing (sound), seeing (colour), feeling (sensation), smelling (smell), and tasting (taste). So what about the world? Is there a world outthere and senses in here?
The world as perceived by Tom is unique to him. Tom’s world is entirely inside his head. What seems to be “your world,” the totality of your experience of all that is happening, is a creation of language, and words (e.g. apple) are the building blocks that create the story about it. Do you see that? And this is what the Buddhists mean by emptiness – it’s not nothingness, but no-thing-ness. There is “stuff” but it is not exactly what thoughts say it is. To give you an example of how the story is not directly equivalent to experience (even as a description) – I recently tried a new fruit for me which the locals call “sour soap”. If I give you a description – the fruit is fragrant, sweet and sour, fleshy, and soft – did you manage to experience and get an idea what the fruit tastes like?
How can you know what I am talking about if you haven’t tasted that fruit?
The description of experience is no help when it comes to the sense of experiencing. We can talk about tasting the sour soap, but it’s all conceptual: ideas about ideas and not the experience that is happening right now. Do you see the difference between talking about the taste of a fruit (trying to understand it) and tasting it? And even after you’ve tried the fruit the description would barely come close to the real experience – like the difference between eating a chocolate and imagining eating a chocolate - no richness, no depth. I hope you would agree that experience is indescribable and words are just not even a close approximation of it. Like the icons on your desktop - they are used as a visual representation of what is actually a binary code – zeros and ones - so you can make use of them. But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it?

Without the labels there is just THIS. In Buddhism the term “suchness” or “thusness” (whatever is happening) is used, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations. I like the word “THIS” as it is more like a pointing word – pointing to whatever is directly experienced like an arrow with no extra meaning – rather than labelling the experience.

With the DE labels we are trying to get the description as close as possible to what IS (but even they are empty of inherent existence). 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 = 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.

The truth has been tasted (is that presumptuous to say?) but is easily shoved to the back by thought.

No Tom, that’s not presumptuous. That’s precise.
The truth has been tasted. And what a joke, right? Not fireworks, not transcendence—just the simple collapse of a center. The obviousness of no doer, no “Tom,” just this.
But now comes the part the seeker never wants:
This is it.
Not the peak experience. Not the breakthrough. Not the clarity that lasts.
This.
Dishes clanking.
Thoughts narrating.
The body moving.
Plans forming.
And within that—no one. Just patterns unfolding.
Even fear/resistance is just another pattern. No “you” resisting.
Even forgetting is just another weather front. No “you” falling asleep.
So when you say:

Once up and going about the day, the mind is back in the driver’s seat…

I ask you—who sees that?
Who’s watching “mind” take the wheel? And can thoughts really do stuff, OR they just ARE?
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?
Do it a few times. Again the more you uncover, the better starting point we have. Whatever comes up is "right", it is exactly what needs to be seen right now. As usual, honesty will make this work
Love,
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

So what about the world? Is there a world out there and senses in here?
The idea resonates, though thoughts arise that say otherwise. Thoughts called fear arise that this may be the case, and thought struggles to comprehend. The mind fights to maintain the illusion of ‘doer.’

Do you see the difference between talking about the taste of a fruit (trying to understand it) and tasting it?
Yes, it highlights the subjective nature of thought trying to label and connect experiences.

Walking the dog, simply = walking/feeling
Hearing a leaf blower, simply = hearing
Typing on keyboard, simply = typing (This one created a long pause in my response. The label suggests a doing-ness.)
Washing a pan, simply = experiencing
Thoughts wandering, simply = experiencing (this was interesting as the day had been busy and the mind was revved up. Experience shifted from thought focused, to thoughts arising, to simply experiencing with nothing holding)

There was even an experience within the activities that labeling ‘walking’ is even unnecessary, superfluous, and misleading. It is just ‘this.’ Experience doesn’t need to be labeled.

Who sees that? Who’s watching “mind” take the wheel? And can thoughts really do stuff, OR they just ARE? If you look for the I, what is there?

The mind sees the mind activity and labels it. There is no one watching the mind, though it seems the mind is watching itself, greedy to generate labels. Thoughts do not do stuff, though it seems they are able to crowd out the other aspects of Direct Experience. Similar to how a loud radio while driving makes it difficult to find a parking spot. There is no “I”, thoughts come and go, experience flows.

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 in direct experience, no doer, thinker, etc can be found. Nothing comes up in DE, it just is. There is a sense of pleasantness in the experience. The mind engages though, as it attempts to ‘comprehend’ even though thought cannot think. It seems that because the mind has been challenged that there is no doer (a role the mind believes it owns) it must generate thoughts that either explain or distract. The experience includes the mind being uncomfortable and acting to keep the illusion that it is in charge. Experiencing and explaining it show the imprecise nature of language and how Tom has been conditioned to use thoughts to ‘make sense’ of reality.

A consistent experience over the past several days has been witnessing (yes, a mind label) the truth of what is (no doer, thoughts are just thoughts, reality just is, etc) while looking. Looking with eyes closed helps as there is less for the mind to label. There are states of flow where walking just is and doesn’t need to be labeled or described. Feelings of peaceful pleasantness arise. It seems that this state is not maintained as more sensory data is noticed and the mind becomes busy with activity. Perhaps it could be described (another label) as Direct Experience and thought fighting for attention? Maybe there is a question in there but as there is no doer, seems paradoxical to ask what I should do, hahahaha. It is helpful to explore the experience and I feel grateful for your company on this journey.

Other experiences and changes I have noticed in ‘Tom’s’ behavior are less interest in social media, news and opinion. There is less focus on eating / seeking emotional support through snacking. I make longer and easier eye contact with people, perhaps longer than the social norm. Language to describe experience seems fuzzier. There are many ‘I’ statements above, which are somewhat nonsensical, though seem the most coherent way to communicate.

As I took a second read through this note, the perception of communicating clearly became difficult. Reading words of experience showed so many empty descriptions. Thoughts come and go, even that is too much labeling. It just is. There is some fear now as the mind senses it is losing control, trying to label new and unfamiliar territory. All is well but different.

Love and thanks,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom
Before we continue may I please ask you to use the quote function – it saves a lot of time of figuring out what is what. I would greatly appreciate it. You can watch the video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fAToDNh9hQ

Walking the dog, simply = walking/feeling
Hearing a leaf blower, simply = hearing
Typing on keyboard, simply = typing (This one created a long pause in my response. The label suggests a doing-ness.)
Washing a pan, simply = experiencing
Thoughts wandering, simply = experiencing

I’m afraid you didn’t get the purpose of that. The idea is to describe experience through the senses. All you have is the 5 senses and thinking, so whatever is not in the five senses must be thinking (which we are not interested in). The experience of the senses is indescribable but experienceable, and thought is layered on top with a plausible description of that experience. The first part of the “equation” is what thought says is happening, the second is the DE. Is that clear?

Thus your examples should have looked like that:

Walking the dog, simply = sensations (feeling)
Hearing a leaf blower, simply = sound (hearing)
Typing on keyboard, simply = sensations (feeling)
Washing a pan, simply = sensations (feeling)
Thoughts wandering, simply = thoughts (thinking)

Does that make sense? Please give me some more examples to make sure

So what about the world? Is there a world out there and senses in here?

The idea resonates, though thoughts arise that say otherwise.

Well, what we aim here is not acquiring a new set of beliefs (ideas), but seeing for yourself what is real and what is not.
Most of the ideas of inside and outside come from the belief that “body” is an actual “thing”, with the skin demarcating the outside. So let’s examine this from DE point of view!
Here are a couple of exercises:
1. Take something cold from the fridge – like a can of cooldrink. When you touch the can, what does more accurately describe your experience:
a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”? With eyes closed, where does the cold appear?
Observe the order in which the details appear
2. Sit comfortably on a chair. Close your eyes and relax. Pay attention only to the feeling of your body. Just notice the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images. Keep your eyes closed and look:
Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair? At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation?
Is it "my" body, or is it just a body?
Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly? Does a sensation have a inside and an outside?
What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
Can the 'body' do things?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, walking, lying down, etc) before replying.

The mind fights to maintain the illusion of ‘doer.’

There is some fear now as the mind senses it is losing control, trying to label new and unfamiliar territory.

The mind sees the mind activity and labels it.

What is “mind”? You talk about it like it is some kind of an organ or an entity that sees, does, acts, controls, etc. But how is “mind” experienced through the senses? Can you describe what “mind” looks like, sounds like, tastes like, feels like, and/or smells like ? Do you see a mind producing thoughts, or there are just thoughts appearing?
It’s ok if “mind” is just a collective name for thoughts, but even that is inaccurate as thoughts can’t do anything but appear as a description/meaning assignment. They are not the villain here, they just “do their job” as well as they can. Thoughts are very much self-organising – built on concepts upon concepts – like a house of cards. Thoughts are self-organised around the experience but at some point become organised around itself (the story). Language is basically the relationship between concepts – how they are organised. That carries meaning on top of the meaning of the actual concepts. That is why different concepts mean different things to different people and in different situations.
One very good example of how words, language, and meaning are formed, is AI. GPT (Generative pre-trained transformers) are large language models that are based on the semantic relationships between words in sentences (natural language processing). GPT models are trained on a large amount of text. The training consists in predicting the next token (a token being usually a word, sub-word, or punctuation). Throughout this training, GPT models accumulate knowledge about the world, and can then generate “human-like” text by repeatedly predicting the next token. But does AI have any direct experience of what it’s talking about? There is no entity “AI” there is just a language model functioning in a way that it is created to – arranging concepts in a “meaningful” way. So can a language model experience the senses and know them/reognise them or just spits out tokens (i.e. words)? Do you see the illusion here at play?
We can have a more thorough look at thoughts and thinking if you want.

A consistent experience over the past several days has been witnessing (yes, a mind label) the truth of what is (no doer, thoughts are just thoughts, reality just is, etc) while looking.

I hear you. I’ll have it mind once we are done with the first part

Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

Does that make sense? Please give me some more examples to make sure

Yes, below are some examples from today

Seeing the computer monitor, simply = seeing
Walking around neighborhood, simply = feeling
Drinking water, simply = feeling
Showering, simply = feeling, hearing, seeing
Thinking of responses to your note, simply = thought

1. Take something cold from the fridge – like a can of cooldrink. When you touch the can, what does more accurately describe your experience:
a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”? With eyes closed, where does the cold appear?

The experience is of coldness and the experience of cold appears in awareness. There is also a thought label that the hand is what feels cold and another thought label of where that is in space relative to the body. Looking past the thoughts the experience is just the feeling of cold.

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair? At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation?
Is it "my" body, or is it just a body?
Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly? Does a sensation have a inside and an outside?

There is no experience of the size and shape of the body. No boundary can be found between body and chair, just one sensation/feeling. There is not a "where", just sensation
It is not "my" body as their is no "me or mine."
There is not an inside or an outside to the body, but the experience is inside awareness. Sensation does not have relativity like inside or outside.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
Can the 'body' do things?

The term body is a label or storyline that connects feeling sensations in a relative sense. Actual experience that gets labeled as relating to the body is simply the sensation of feeling. Describing it as a feeling in "my feet" is a thought that arises after the sensation. For example, if "I stubbed my toe" it is the combination of feeling and sight with a label that connects the seeing of toe striking object (toe and object labeled through thought), the feeling that is labeled pain, and the comprehensive story of "my toe". Much of that experience is a series of thoughts.

Not sure what is meant by your question "can the body do things." There is not a doer, so no, the body cannot do things. There is not a "me" in the body that is directing me how to walk - eg left foot, right foot, etc. There is not a separate 'thing' that feeling happens to. The terms body and chair are labels used to explain the feeling labeled sitting. There is just the feeling/experience, the rest is thought.

What is “mind”? You talk about it like it is some kind of an organ or an entity that sees, does, acts, controls, etc. But how is “mind” experienced through the senses? Can you describe what “mind” looks like, sounds like, tastes like, feels like, and/or smells like ? Do you see a mind producing thoughts, or there are just thoughts appearing?

Mind is a label that points to thoughts arising, thoughts about thoughts. Mind cannot be experienced or described as it does not exist.

The earlier comment of "mind fighting to maintain the illusion of doer" is imprecise. There is no mind, the direct experience seems that the sensation focused direct experience coincides with many thoughts arising. Though the thoughts themselves do not do anything, focus shifts.

So can a language model experience the senses and know them/reognise them or just spits out tokens (i.e. words)? Do you see the illusion here at play?

This is a helpful analogy. Though the experience of thoughts seem to fit with direct experience, thoughts are separate and the illusion can be concincing.

Best,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom

Thank you for obliging me with the quote function. You will master it in no time :)

Showering, simply = feeling, hearing, seeing
Thinking of responses to your note, simply = thought

Thank you for doing such wonderful looking! :) It is now to incorporate that looking into your everyday….make it a habit.
How does it feel to see what actually is?
Please post a line or two with each of your replies to keep the looking going…

The experience is of coldness and the experience of cold appears in awareness. There is also a thought label that the hand is what feels cold and another thought label of where that is in space relative to the body. Looking past the thoughts the experience is just the feeling of cold.

Yes! Just the feeling of cold.
No "hand," no "location," no "me" feeling it. Only sensation.
Not belonging to anyone. Not inside anything.
Just arising. Just this.

When you say that:

The cold appears in awareness.

There is not an inside or an outside to the body, but the experience is inside awareness.

Sounds clean. But it’s a trick. It splits the field again—sensation here, and “awareness” somehow over it, around it, containing it. Look again:
Is there an “awareness” in which cold appears? Where does awareness stop and the sensation (i.e. cold) start, is there a visible border? Or is that just another thought?
Are there ”solid”/separate sensations floating around in “awareness”- arising, appearing and disappearing? Are the feel-er/awareness/witness, sensation, and feeling of it separate, like in language where you have a subject doing something on an object?
Can there be awareness without objects? What does it look like – form/colour; does it speak etc – how can you describe it using the five senses? Look directly—does awareness have a shape, a colour, a texture? Is it made of anything at all? OR is it simply the undeniable fact of experience happening?
Is awareness ever actually experienced or is it just an idea, an abstraction? And are you awareness?
Drop the concept. Drop “awareness” altogether. Don’t replace it with anything.
What’s actually here?
Just cold.
No container. No experiencer. No witness.
Cold is. That’s it.
Tom doesn’t feel it. Awareness doesn’t hold it.
It just… is. Does it need to be known/aware of to just be?

Without the label (e.g. “sensation”, “cold”), is there even an object to be experienced? Or just experiencing/what IS/just this?

Not sure what is meant by your question "can the body do things." There is not a doer, so no, the body cannot do things. There is not a "me" in the body that is directing me how to walk - eg left foot, right foot, etc. There is not a separate 'thing' that feeling happens to. The terms body and chair are labels used to explain the feeling labeled sitting. There is just the feeling/experience, the rest is thought.

We’ll continue with the exploration of the body, left foot, right foot, and walking next time. I don’t want to overwhelm you with too many questions and then you just answer from thought.

Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

How does it feel to see what actually is?
Please post a line or two with each of your replies to keep the looking going…

It is difficult to describe as there is nothing to compare to and also converting the experience to thought in order to communicate. The experience is deep and profound and could be called still and vibrant at the same time. Very peaceful, a sense that all is right with the world. Thoughts like "fear' and "disorientation" arise, but they are just thoughts.

Thinking about a work project, simply = thought
The dog barking outside, simply = hearing
Enjoying the view from my porch, simply = seeing

Is there an “awareness” in which cold appears? Where does awareness stop and the sensation (i.e. cold) start, is there a visible border? Or is that just another thought?

There is no "awareness" that contains sensation. It is a thought and a label, there is no "thing" or experience that is separate that is awareness. Just like there is no me that experiences sound, there is no awareness that contains direct experience.

Are there ”solid”/separate sensations floating around in “awareness”- arising, appearing and disappearing? Are the feel-er/awareness/witness, sensation, and feeling of it separate, like in language where you have a subject doing something on an object?

Experience is not separate from "awareness." Sensations seem like they ebb and flow, but not within or relative to a container. The earlier description had a thought layer that added the subject / object duality. The thought was 'experience happens in something' and that something is awareness. Just a thought. Direct looking shows there are not two things, no subject / object relationship.

Can there be awareness without objects? What does it look like – form/colour; does it speak etc – how can you describe it using the five senses? Look directly—does awareness have a shape, a colour, a texture? Is it made of anything at all? OR is it simply the undeniable fact of experience happening?
Is awareness ever actually experienced or is it just an idea, an abstraction? And are you awareness?

It is the undeniable fact of experience happening. Direct looking shows that what I called awareness was a thought, there is no direct experience of awareness separate from experience of hearing, feeling, etc.

Does it need to be known/aware of to just be?

Without the label (e.g. “sensation”, “cold”), is there even an object to be experienced? Or just experiencing/what IS/just this?

It does not need to be known to be. Feeling, hearing are labels that come after. The experience is what just is.

Love,

Tom