To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

This is a read-only part of the forum. All threads where seeing happens are stored here and come from this forum, the Facebook guiding area and various LU blogs. The complete list, sorted by guide, contains all links. The archives include threads of those that came to LU already seeing as well.
User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4494
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby forgetmenot » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:03 am

Hello Tintu,
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
Thought divides and forms shapes and form. in Actual seeing, there is no division and hence no shape or form.
Was this seen through actual looking or through intellectual processes?
Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
it was not possible to see a boundary between body and clothing. Thought creates the boundary.
Yes, so the boundary is conceptual and not actual
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?
It cannot be determined, "I" was not able to see a boundary. in AE.
What is the actual experience of “body on chair”?
Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?
inside and outside is created by thought. without thought in direct seeing, there is no inside and no outside.
The idea of there being a ‘me’ here inside and a world outside of ‘me’ infers that that there is a ‘me’ separate to everything else, and that there is a ‘me’ that life is happening to. Let’s look at this with just using sound.

Where are sounds appearing?
For this experiment you will need a set of headphones and some music.

Take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust, put on your headphones and then close your eyes and listen to a piece of music.

Listen to a couple of minutes of music.
When you are listening to music with headphones on, isn’t it obvious that the music appears in the same place, as do thoughts and sensations? They seem to appear inside ‘me’.

Then with eyes still closed, take off the headphones and listen to whatever other sounds are present (ie birds singing, clock ticking, car passing by etc) and it seems that the sounds are appearing outside of ‘me’.

Put your headphones back on again and all that is present in hearing the sound is sound itself.

Take the headphones off. Is not the experience the same…that in hearing the sound is sound itself?

Keep doing this until it becomes clear that not only do thoughts and feelings appear in the same place, but that sound do also.

Is there an inside ‘me’ and an outside of ‘me’?
Note: All the questions about the body triggers thought in such a way that, it appears with all kind of "scientific" explanations. it required a lot of "pushing away" to start seeing. "I" had to remind myself(" reflective thoughts") that "Ok direct/Actual seeing is a way of seeing without the division of thought, let us get to the end of the rabbit hole, and we can always come back and use thoughts later".
Great observation. Thoughts overlays experience with stories and these stories SEEM very believable until they are checked thoroughly with AE.
What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
The word/label 'body' refers to a thought.
Yes..the word/label ‘body’ is AE of thought.
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
The Actual experience of the body is color when seeing the 'body', a sensation of touch when touching the 'body', a sensation of sound when hearing to the body (sound of breathing etc), the sensation of smell when smelling the body. The thought is not an AE of the body. even though sensations seem to be sensed in the body, on looking, the location of sensations cannot be found. The Actual experience of color,touch,smell,sound etc points to something which is not nameable.
The AE of the body is thought.
Thought points to (infers) that colour, sensation, smell etc is a body.

The label ‘body’ is AE of thought and not the AE of a body
The sensation labelled as ‘body’ is AE of sensation and not AE of a body
The image labelled as ‘body/me/I’ is AE of colour and not AE of a body
The smell labelled as ‘body’ is AE of smell and not AE of a body
The sound labelled ‘body’ is AE of sound and not AE of a body (ie breathing etc)
The taste labelled ‘body’ is AE of taste and not AE of a body.
The thoughts about the ‘body’ are AE of thought and not AE of a body

So, Taste labelled ‘body’ is known
Colour labelled ‘body’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘body’ is known
Smell labelled ‘body’ is known
Sound labelled ‘body’ is known
Thought about/of a ‘body’ is known
However, is a body actually known?

Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Tintu
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:57 pm

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby Tintu » Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:56 am

Hi kay,
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
Thought divides and forms shapes and form. in Actual seeing, there is no division and hence no shape or form.
Was this seen through actual looking or through intellectual processes?
This is one question I always had. Let say while looking at the apple.
The moment "I" actually see the color of the apple is seen. Then thought divides the label named 'apple' from the rest and creates a division between Apple and the rest. The question of shape and form seems to be similar. The moment "I" look at something labeled as "body", I see the color, shape etc. then I deduct that even though I see the shape of the body, this must be created by thought as without thought I would not distinguish between colors.But this is a kind of "reverse thinking". is this a wrong way of looking?. Currently I am looking at a glass on top of the table. The shape,the form of the "glass" is visible in seeing. then I think the colour of the glass and the table and the environment is different. and this is possible only if thought interferes, hence the glass should not have a form or shape. I come across this situation in many questions.

Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4494
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby forgetmenot » Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:29 am

Hey Tintu,

Nope...you are doing LOOKING correctly! It is seeing what is there without thought and then noticing that it is thought that overlays the raw experience with names and stories. What is there before thought labels it, is simply colour. Different shades of colour seem to form shapes. So colour and shape are one and the same...they are simply AE of colour.

I just wanted to make sure that you were actually looking and not simply deducing. Lovely job of looking..thank you :)

Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Tintu
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:57 pm

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby Tintu » Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:10 am

Hi Kay,
So, Taste labelled ‘body’ is known
Colour labelled ‘body’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘body’ is known
Smell labelled ‘body’ is known
Sound labelled ‘body’ is known
Thought about/of a ‘body’ is known
However, is a body actually known?
The body like other "objects", actually cannot be known.
All that is known is the actual experience of the color, sensation, smell, sound, and thought.
This implies that if this is all there is and if "I" cannot find a "me" in these . then I should not be existing :-).

Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
Tintu
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:57 pm

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby Tintu » Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:26 am

Hi Kay,
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?
It cannot be determined, "I" was not able to see a boundary. in AE.
What is the actual experience of “body on chair”?
The Actual experience of "body on the chair" is thought.
As the Actual experience of seeing,hearing,touching,smelling,sensing and thinking refer to the actual experience of the respective process and not the the objects (body and chair) as the objects cannot be known.


Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4494
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby forgetmenot » Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:48 am

Hello Tintu,
The body like other "objects", actually cannot be known.
All that is known is the actual experience of the color, sensation, smell, sound, and thought.
Yes exactly!
This implies that if this is all there is and if "I" cannot find a "me" in these . then I should not be existing :-).
Does it? Only if you believe that there is a you who resides in something called a body! If you didn't exist, then how could you possibly be aware of this sentence?

What is the AE of the label “I/me”?

Thought says that the foot is ‘down there’. So presumably you are above your foot. Where are you? Sit quietly, close your eyes, take a few breaths and locate where you feel yourself to be. Locate yourself vertically in the body, horizontally to the left or right, and depth, how far in. Feel how big you are, where you reside. Then point with a finger to ‘you’. Open your eyes, where is your finger pointing?

What is the actual experience of “body on chair”?
The Actual experience of "body on the chair" is thought.
As the Actual experience of seeing,hearing,touching,smelling,sensing and thinking refer to the actual experience of the respective process and not the the objects (body and chair) as the objects cannot be known.
YEs the AE of 'body on chair' is thought, but I am trying to point to something else here as well. Let’s see if I can make my pointing clearer.

So I want you to sit in a chair…then close your eyes. Now IGNORE ALL thoughts, labels and images of/about a body sitting in a chair…now what is the actual experience?

When you are sitting in a chair, there is sensation, yes?
Sensation that is labelled as ‘pressure’ that thought says is coming from the body meeting the chair (ie your backside and back meeting the chair).

If you put all that aside…if you put that thought story aside, what is the actual direct experience? Is it not simply sensation?
Can it be known that the sensation comes from a body sitting in a chair?

I look forward to seeing your responses to the headphones and sound exercise.

Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Tintu
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:57 pm

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby Tintu » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:36 am

Hi Kay,

This is related to the "headphone and sound exercise".
Take the headphones off. Is not the experience the same…that in hearing the sound is sound itself?
Keep doing this until it becomes clear that not only do thoughts and feelings appear in the same place, but that sound do also.
Nice exercise. To see "sound" as "sound" and the way thought immediately translate that into what is known is an eye-opener.
I was in a train, hearing all kind of sounds such as "sound of turning pages", sound of people coughing,sneezing, walking, sound of boots when people get inside the train, sound of cloth rubbing the body, sound of the train, clinking of the metal in the bags and a lot more sounds. and they are really sounds which has no special meaning, unless the thought comes in and assign the designated meaning to it. I could see that similarly, the "colour" is walking around and immediately thought assigns name to it. as you mentioned some time before it is colours walking and it is immediately named to what is known by thought even though what actually can be seen is only colors.

With the headphones off and on, and after trying several times. it seems that the sound appears. it is not known whether it is "inside" or "outside". "I" cannot even say it is in some space. sensations and thoughts are also same. The place or no place from where it originates is not known. it feels as if the thoughts, sensation, sound and when extended to taste or smell all from the same place. but thats more of a feeling than certainty.
Is there an inside ‘me’ and an outside of ‘me’?
it is generally believed that "the place" thoughts and sensation appear is inside and say seeing happens from outside in.
But when I look at it , it cannot be termed inside or outside. even the seeing seem to (felt like) happen at the place where sound is heard. senses cannot seem to distinguish between sound inside or outside, seeing inside or outside, etc. then outside of me and inside of me is thought. in actual experience outside and inside is not known.

Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4494
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby forgetmenot » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:18 am

Hey Tintu,
Take the headphones off. Is not the experience the same…that in hearing the sound is sound itself?
Keep doing this until it becomes clear that not only do thoughts and feelings appear in the same place, but that sound do also.
Nice exercise. To see "sound" as "sound" and the way thought immediately translate that into what is known is an eye-opener.
Great! It’s good to see how labels just appear, and appear very quickly to label something. In that seeing it can be seen that there is no thinker of thought.
I was in a train, hearing all kind of sounds such as "sound of turning pages", sound of people coughing,sneezing, walking, sound of boots when people get inside the train, sound of cloth rubbing the body, sound of the train, clinking of the metal in the bags and a lot more sounds. and they are really sounds which has no special meaning, unless the thought comes in and assign the designated meaning to it. I could see that similarly, the "colour" is walking around and immediately thought assigns name to it. as you mentioned some time before it is colours walking and it is immediately named to what is known by thought even though what actually can be seen is only colors.
The pointer that THIS/experience/awareness/knowing (whatever you call it) is prior to thought is a means of pointing to what IS before thought overlays it with labels and stories. However, when it has been clearly realised what actual experience is, then the pointer is no longer needed as thought is also THIS THIS/experience/awareness/knowing
With the headphones off and on, and after trying several times. it seems that the sound appears. it is not known whether it is "inside" or "outside". "I" cannot even say it is in some space. sensations and thoughts are also same. The place or no place from where it originates is not known. it feels as if the thoughts, sensation, sound and when extended to taste or smell all from the same place. but thats more of a feeling than certainty.
“The place or no place from where it originates is not known” – nice! The ‘feeling/idea’ that it all happens in a certain place and that place is the body is something that continues to happen. There is no direct experience of ‘no self’…how can there be, there has never been a separate self. What I suggest that you do the headphone exercise a few more times over the next few days.

If we go back to the idea of the head. It seems that thoughts, seeing, sound, smelling and taste all happen in a place called the 'head' and that the 'head' is above the rest of the body. In actual experience can a head be located/known?

Thought says that the foot is ‘down there’. So presumably you are above your foot. Where are you? Sit quietly, close your eyes, take a few breaths and locate where you feel yourself to be. Locate yourself vertically in the body, horizontally to the left or right, and depth, how far in. Feel how big you are, where you reside. Then point with a finger to ‘you’. Open your eyes, where is your finger pointing?

Is there an inside ‘me’ and an outside of ‘me’?
it is generally believed that "the place" thoughts and sensation appear is inside and say seeing happens from outside in.
But when I look at it , it cannot be termed inside or outside. even the seeing seem to (felt like) happen at the place where sound is heard. senses cannot seem to distinguish between sound inside or outside, seeing inside or outside, etc. then outside of me and inside of me is thought. in actual experience outside and inside is not known.
Lovely looking, Tintu!

Let’s keep looking at this…but this time using sight/colour. Please take your time in doing this, and enjoy the experiment!

Look at the display before you.
When seeing it, is there any division between seeing, seer, and the seen?
Are these three separate?
If yes, could you find the boundary between the three? Not an imagined, conceptual boundary, but an actual boundary that can be perceived with one or more of the senses.


Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Tintu
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:57 pm

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby Tintu » Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:30 am

Hi Kay,

I am on vacation till 18th Oct. so the responses will not be orderley and may even be delayed. I cannot thank you enough for the time,effort and encouragement in this path and really fortunate to have a guide like you. Thank you. I will keep looking at the experiments and get back to you whenever possible.

Tintu

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4494
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby forgetmenot » Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:59 am

Hi Tintu...thank you for letting me know. Enjoy your holiday and let me know when you are back :)

Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Tintu
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:57 pm

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby Tintu » Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:30 pm

Hi Kay,

I am back. These days "I" can perceive how thoughts are running all the time in "my head", creating a "thought world". similar is the case with emotions and sensations, they appear and wither away. anyway back to the experiments.
What is the AE of the label “I/me”?
Thought and sensation (The sensation which thought associates as "I").
Thought says that the foot is ‘down there’. So presumably you are above your foot. Where are you? Sit quietly, close your eyes, take a few breaths and locate where you feel yourself to be. Locate yourself vertically in the body, horizontally to the left or right, and depth, how far in. Feel how big you are, where you reside. Then point with a finger to ‘you’. Open your eyes, where is your finger pointing?
I look at the varying labels in the body, but could not locate an I. when I reach the label "head", there are strong sensations, thought suggesting it is head etc. however in actual looking, I cannot find an "I" in any part of my body. There are sensations arising, and thought has a tendency to associate the sensation with a body part. but in looking it is thought which associates the sensation with the body part and in actuality, the location of sensation is not known.
If you put all that aside…if you put that thought story aside, what is the actual direct experience? Is it not simply sensation?
Can it be known that the sensation comes from a body sitting in a chair?
No, it cannot be seen that the sensation "comes from" body sitting in a chair. There is an act of "sitting in the chair" and then sensation appears.Thought inferring that sensation happens due to sitting can be seen. but actually only the sensation of pressure is known.
If we go back to the idea of the head. It seems that thoughts, seeing, sound, smelling and taste all happen in a place called the 'head' and that the 'head' is above the rest of the body. In actual experience can a head be located/known?
in actual experience, the head is not known. unless one thinks about the label "head" the label "head" itself is not known.
only sensations are known (seeing,sound,smelling,tase,touch etc). The thought associating sensation with "body" can be seen.
Look at the display before you.
When seeing it, is there any division between seeing, seer, and the seen?
Are these three separate?
If yes, could you find the boundary between the three? Not an imagined, conceptual boundary, but an actual boundary that can be perceived with one or more of the senses.
in simple seeing/direct seeing, there is no division between seeing,seer and the seen. even the labels "seeing","seer" and "seen" does not show up until the thoughts appear about them. when looking thought appears and divides the seer,seeing and seen. in direct seeing there is no boundaries observed. without thoughts the seer,seeing and seen as one. I see that the implication of this is far-reaching. it is to say everything is one continuous "thing/no-thing" without boundaries. but the profoundness of this has not sunk in fully. I heard before about "observer is the observed", "analyzer is the analyzed" etc from books but never understood as close to this, thanks for this exercise.

Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4494
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby forgetmenot » Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:34 am

Hi Tintu,

Hope you had a refreshing break!
I am back. These days "I" can perceive how thoughts are running all the time in "my head", creating a "thought world". similar is the case with emotions and sensations, they appear and wither away. anyway back to the experiments.
This is great, Tintu! :) It is good to see thoughts for what they are...similarly emotions and sensations. They don't ever need to be gotten rid of (impossible anyway), they just need to be seen for what they actually are :)
Thought says that the foot is ‘down there’. So presumably you are above your foot. Where are you? Sit quietly, close your eyes, take a few breaths and locate where you feel yourself to be. Locate yourself vertically in the body, horizontally to the left or right, and depth, how far in. Feel how big you are, where you reside. Then point with a finger to ‘you’. Open your eyes, where is your finger pointing?
I look at the varying labels in the body, but could not locate an I. when I reach the label "head", there are strong sensations, thought suggesting it is head etc. however in actual looking, I cannot find an "I" in any part of my body. There are sensations arising, and thought has a tendency to associate the sensation with a body part. but in looking it is thought which associates the sensation with the body part and in actuality, the location of sensation is not known.
Nice looking :)
If we go back to the idea of the head. It seems that thoughts, seeing, sound, smelling and taste all happen in a place called the 'head' and that the 'head' is above the rest of the body. In actual experience can a head be located/known?
in actual experience, the head is not known. unless one thinks about the label "head" the label "head" itself is not known.
only sensations are known (seeing,sound,smelling,tase,touch etc). The thought associating sensation with "body" can be seen.
Hmm….how is the label ‘head’ not known? Is it not the AE of thought and are not all thoughts known? When the label “I” appears…is that not known? Is there an actual body/I that is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling? If not that how is it that they are known but thoughts are not?

Can you actually see a thought or are thoughts simply known? I want you to look and 'find' a thought. You may see the label 'thought', for example,and some mirage-like arisings, but can a thought be actually seen? Can you see that even the label 'thought' is also a mirage-like arising!
Look at the display before you.
When seeing it, is there any division between seeing, seer, and the seen?
Are these three separate?
If yes, could you find the boundary between the three? Not an imagined, conceptual boundary, but an actual boundary that can be perceived with one or more of the senses.
in simple seeing/direct seeing, there is no division between seeing,seer and the seen. even the labels "seeing","seer" and "seen" does not show up until the thoughts appear about them. when looking thought appears and divides the seer,seeing and seen. in direct seeing there is no boundaries observed. without thoughts the seer,seeing and seen as one. I see that the implication of this is far-reaching. it is to say everything is one continuous "thing/no-thing" without boundaries. but the profoundness of this has not sunk in fully. I heard before about "observer is the observed", "analyzer is the analyzed" etc from books but never understood as close to this, thanks for this exercise.
Nice looking! Let’s look a closer look at the observer/witness using a similar exercise.

With eyes closed, take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust.
Then notice there is the experience of 'blackness'. There may a bright light, a red glow, sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics. We are just noticing ‘blackness’.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is simply AE of colour labelled ‘black’?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than seeing ‘black’?
3) Can what is seeing ‘black’ found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?
What do you find?
Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘black’? Or ‘black’ just is?

Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found? Or is there just seeing/colour?

Can a 'see-er' ever be found in 'what is being seen' – AE colour?

If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?


Okay….then open the eyes and look around.

Is there a difference between the ‘black’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open or are they both simply the appearance of colour?

Is there anything that is witnessing colour?

Is the ‘see-er’ of the seen actually separate from the seen, or is it all a singular experience?


Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
Tintu
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:57 pm

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby Tintu » Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:57 pm

Hi Kay,
Hmm….how is the label ‘head’ not known? Is it not the AE of thought and are not all thoughts known? When the label “I” appears…is that not known? Is there an actual body/I that is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling? If not that how is it that they are known but thoughts are not?

Can you actually see a thought or are thoughts simply known? I want you to look and 'find' a thought. You may see the label 'thought', for example,and some mirage-like arisings, but can a thought be actually seen? Can you see that even the label 'thought' is also a mirage-like arising!
What "I" mean is when looking at "here now", at this moment ( if that is without any thoughts which are labeled "head") then at that moment there is no label named "head" is known. the moment the thought appears about or of the label "head" then the label is known. I cannot say I see a thought, they are simply known. I can see that "thought" is arising or appearing but cannot pinpoint any form.

"I" will continue with the "seeing" experiments.

Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
Tintu
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:57 pm

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby Tintu » Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:27 pm

Hi Kay,
1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is simply AE of colour labelled ‘black’?
Yes ( ignoring some AE of sensations).
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than seeing ‘black’?
There is nothing else except the experience of seeing "black".
3) Can what is seeing ‘black’ found?
No, There is nothing seeing the 'black' found, There are thought stories of the "I" who is looking etc.
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?
No, seeing black happens and no "person","me/I" observed in seeing.
What do you find?
I find the actual experience of "black",AE of sensations, AE of thought etc. but in seeing there is only the experience of "black".
Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘black’? Or ‘black’ just is?
'black' is just is.
Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found? Or is there just seeing/colour?
in seeing there is no division between 'seeing' and 'colour' found. There is just colour.
Can a 'see-er' ever be found in 'what is being seen' – AE colour?
No see-er is found.
If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
Yes, the see-er is a concept/idea/thought/mental image.
Okay….then open the eyes and look around.

Is there a difference between the ‘black’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open or are they both simply the appearance of colour?
Yes, They are simply the appearance of colour. even thought with eye-open their are so many varieties of colors and thought starts labelling the colors much more compared to the experience of "black".
Is there anything that is witnessing colour?
There is Nothing witnessing the color, except the thought stories popping up sometimes asking "is that so?", "are u sure" etc.
Is the ‘see-er’ of the seen actually separate from the seen, or is it all a singular experience?
it is all a singular experience.

Thanks
Tintu

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 4494
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: To see clearly so as not to have a spec of "me-ness" remaining

Postby forgetmenot » Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:45 pm

Hello Tintu,
What "I" mean is when looking at "here now", at this moment ( if that is without any thoughts which are labeled "head") then at that moment there is no label named "head" is known. the moment the thought appears about or of the label "head" then the label is known. I cannot say I see a thought, they are simply known. I can see that "thought" is arising or appearing but cannot pinpoint any form.
Thank you for clarifying :)
If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
Yes, the see-er is a concept/idea/thought/mental image.
Terrific! So try this exercise with sensation and sound…and see if there is a feeler and a hearer.


Here is an even deeper investigation of the body. Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen. Repeat the exercise several times.

Stand in front of a bigger mirror.

(1) First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.

(2) Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?
Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?


(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’?
Or only thoughts suggest it?


(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.

Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?
Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colours and shapes?


(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.

Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).

Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

(8) Start to walk slowly.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?


(9) Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/


Return to “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest