Getting untangled

[Noro]

Hi Kim,

You had plenty of inner dialogue going on in response to the statement!

A memory of an incident in a meditation a few years ago when loosening the self felt like I was being led to the edge of a cliff and looking down was a bit heady and scary but also inviting. I pulled back from the brink.

So it seems like there was a mixture of excitement and fear going on, and the natural survival instincts stepped in. This experience of fear is totally normal.
Please take a look at this video.

Looking at Fear - meditation
https://youtu.be/jKX1llYtlKE?si=Hj2f27P4aXCk9hKY

What is evaluating?
What is thinking the thoughts?
What is creating seeking and contraction?

It feels like 'I' am generating the responses from 'my mind'. But I know that this is not the case - 'I' am being thought etc. The thinking and feeling are all arising in consciousness. However, knowing this is an intellectual position that doesn't usually touch my being (or non-being!).

Good, so now we must continue looking!

When looking to find a separate self we look only from our direct experience of what's arising here and now.
This is the only "thing" our exploration should focus on, not thoughts, beliefs, memories, or theories about a separate self?


VISUAL FIELD

Take a few relaxed breaths to let the dust settle for a while, and:

Look to your right.
Then look to your left.
Finally, bring your head back to centre, CLOSE YOUR EYES and look forward.

Okay, so when you look to the right, the view (visual experience) on the right is seen (whatever that is).

When you look to the left, the view on the left is seen (whatever that is).

And then, when you look in front of you with eyes closed, the visual experience in front is seen.

So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ to see or not to see? Y/N

I’m not asking can you ‘choose’ to see something else like another view or ‘blank space’ if you close your eyes.
The question is:

Can you turn seeing off? Y/N
Can you NOT see what is seen? Y/N

Same thing when you are facing to your left, can there be a choice to NOT see the view on the left? Y/N
Same thing when you are facing forward with closed eyes, can you NOT see the what is seen? Y/N

Is there an independent self or 'doer' that can choose to turn seeing off or on? Y/N

[Tanglier]

Hi Rowena

This was an easier one …

So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ to see or not to see? Y/N

No

Can you turn seeing off? Y/N

No

Can you NOT see what is seen? Y/N

No

Same thing when you are facing to your left, can there be a choice to NOT see the view on the left? Y/N

No

Same thing when you are facing forward with closed eyes, can you NOT see the what is seen? Y/N

No

Is there an independent self or 'doer' that can choose to turn seeing off or on? Y/N

No
Best wishes

Kim
PS I saved a draft of this but where are the drafts to be retrieved from? I lost it and redid it.

[Noro]

Hello Kim,

Drafts can be tricky, drafts especially can get lost, so better to type up elsewhere and then copy paste your answers when you are ready.


OBSERVING THOUGHTS

The Direct experience of thought is also very important in the seeing through the self illusion. Take your time and really work through this exercise, it can be helpful to get a piece of paper and write it as it comes and in the flow of questioning and looking, clarity comes.

Sit quietly for about 15 minutes and notice the arising thoughts.
Just let them appear as they appear. Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and just notice how they appear without you doing anything at all. Please do not think up answers conceptually, only use your direct experience.

Where are thoughts coming from and going to?

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?

Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?

Can you predict your next thought?

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?

Can you choose not to have painful, negative, or fearful thoughts?

Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?

What is a thought made of?

What can a thought do, i,e. does it have any agency?

Can a thought think another thought?

Can you find an "I" without a thought that says "I"?

Please answer ALL the questions.
Look as many times as it is possible during the day even for a few seconds.

[Tanglier]

Hi Rowena

Where are thoughts coming from and going to?

My direct experience is that they come out of nowhere and disappear into nowhere. One moment they are here, the next they are gone.

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?

Only when a particular thought seemed to lead on to a related thought. But that is the thought itself acting as the instigator of the second thought - I cannot say that I myself did anything.

Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?

No!

Can you predict your next thought?

No

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?

No

Can you choose not to have painful, negative, or fearful thoughts?

No

Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

I suppose I can set up conditions where more / less pleasant thoughts are more likely to appear, that's all.

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?

No

What is a thought made of?

It comes in the form either of words that appear to be heard (though there is no actual sound, just me imagining a voice saying them), or in the form of images, or both together. But that doesn't really answer the question, as what are these words/images made of? My direct experience has no answer to that; my understanding, however, is that they are vibrations of energy.

What can a thought do, i,e. does it have any agency?

I don't think any thought can do anything, though having a particuar thought may trigger a certain emotion.

Can a thought think another thought?

I find that hard to imagine!

Can you find an "I" without a thought that says "I"?

If I understand the question right, then No. The thoughts themselves do not indicate that there is an 'I' making them. Though thoughts that begin 'I' e.g. 'I must ...' imply that there is a subject. The one worry I have, though, is that there is no evidence that these ephemeral thoughts are occurring to anyone other than me. So doesn't that mean there is a 'me' to whom they are appearing?

Best wishes

Kim

[Noro]

Hi Kim,

Can you find an "I" without a thought that says "I"?

If I understand the question right, then No. The thoughts themselves do not indicate that there is an 'I' making them. Though thoughts that begin 'I' e.g. 'I must ...' imply that there is a subject.

Yes, your first answer of "No" is correct, but then thoughts took over trying to make sense of it.....
So you then added that they "imply" that there is a subject. Yes, they might "imply" or "appear" to suggest that there is a subject,
but can an "actual" subject be found when you investigate with direct experience?
Do you get the difference?

The one worry I have, though, is that there is no evidence that these ephemeral thoughts are occurring to anyone other than me. So doesn't that mean there is a 'me' to whom they are appearing?

You have a worry. What is a worry other than a thought leading to a thought trail of similar thoughts...
Can you see that?
Then you say you have seen that there is no evidence that thoughts are occurring to anyone other than a "me".
So here is another opportunity to look. "Thoughts are occurring........"

Can you find a thinker of thoughts?
Can you find a "me" to which they are occurring? Please LOOK, let the mind take a break!

"So doesn't that mean that there is a 'me" to whom they are appearing?"

We are so used to finding a way to understand what is going on, the mind wants to come to a conclusion.
But the mind can make up all sorts of conclusions, interpretations, descriptions, concepts, it doesn't mean that they can be validated. Thoughts are simply thoughts, to quote you "they come out of nowhere and disappear into nowhere."
Beautiful!

Thinking is a wonderful activity, it can be considered as a sixth sense. But thinking doesn't hold up to direct experience, it wants to interpret, or make meaning out of direct experience, like an overlay on top of the direct experience.

Can a "me" be found to whom thoughts are appearing?


CUP EXERCISE

Here is an exercise which points out the difference between direct experience and content of thought.

There are two types of thoughts:
Thoughts with words "Here is a cup".
Visual mental images of a 'cup'.


So I invite you to do this exercise:
Think of a cup, get a very clear picture in your mind. See clearly the size, shape, colour and volume of the cup. Notice whether it is decorated or plain. Notice whether it has a handle. Notice whether it is heavy or fragile. 
Do you have a clear picture in mind?

Now, can you physically grasp that image of a cup?
Can you pour tea into it?
Can you drink from it?

Is there a "real' cup or just an image of a cup?
Is there an appearing mental image?
Is the content of the mental image (the cup) 'real'?

The thoughts and mental images are real only as arising thoughts and mental images,
their 'presence' cannot be denied. However their contents, what they are about, are not 'real', they are just fantasies.
Can you see this?

Over the next day or so, I would like you to notice the content of thoughts.
Whenever there is an arising thought or mental image, check what it is relating to.

Does it relate to your direct experience in that moment, or is the thought content is just pure imagination.
Let me know how it goes.

Best wishes,
Rowena

[Tanglier]

Hi Rowena

but can an "actual" subject be found when you investigate with direct experience?

An actual subject cannot be found, there is just an implication, which I agree is another thought.

Can you find a thinker of thoughts?
Can you find a "me" to which they are occurring? Please LOOK, let the mind take a break!

Sure, looking doesn't result in anything, but the mind is insistent that direct looking isn't the only game in town. It says that other things can occur without our experience. If I stepped in the road without looking, and I had loud music playing in my ears so that I couldn't hear, I would still be run over by the bus even though I wasn't aware of it. If direct experience were the only criterion then that bus doesn't exist. How can that be?

Cup exercise
Now, can you physically grasp that image of a cup?
Can you pour tea into it?
Can you drink from it?

No

Is there a "real' cup or just an image of a cup?
Is there an appearing mental image?
Is the content of the mental image (the cup) 'real'?

It is a mental image that appears. The content is not 'real' even though the thought is really present.

Content of thoughts:
Does it relate to your direct experience in that moment, or is the thought content just pure imagination.

The same answer really in each case - they are just thoughts which in and of themselves do not guarantee or create real content.
But I am still stuck on the issue that all the thought arisings that occur within the perceptual field of the 'person' writing this post are occurring to this 'person' and presumably not to any other; likewise the physical sensations that are occurring, and the emotional sensations that are occurring, and the visual/auditory/olefactory etc sensations that are occurring ... and then disappearing ... so I take all of these things together and create something called 'me'. This has a very strong hold on me and I cannot throw the thought off, even though I know it is yet another thought (which, however, is occurring only to me just now and in this format etc.)
Best wishes
Kim

[Noro]

Hello Kim,

Please answer the questions directly from your actual experience Some questions can simply be answered with a Yes or No, and I will try and remember to add that option in the future!

Can you find a thinker of thoughts?
Can you find a "me" to which they are occurring? Please LOOK, let the mind take a break!

Sure, looking doesn't result in anything,

So with this answer I am assuming that the answer was a No to both questions? Yes/No?

but the mind is insistent that direct looking isn't the only game in town. It says that other things can occur without our experience. If I stepped in the road without looking, and I had loud music playing in my ears so that I couldn't hear, I would still be run over by the bus even though I wasn't aware of it. If direct experience were the only criterion then that bus doesn't exist. How can that be?

This is a very good point you are making... and I love the thoughts being produced by your mind!!
Direct experience is being used for enquiry purposes in order to see what is actually going on right here, right now, that can be verified. We are looking to see if an autonomous, independent separate self entity can actually be found.
In our everyday life, the mind and thought are essential for our everyday functioning and when there is a bus coming around a corner and someone get in its way ..... say no more. We are not out to disprove buses or bodies here. We are starting out to learn to distinguish between our everyday interpretations of reality and what we are actually experiencing when we let interpretations and imagination go for a while.

Is this clear for you now?

It is a mental image that appears. The content is not 'real' even though the thought is really present.

YES

But I am still stuck on the issue that all the thought arisings that occur within the perceptual field of the 'person' writing this post are occurring to this 'person' and presumably not to any other;

For sure it cannot be known or imagined what "other people" are thinking, although sometimes there are telepathic moments of shared thoughts. But the point here not so much about thoughts that are occurring or being experienced, but that there is an actual 'person' to whom they are occurring. We need to find evidence that there is an actual person that perceives. And this might sound crazy, because we've grown up with the assumption that we are a single, separate unit, a 'person' that has agency, thinks, controls, decides, acts etc. but does one actually exist? Let's find out!

likewise the physical sensations that are occurring, and the emotional sensations that are occurring, and the visual/auditory/olefactory etc sensations that are occurring ... and then disappearing ...

YES! All those sensations are occurring ... and then disappearing.

so I take all of these things together and create something called 'me'.

YES!

This has a very strong hold on me and I cannot throw the thought off, even though I know it is yet another thought (which, however, is occurring only to me just now and in this format etc.)

We humans have developed our mental faculties as a survival mechanism. It is completely natural that the thought of "your" non-existence will create a strong response. So we will take this enquiry gently, and also use it to see what is actually happening when reactions arise.



EXPERIENCING BREATHING EXERCISE

Sit down and relax and follow the movement of your breath.

1. If you were asked to describe the experience of breathing, how would you answer?
Please write whatever comes up, your answer doesn't have to be too long and there is no "correct" answer for this.

2. Now this time around, please observe breathing without analyzing or describing.
What is your actual experience of breathing? (Using minimal language.)

3. Now, relaxing deeper into the experience and letting your attention wander where it will.
What sense fields, including thinking, are involved? Write down the flow of experience. (Thoughts are fine, but not the content of thought)

Can a separate director of attention be found? Y/N
If yes, where is it located?
Can a separate thinker of thoughts be found? Y?N
If yes, where is it located?
Can a separate interpreter or describer of experiencing be found as 'you' write down what is experienced Y/N
If yes, where is it located?
Is there an actual 'separate self' following the above instructions and replying to this message, or is following the above instructions simply happening? Y/N

Best wishes,
Rowena

[Tanglier]

Hi Rowena

I appreciate your dedication and prompt responses!

You must have heard all this stuff so many times before and you are very patient with it, thank you.

So with this answer I am assuming that the answer was a No to both questions? Yes/No?

No to both, that's right. In future, if you ask Yes/No? I will just say Yes or No, I think that is how you want to proceed?

Is this clear for you now?

Yes. You are saying that the only important thing in our enquiry is direct experience. If there is no direct experience then we do not know whether the 'fantasy' relates to reality or not - it may do, of course, but equally well it may not. We just don't have direct experience of it.
You agree that 'I take all of these things together and create something called 'me'.' But the 'me' is a fiction. (It reminds me of the bit early in Harari's book 'Sapiens' - do you know it? - where he describes how common things like companies, e.g. Peugeot cars, do not exist, they are legal fictions or stories developed to make life easier for humans.)

EXPERIENCING BREATHING EXERCISE
Please write whatever comes up, your answer doesn't have to be too long and there is no "correct" answer for this.

Going in and out, up and down, regular, sensations in chest and nostrils.

What is your actual experience of breathing? (Using minimal language.)

In, out

What sense fields, including thinking, are involved? Write down the flow of experience. (Thoughts are fine, but not the content of thought)

Feeling, hearing, thinking, seeing

Can a separate director of attention be found? Y/N

No

Can a separate thinker of thoughts be found? Y?N

No

Can a separate interpreter or describer of experiencing be found as 'you' write down what is experienced Y/N

No

Is there an actual 'separate self' following the above instructions and replying to this message, or is following the above instructions simply happening? Y/N

No

Best wishes

Kim

[Noro]

Hi Kim,

Mostly I am able to respond quite quickly, I would let you know if I am traveling and not able to get back to you so quickly.

You agree that 'I take all of these things together and create something called 'me'.' But the 'me' is a fiction. (It reminds me of the bit early in Harari's book 'Sapiens' - do you know it? - where he describes how common things like companies, e.g. Peugeot cars, do not exist, they are legal fictions or stories developed to make life easier for humans.)

YES! Perfect understanding! I have read his book, now forgotten all about the contents! :) But the idea of Peugeot cars is a good example of what we are looking at. Other fictions include: Universities, London, Government, Hospitals etc. ...just a few more of the legal fictions or stories developed to make life easier for human communication; and this includes the elusive "I"!

My story: "I live in Belgium" This is a story, which put under the microscope of what can be actually proven will not meet the criteria of our investigation: Is there a separate "I" that can be found to be living in a country called Belgium? Can a country called Belgium actually be found in direct experience? Legally, yes, this can be verified by certain documents and maps etc. and an everyday narrative that goes on creating stories about a "me" living in a country called Belgium, but upon direct questioning of my immediate actual experience (which is all I can actually verify) the whole narrative falls apart.


EXPLORE - SENSE OF SELF:
The difference in Feeling something to be true and Seeing that it is or isn't.

Let’s say that you have lost your keys and you swear that you left them in your coat. You go to look and check all the pockets - the keys are not there. You swear they must be as that was the last place you remember them. You have a vivid memory of putting them there after you left the house. But when you check they are not there.
At this point you can keep on believing that the keys are in your pocket, or you can admit that even if they were, they are no longer there now.

This is just like that. You may see clearly that the self is an illusion but still feel a sense of self - just like the keys.

Feeling something to be true and seeing that it is or is not is different. (Remember the Coloured Socks Example!)

Now I'd like you to explore this "sense of self" very thoroughly, not by thinking about it but be LOOKING for it. There might be a familiar sensation that we call a sense of self, but can an actual self be found? Keep the focus of attention on this sense of self and answer the questions with a simple yes or no when appropriate:

Does this sense of self have a specific location? Yes/No
If Yes, is it permanently fixed, or does it come and go?
And if it comes and goes, where does it go to?
Does this sense of self have a shape or a size? Yes/No
Does this sense of self say or communicate anything? Yes/No
If the answer is yes, how does it do this?
Does this sense of self have any specific characteristics or attributes (shimmering, tingling, pulsing, contraction?
What is this sense of self made of? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Body Sensation? Thought?
Does this familiar "sense of self" confirm the existence of an actual self. Yes/No
In conclusion, is there any separate self to be found?

Remember, it is your direct experience, not whatever feelings and thoughts that come up about it, that we want to get clear about.

Any comments?

[Tanglier]

Hi Rowena

Does this sense of self have a specific location? Yes/No

When I have a sense of self I usually locate it behind my eyes.

If Yes, is it permanently fixed, or does it come and go?

I am not aware of it all the time, but I assume that it is always there even when I am not 'aware' of it (or rather assuming it).

And if it comes and goes, where does it go to?

It doesn't go anywhere.

Does this sense of self have a shape or a size? Yes/No

No

Does this sense of self say or communicate anything? Yes/No

No

Does this sense of self have any specific characteristics or attributes (shimmering, tingling, pulsing, contraction?

No

What is this sense of self made of? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Body Sensation? Thought?

None of the above! It is just a familiar place that I orient myself to whenever I have a sense of self. Perhaps like the 'feeling' of having keys in my pocket in your example above. I suppose it is something like a familiar thought but it doesn't really have the characteristics of thoughts - it isn't an image or a set of words.

Does this familiar "sense of self" confirm the existence of an actual self. Yes/No

No

In conclusion, is there any separate self to be found?

No

Best wishes

Kim

[Noro]

Hi Kim,

Im going to be a bit picky here, for clarity's sake.

Does this sense of self have a specific location? Yes/No

When I have a sense of self I usually locate it behind my eyes.

This is not an answer from your direct experience Kim. However let's investigate, we are looking for an actual 'thing' called a 'sense of self'' and you imply from your answer, that yes, there is such a 'thing' and when you have it it is usually located behind your eyes. Now LOOK

What can you find behind your eyes, can you find an actual sense of self as an object to be found?
Please don't try to describe or explain etc. just LOOK, here now...
Without any added label or name, what do you find?

If Yes, is it permanently fixed, or does it come and go?

I am not aware of it all the time, but I assume that it is always there even when I am not 'aware' of it (or rather assuming it).

Once again, is "it" an actual "thing" or object that can be found? Yes/No?
Assumptions are not direct experience.

What is this sense of self made of? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Body Sensation? Thought?

None of the above! It is just a familiar place that I orient myself to whenever I have a sense of self. Perhaps like the 'feeling' of having keys in my pocket in your example above. I suppose it is something like a familiar thought but it doesn't really have the characteristics of thoughts - it isn't an image or a set of words.

All good descriptions etc. and fair enough, we are not looking to deny any sensations or feelings that are present, and the brain naturally scans for body sensations, and then we overlay with labels such as "familiar" and "sense of self."
What are those sensations without being labelled?
Is there anything more than a sensation? Yes/No?

Please continue looking on an off throughout your day.


BUTTCHAIR

Sit down on a chair.

Please LOOK for any place where your butt ends & the chair begins.

Is there any clear dividing line between them? Or only the Sensation with no clear division?

It is simple direct & nonverbal. Just be with the sensations.

Sink into that noticing. Notice how it FEELS.

Report back here.

[Tanglier]

Hi Rowena

I struggle with the only things being allowed in this game are objects, it reminds me of the extreme philosophy of the 1960s, but here we go:

What can you find behind your eyes, can you find an actual sense of self as an object to be found?
Please don't try to describe or explain etc. just LOOK, here now...
Without any added label or name, what do you find?

Nothing

Once again, is "it" an actual "thing" or object that can be found? Yes/No?

No

What are those sensations without being labelled?

I don’t understand the question. If I said what the sensations were then that would be labelling.

Is there anything more than a sensation? Yes/No?

No

BUTTCHAIR

Report Back here

.
Just sensation

Best wishes

Kim

[Noro]

Hi Kim,

I struggle with the only things being allowed in this game are objects, it reminds me of the extreme philosophy of the 1960s, but here we go:

I do understand that it is not so easy to let go of old ways of looking at and interpreting our experience. However, with this inquiry, it i's not a matter of objects being allowed or not allowed. The focus is not on objects, the focus is on finding out if there are any actual objects, i.e. an actual separate self, agent, doer, etc. It is also not an extreme philosophy, we are directly learning to look at what is actually happening that can be verified, and the only way to be sure of that is through our direct experience, here, now.

How can we come to this inner knowing other than by direct experience?
How can you know what colour socks you are wearing without looking at them in order to be absolutely sure?
How do you know where you put your keys without having the direct experience of actually seeing your keys?
Where is the "I" that "struggles" located?

What are those sensations without being labelled?

I don’t understand the question. If I said what the sensations were then that would be labelling.

Yes, absolutely, and we can say that even the word 'sensation' is a label. Without the added interpretation of "sense of self" a sensation is just a sensation.

Sit down and take a moment to relax and close your eyes.
Now bring your attention to the sensation of your feet on the ground, rest your attention there for a minute or two.
Now bring your attention to the sensation of your butt on the chair, rest your attention there for a minute or two
Now bring your attention to the sensation of your hands on your thighs, rest your attention there as above.
Now bring your attention to the sensation of the movement of your breath.
Now bring your attention to the sensation behind your eyes.
Let go of the thought of a body and body parts and relax into all the sensations, one by one, allowing your attention to wander from one area of sensation to another.
How was this for you?


THOUGHT EXERCISE
Sit quietly for about 15 minutes and notice the arising thoughts.
Just let them appear as they appear. Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and just notice how they appear without you doing anything at all.

Where are they coming from and going to?

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?

Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?

Can you predict your next thought?

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?

Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?

Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?

It may seem as if thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organized sequence? Or is just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that ‘one thought follows another thought’?

What did you find?

[Tanglier]

Hi Rowena

How can we come to this inner knowing other than by direct experience?
How can you know what colour socks you are wearing without looking at them in order to be absolutely sure?
How do you know where you put your keys without having the direct experience of actually seeing your keys?
Where is the "I" that "struggles" located?

There is no location of « I ».
I worry that in reducing everything to direct experience we end up with not very much at all that is worth living for. Nihilism. There is a whole list of values that we cannot directly experience that make life worth living, like beauty, truth, simplicity, contentment, love. These are presumably just thoughts and labels as well? Fictions according to the narrow criterion of empiricism that is being applied in this approach.
Besides that, even our direct experience is not to be trusted is it? When we see something, what we see is what our mind has interpreted - it isn’t necessarily a direct representation of ‘reality’.
I am very unclear as to how nihilism is any kind of liberation. It seems to be more of a prison!

How was this for you?

Moving from one set of sensations to another I noticed the vibrational nature of the sensations and that they bore little relation to the boundaries and locations of the actual physical body that they related to. There was an expansive feeling.

Thought exercise
Where are they coming from and going to?

Coming from nowhere and going nowhere.

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?

No

Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?

No

Can you predict your next thought?

No

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?

No

Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?

No
My copy and paste function has failed me at this point, sorry, but the answers to the next questions are also No. There is no logical sequence of thoughts, though it is clear to me that the content of one thought often triggers an association which becomes the next thought, without any input from « me ».
Best wishes
Kim

[Noro]

Hi Kim,

I worry that in reducing everything to direct experience we end up with not very much at all that is worth living for. Nihilism. There is a whole list of values that we cannot directly experience that make life worth living, like beauty, truth, simplicity, contentment, love. These are presumably just thoughts and labels as well? Fictions according to the narrow criterion of empiricism that is being applied in this approach.
Besides that, even our direct experience is not to be trusted is it? When we see something, what we see is what our mind has interpreted - it isn’t necessarily a direct representation of ‘reality’.
I am very unclear as to how nihilism is any kind of liberation. It seems to be more of a prison!

OK, I get your concerns. Lets take a look.

Nihilism. There is a whole list of values that we cannot directly experience that make life worth living, like beauty, truth, simplicity, contentment, love. These are presumably just thoughts and labels as well? Fictions according to the narrow criterion of empiricism that is being applied in this approach.

This is not empiricism. This is an investigation of reality as it is directly experienced rather than imagined. There is no narrow criterion, there is only what you can experience directly before your eyes.

Besides that, even our direct experience is not to be trusted is it? When we see something, what we see is what our mind has interpreted - it isn’t necessarily a direct representation of ‘reality’.

Direct Experience is to be trusted, ultimately it is the only thing we have.
There can be no direct representation of 'reality' because any representation is an interpretation, and an interpretation is not 'reality'. The only reality we can know is the evidence that we have to hand, before us.
Direct Experience means that there are no thought labels AT ALL, there is only pure experiencing.

Do we need to name or label something (say a tree) to fully experience it?

AS A CONCESSION we can point out a sense that is activated.
Visual field = simply seeing and then we add: colours + shapes + I see a tree + I see an oak tree +++
Sound field = simply hearing and then we add: sounds + dog barking + neighbour's dog + "how annoying" +++
Olfactory field = simply smelling and then we add + smells like coffee + "Im looking forward to my cup of coffee"!
Do you see how it goes?

It's not about getting rid of thoughts, analysis, etc. It is about putting in its place as an overlaying activity that STEALS attention away from being. Thoughts lead to dissociation, returning to Direct Experience returns us to being.

I am very unclear as to how nihilism is any kind of liberation. It seems to be more of a prison

Exactly, Nihilism is a thought, it is a belief in nothing of value, it is dissociation, that is a prison.

There is a whole list of values that we cannot directly experience that make life worth living, like beauty, truth, simplicity, contentment, love.

Do the values or qualities of being that you mention above need labels in order to be experienced?
Is there a separate "you" needed for experiencing beauty, truth, simplicity, contentment, love?



DIRECT EXPERIENCE OF SOUND FIELD - SIMPLY HEARING
Put on some music. Use earphones if you have them.
Allow yourself to become absorbed in the sounds.
See if you can feel the body resonating with the sounds.
Ask the following questions:

Where does it FEEL that the sound is?
Where does it FEEL that "I" am?
Now ask "What is hearing?" and "Where is it located?"
What happens to the quality of hearing when you ask this question?
Does attention shift from hearing to the thought space?
Notice any sensations that arise in the body with this question.
Be fully with the sensations in the body, let go of any thoughts
Allow yourself once again to become absorbed in the sounds.

Can an INHERENT HEARER be found?
Could anything that is suggested as the hearer, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?