May all be free

[poppyseed]

Hi Liam

Yet, even after all the exercises we’ve been doing, the mental construct that there’s “something seen” that is “outside” “me” keeps coming back. These are thoughts, not DE, but the realization of that is not stable, or not clearly seen. The mental constructs are still impacting experience.

These exercises still feel slippery, in the mental construct of inside/outside keeps slipping back.

OK… Thoughts say funny stuff but can they affect the direct experience somehow? It’s just a matter of labelling, right? These labels (e.g. inside/outside) have been used for a very long time so it makes sense if they don’t just drop on the spot. So every time they appear, just look where the border is that separates “inside” from “outside” in DE with eyes closed or open. This inquiry is about change in perceptions, noticing the stories. As we’ve already seen thoughts are talking nonsense most of the time. It’s a good habit to constantly check what thoughts are saying vs reality. There is no other way. Not to analyse the stories, as in therapy, but to make a habit of recognising them as just thought stories/fiction. Just laugh at what they are saying, or swear at them. Recognise their entertainment potential: they are a free dramedy (even when they paint worst-case scenarios).

Now let’s explore inside/outside a bit more…
Is there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? Is there is an outside - the outside of what exactly? What is the refence point for inside/outside? Is it the “skin”? Is it the “body”? We saw that “skin” and “body” are labels for seeing (certain colours) and sensations, right? So is there “inside” and “outside” sensations? Are there two sensations “inside of the skin/body” and “outside the skin/body” or one (e.g. labelled “skin touching cold can)?
In DE there is only seeing/hearing/etc. and thinking provides the labels. Seeing is like a picture that everything is drawn in pencil on paper – the illusion of separation is created by different colours used – otherwise it’s all paper.


Different colours in seeing create the illusion of things but all that is there is seeing. Can you see that?
Also, is there space where others and things/the world exist? What is the difference between “here” and “there” without thought content? LOOK! Where is the refence point for “here” and “there”? What does that refence point look like? More colour?



When looking at this picture, thought automatically divides and labels colour into many different colours, then further names those colours into specific objects.

IGNORE ALL object labels and colour labels:-
Are there many colours? Or is there simply colour?
Is there an actual gap between the ‘trees’? Or is the gap actually colour?
Where does colour begin and end? In other words, can an actual dividing line be found between where one colour ends and another begins, or is that just a mental construct?

Love
Rali

[Kaiho]

Thank you, Rali.

Thoughts say funny stuff but can they affect the direct experience somehow? It’s just a matter of labelling, right?

Yes, it's just a matter of labelling. Thoughts don't actually affect direct experience.

Now let’s explore inside/outside a bit more…
Is there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? Is there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?

There's no "inside" and "outside" in direct experience. These are labels.

What is the refence point for inside/outside? Is it the “skin”? Is it the “body”?

No. No.

We saw that “skin” and “body” are labels for seeing (certain colours) and sensations, right?

Yes.

So is there “inside” and “outside” sensations? Are there two sensations “inside of the skin/body” and “outside the skin/body” or one (e.g. labelled “skin touching cold can)?

There aren't two sensations, just one (labelled "skin touching cold can").

Different colours in seeing create the illusion of things but all that is there is seeing. Can you see that?

Yes.

Also, is there space where others and things/the world exist?

No.

What is the difference between “here” and “there” without thought content? LOOK!

There's no difference between "here" and "there" without thought content.

Where is the reference point for “here” and “there”? What does that reference point look like? More colour?

Color. Distance is thought content.

IGNORE ALL object labels and colour labels:-
Are there many colours? Or is there simply colour?

Simply color.

Is there an actual gap between the ‘trees’? Or is the gap actually colour?

The gap is actually color.

Where does colour begin and end? In other words, can an actual dividing line be found between where one colour ends and another begins, or is that just a mental construct?

There's no dividing line between where one color ends and another begins. It's just a mental construct.

Love,
Liam

[poppyseed]

Hi Liam

The gap is actually colour.

So which one of the following describes best DE:
1. I am seeing colour
2.seeing colour
3. seeing


Now let’s see if we can find where this sense of self (i.e. seer behind the eyes) is coming from
Does the sense of self have a location (e.g. behind the eyes, forehead, chest)?
Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?
Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?
If the answer is yes, how does the sense do this exactly?
Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?
What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?
What is found?
What discerns it, distinguishes it, filters it out from "not me", etc.?
If and when that sense of "me" arises, what creates and/or notices it?
When there is a sense of "me", and thus "not me" as well, look for what "in here" looks out at what is "out there" (i.e., "not me")?
And having experienced a "me" your whole life: was it because you identified with an aspect of experience, or identified as an aspect of experience? Is/was there a difference between identifying with and identifying as something?
Love
Rali

[Kaiho]

Thanks, Rali.

So which one of the following describes best DE:
1. I am seeing colour
2. seeing colour
3. seeing

3. seeing

Now let’s see if we can find where this sense of self (i.e. seer behind the eyes) is coming from.
Does the sense of self have a location (e.g. behind the eyes, forehead, chest)?

No. There's a habitual tendency to identify a “sensation behind the eyes” as “myself,” but there is no “self,” “location,” “sensation,” or “eyes” in direct experience. The direct experience is feeling/experiencing. Everything else is thought content about "self," "identification," "location," "eyes," etc.

Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?

No. There are no boundaries in direct experience. Boundaries, size, and shape are thought content.

Does the sense of self say or communicate anything? If the answer is yes, how does the sense do this exactly?

No, the "sense of self" doesn't say anything. The idea that "someone says something" is a mental construct.

Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?

No.

What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?

The "sense of self" seems to be "made of" whatever thought content thinking happens to label "self.”

What is found?

In direct experience, there's only experiencing. Everything else is thought content dividing and labelling "colors," "shapes," "sounds," etc.

What discerns it, distinguishes it, filters it out from "not me", etc.?

Only labels. "Me" and "not me" are labels. The line between them does not exist, except in thought content.

If and when that sense of "me" arises, what creates and/or notices it?

The sense of “me” is a label that thinking imposes on experiencing. Thinking divides “me” from “not me.” In this sense, thinking creates the sense of “me.” (When I write, "thinking creates the sense of 'me'," I do not mean that thinking is an agent. Thinking is an impersonal, self-less process.)

When there is a sense of "me", and thus "not me" as well, look for what "in here" looks out at what is "out there" (i.e., "not me")?

“Me,” “not me,” “in here,” and “out there” are all labels with which thinking divides experiencing. Experiencing has no divisions or boundaries, so there’s actually nothing “in here” that “looks out” at what’s “out there.”

And having experienced a "me" your whole life: was it because you identified with an aspect of experience, or identified as an aspect of experience?

I identified as an aspect of experience.

Is/was there a difference between identifying with and identifying as something?

Yes. “Identifying with” means I related to something that was different from “me.” “Identifying with” describes a relationship between two things (“me” and something else), in which I know that I’m different from the thing I identify with.
“Identifying as” would mean that I thought that the thing I identified as was “me.”

Love,
Liam

[poppyseed]

Hi Liam

Wonderful!!!

Let’s have a look at the idea of control, choice and decisions. Please explore the exercises below and report your findings! Remember that we’re looking for some kind of entity, a something, an ‘I’ which is doing the ‘choosing’. Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’, but remember we are not interested in “seems like” and “feels like” entities, but ones that could be described.

Seems like/feels like = thought content

1. Hold a hand in front of you; palm turned down. Now turn the palm up. And down...and up and so on.

How is the movement controlled?
Does a thought control it?
Can a ‘controller’ or and entity that is choosing be located?
How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over.

2. Put two objects that you like in front of you (e.g. a cup of coffee and a glass of juice)

Step1. Look at drink A and at drink B. Think about their respective qualities, the things you like about them, compare and weigh the pros and cons of each. See if a preference is manifesting for one or the other.
Step2. Count to 5.
Step3. Choose one of the drinks. Pick it up and take a sip.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience an entity doing the ‘choosing’?

In step 3 where you made a choice, did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does it look like?

3. Please take me through a biggish decision that you made recently - not something very personal so you are able to share more details about your decision making...

How did it come to be? Consider all of the conditions that were necessary for it to happen. If any one of those conditions were different, would the outcome have been the same? How many of these conditions were outside of your influence? What was in your control (according to thought)?

Please take your time with each exercise! Repeat as many times as you need and then write the answers for all of them. Watch like a hawk. Don't go to thoughts, examine the actual experience. Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire with the questions.

Love
Rali

[Kaiho]

Thank you, Rali!

Let’s have a look at the idea of control, choice and decisions. Please explore the exercises below and report your findings! Remember that we’re looking for some kind of entity, a something, an ‘I’ which is doing the ‘choosing’. Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’, but remember we are not interested in “seems like” and “feels like” entities, but ones that could be described.

Seems like/feels like = thought content

1. Hold a hand in front of you; palm turned down. Now turn the palm up. And down...and up and so on.

How is the movement controlled? Does a thought control it?

There’s no direct experience of a thought “controlling” the movement.

Can a ‘controller’ or and entity that is choosing be located?

No

How is the decision made to turn the hand over?

I don’t know. I can’t locate a decision.

Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over.

I can’t find a decision point. The hand turns over, and the thought about the decision comes afterwards.

2. Put two objects that you like in front of you (e.g. a cup of coffee and a glass of juice)

Step1. Look at drink A and at drink B. Think about their respective qualities, the things you like about them, compare and weigh the pros and cons of each. See if a preference is manifesting for one or the other.
Step2. Count to 5.
Step3. Choose one of the drinks. Pick it up and take a sip.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities?

No

Or did they kind of appear by themselves?

They appeared by themselves.

If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

They popped up by themselves.

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event?

No

Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting?

No

Did you directly experience an entity doing the ‘choosing’?

No

In step 3 where you made a choice, did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does it look like?

No. No entity arose that announced, “I am the chooser.”

3. Please take me through a biggish decision that you made recently - not something very personal so you are able to share more details about your decision making...

How did it come to be?

My spouse and I were in a car accident while she was driving. I decided not to buy another car because we are moving out of the country in about 9 months. We have been sharing one car, and that is working out fine.

Consider all of the conditions that were necessary for it to happen. If any one of those conditions were different, would the outcome have been the same?

No

How many of these conditions were outside of your influence?

Most, if not all.

What was in your control (according to thought)?

According to thought, the decision whether to buy another car was in my control. However, if my spouse had to drive to work, I would have had to buy another car, and if we were not planning to leave the country, I most likely would have bought another car.

Love,
Liam

[poppyseed]

Hi Liam

Wonderful looking!

My spouse and I were in a car accident while she was driving. I decided not to buy another car because we are moving out of the country in about 9 months. We have been sharing one car, and that is working out fine.

According to thought, the decision whether to buy another car was in my control. However, if my spouse had to drive to work, I would have had to buy another car, and if we were not planning to leave the country, I most likely would have bought another car.

I just wanted an example of a decision that you would normally consider that you’ve made. The point was to look entirely in thought content where cause and effect “live” and see that even there there’s no “you” making a decision. It was just one event leading to another, leading to another, with “actions” based on previous conditioning. The thought “decision is made” is layered on top of other thoughts/beliefs/descriptions of what has happened before. Why does the wind blow? It just blows. Yes we can say it happens as a result of previous events but there’s no entity “wind” that does the blowing. There is no wind that decides to blow. It’s just language. What is “moving of the hands” in DE? We’ve seen that it’s just a sensation, labelled “hands moving” + colour/shape labelled “hands moving”. So, what makes the sensations to appear? What makes seeing to appear? LOOK! Is there anything that causes anything to appear? Do cause and effect exist outside of thought content? Thought comes to describe that things are happening and why they are happening, but in DE things are just happening. Is the description/explanation/label needed for things to happen?

Love
Rali

[Kaiho]

Thank you, Rali.

I just wanted an example of a decision that you would normally consider that you’ve made. The point was to look entirely in thought content where cause and effect “live” and see that even there there’s no “you” making a decision. It was just one event leading to another, leading to another, with “actions” based on previous conditioning. The thought “decision is made” is layered on top of other thoughts/beliefs/descriptions of what has happened before. Why does the wind blow? It just blows. Yes we can say it happens as a result of previous events but there’s no entity “wind” that does the blowing. There is no wind that decides to blow. It’s just language.

Would you like me to do this exercise again, and give another example? I'd be happy to.

What is “moving of the hands” in DE? We’ve seen that it’s just a sensation, labelled “hands moving” + colour/shape labelled “hands moving”. So, what makes the sensations to appear?

I don't know. Sensations seem to appear out of nowhere. Any explanation of what makes them appear is thought content.

What makes seeing to appear? LOOK!

I don't know. Seeing seems to appear out of nowhere.

Is there anything that causes anything to appear?

No, I don't think so.

Do cause and effect exist outside of thought content?

No. It's just experiencing. Thinking imposes the labels of "cause" and "effect" on experiencing.

Thought comes to describe that things are happening and why they are happening, but in DE things are just happening. Is the description/explanation/label needed for things to happen?

No. No description, explanation, or label is needed for things to happen.

A shift has been happening since last Friday. It is both subtle and gradual.

Love,
Liam

[poppyseed]

Hi Liam

Would you like me to do this exercise again, and give another example? I'd be happy to.

No, I was just explaining why I gave you a “thought” exercise (not DE) :)

A shift has been happening since last Friday. It is both subtle and gradual.

That’s wonderful!!

At this point, it will be a good DE exercise to get out for an actual walk in nature and observe interconnectedness. See how ALL is moving interdependently, including thinking and the senses. Hold these questions in mind:
Is there anything that is separate from everything else?
Is there a border that divides “me” and “my body” from everything else, or is it just a thought? Is that interdependent movement outside of you? Is there an “inside” and an “outside”?
Is there an owner of being?
Are there others? Is there an “I” in others?
Is there a “you”?
Love
Rali

[Kaiho]

Thank you, Rali!

At this point, it will be a good DE exercise to get out for an actual walk in nature and observe interconnectedness. See how ALL is moving interdependently, including thinking and the senses. Hold these questions in mind:
Is there anything that is separate from everything else?

No

Is there a border that divides “me” and “my body” from everything else, or is it just a thought?

No, there's not a border that divides "me" and "my body" from everything else. The border is just a thought. It doesn't exist in direct experience.

Is that interdependent movement outside of you?

No, because there's no border between "inside" and "outside."

Is there an “inside” and an “outside”?

No

Is there an owner of being?

No. That's thought content.

Are there others?

No. That's also thought content.

Is there an “I” in others?

No

Is there a “you”?

No

As I was walking in the woods, the thought arose that it still "felt like" there was a center. Then it was seen that this was a thought, and that there was no "center" at all in direct experience. There's no "center from which everything is experienced." There's just experiencing.

Love,
Liam

[poppyseed]

Hi Liam

I can see you enjoyed your walk ;)

As I was walking in the woods, the thought arose that it still "felt like" there was a center. Then it was seen that this was a thought, and that there was no "center" at all in direct experience. There's no "center from which everything is experienced." There's just experiencing.

Focus on the feeling of am-ness/being, aliveness.
Can you tell if there is a being or just being?
Is life happening to a being or as being?
Is that “aliveness” any kind of object or subject? Is it even a human?

All that can be found when looking for this "center" is sensations, right?
Even “aliveness” basically is a complex label pointing to all the senses and thinking. More such labels are presence or am-ness, awareness, etc. but these are nothing more than labels pointing to the senses. Is there anything here that is not the senses? How would they be experienced without the senses?

Thought splits the experience into an experiencer/awareness/knowing and experiencing, but is an owner or experiencer needed for knowing_experiencing (or aware experiencing) to happen? And is there an knowing_experiencing and not-knowing_experiencing? Is not-knowing_experiencing even possible? Is the knowing part even necessary or is it just THIS/what is? The “knowing” label is another angle of describing the fact that something IS happening, isn’t it? Experiencing still suggests to “come into contact with an event”. "Thusness" or "suchness" is a Buddhist term, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction.

So let's review where we are at with the following questions.

What has changed and what hasn’t in normal everyday living. What changes? What stays the same?
What is the biggest difference from before starting this conversation?
Is seeking still going on?
Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?
Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?
Love
Rali

[Kaiho]

Thank you, Rali!

Focus on the feeling of am-ness/being, aliveness.
Can you tell if there is a being or just being?

Just being

Is life happening to a being or as being?

As being

Is that “aliveness” any kind of object or subject? Is it even a human?

It’s not any kind of object or subject. It’s not a human.

All that can be found when looking for this "center" is sensations, right?

Yes

Even “aliveness” basically is a complex label pointing to all the senses and thinking. More such labels are presence or am-ness, awareness, etc. but these are nothing more than labels pointing to the senses. Is there anything here that is not the senses?

I can’t find anything that is not the senses and thinking.

How would they be experienced without the senses?

They couldn’t be.

Thought splits the experience into an experiencer/awareness/knowing and experiencing, but is an owner or experiencer needed for knowing_experiencing (or aware experiencing) to happen?

No owner or experiencer is needed for knowing_experiencing to happen.

And is there an knowing_experiencing and not-knowing_experiencing?

I’m not quite sure how you mean “not-knowing_experiencing.” The Buddhist traditions I’ve practiced in emphasize “Don’t know mind.”

Is not-knowing_experiencing even possible?

I don’t think so.

Is the knowing part even necessary or is it just THIS/what is?

Just THIS/what is

The “knowing” label is another angle of describing the fact that something IS happening, isn’t it?

Yes

Experiencing still suggests to “come into contact with an event”. "Thusness" or "suchness" is a Buddhist term, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction.

Yes, “thusness” and “suchness” are familiar.

So let's review where we are at with the following questions.

What has changed and what hasn’t in normal everyday living. What changes? What stays the same?

A lot has remained the same. The changes are subtle. There’s a sense of spaciousness and transparency. “I” am not here. No interiority. When I believe thought content, and it seems like there’s an “inside” and “outside,” I look for the boundary in direct experience.

What is the biggest difference from before starting this conversation?

I’m aware that everything that seems like a boundary is thought content.

Is seeking still going on?

I don’t think so, at least not in the same way. As you wrote a few days ago, the labels don’t just drop on the spot, and it’s good to make a habit of recognizing thoughts as just thoughts.

Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?

May I think about this for a few days?

Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?

Yes. The “self” is a label. The illusion of separate self comes from believing the thought content that says there’s a “me” and “not me.”

Love,
Liam

[poppyseed]

Hi Liam

I’m not quite sure how you mean “not-knowing_experiencing.” The Buddhist traditions I’ve practiced in emphasize “Don’t know mind.”

I meant it more like not being aware of experiencing. Is this really possible? Is experiencing “sitting around” waiting to be aware of? Please look at the rest of the questions in that context and let me know if anything doesn’t make sense.

A lot has remained the same. The changes are subtle. There’s a sense of spaciousness and transparency. “I” am not here. No interiority. When I believe thought content, and it seems like there’s an “inside” and “outside,” I look for the boundary in direct experience.

What is there to believe the thoughts or not? So what is it? What is it that is currently identified with thoughts?
What is it that is standing apart from thought and has the ability to disregard them?
What do thoughts happen to?
Is there someone outside of thoughts, being identified with them?

Next time you watch a movie, notice how you get sucked into the story; how emotions come up and judgements appear. Then all of a sudden, there is like a flip back to the room - as if focus zooms out. Observe how it happens. At which point is there a decision to snap out? Is there one that makes that decision or does it simply happen, effortlessly? Is it different from being sucked into mind movies/ getting lost in thought? If there is nobody to believe, is ”believing in the story” actually happening or is it a story about “believing in the story” (more thought content)?

May I think about this for a few days?

Of course, you can. There is no rush. Just to let you know, we can continue this conversation here on the thread or “outside” even after crossing the gate, if you need my help with anything. "Crossing the gate" is only a beginning, not an end. Nothing changed, but everything looks different. The recognition of no self is just the beginning of seeing life and “yourself” in a new light. It takes time to clean up all the "mess"/conditioning, to settle in and adjust.

Here is a video that might be helpful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJQcD588g2w
And of course, take a couple of days and see if anything will jump out of somewhere :)
Love
Rali

[Kaiho]

Thank you so much, Rali!

I’m not quite sure how you mean “not-knowing_experiencing.” The Buddhist traditions I’ve practiced in emphasize “Don’t know mind.”

I meant it more like not being aware of experiencing. Is this really possible? Is experiencing “sitting around” waiting to be aware of?

No. Being aware is inseparable from experiencing. They happen together.

Please look at the rest of the questions in that context and let me know if anything doesn’t make sense.

A lot has remained the same. The changes are subtle. There’s a sense of spaciousness and transparency. “I” am not here. No interiority. When I believe thought content, and it seems like there’s an “inside” and “outside,” I look for the boundary in direct experience.

What is there to believe the thoughts or not? So what is it? What is it that is currently identified with thoughts?

There’s nothing there that can believe thoughts or identify with thoughts. Sometimes thought content takes over or becomes sticky. But everything feels lighter and more carefree.

What is it that is standing apart from thought and has the ability to disregard them?

There’s nothing standing apart from thought that can disregard thoughts. It’s more that thoughts dissolve (or become transparent) in direct experience, or thought content is seen to be untrue compared to direct experience.

What do thoughts happen to?

No one. They just happen.

Is there someone outside of thoughts, being identified with them?

No

Next time you watch a movie, notice how you get sucked into the story; how emotions come up and judgements appear. Then all of a sudden, there is like a flip back to the room - as if focus zooms out. Observe how it happens. At which point is there a decision to snap out?

There’s no decision to snap out, just a sudden shift from absorption in story back to sensory experience.

Is there one that makes that decision or does it simply happen, effortlessly?

It happens effortlessly.

Is it different from being sucked into mind movies/ getting lost in thought?

It’s similar to being sucked into mind movies.

If there is nobody to believe, is ”believing in the story” actually happening or is it a story about “believing in the story” (more thought content)?

“Believing in the story isn’t actually happening. It’s a story about “believing the story.”

Love,
Liam

[poppyseed]

Hi Liam

There’s nothing there that can believe thoughts or identify with thoughts. Sometimes thought content takes over or becomes sticky. But everything feels lighter and more carefree.

Wonderful!

We have some traditional final questions. Would you like to answer those when you are ready? Of course, there is no rush so if you want to explore anything else together, please let me know