Behind Kaiser

[Kaiser]

Hi Kaiser

Movement happens spontaneously. The body knows how to move unaided by thought.
Actively/action is, well I’ll be damned! I have no idea. It’s definitely there and sensed. It’s happening, ordinary, but no idea touches this in direct experience.

Does the body move? Remember, what is a ‘body’? What is there in DE? What is an action/movement? Is there an action in DE, or is it a label (for what?)

Does the body move? 🤔
In direct experience, damn. How to say? Silence and, well the body senses AND is in direct contact with what is being sensed, literally direct contact. What is sensed give rise (shape, form, etc.) to what perceives, without separation whatsoever. So that’s ONE. A silent one of everything. It just is. That’s clear.
The body moves for sure but spontaneously. Movement is happening, movement is sensed. There’s movement all around.
Yes, this one moves through what it is.

What is action in direct experience? 🤔
Change. Sensing changing. Movement/action is thought? In direct experience sensations umm… Sure, movement is noticed. This oneness of body senses movement. I can’t sense a solid unmoving. Silence, unmoving silence yes. Movement and sound pairing with silence and stillness as one. I’m not seeing how there is not movement.

Perhaps there’s no acting (one separate object changing amongst other separate objects). I understand how action is a thought construct, content of just thinking. Moving, not stationary is directly experienced.

I can’t explain or understand attention or shifting, -thinking content being more dominant. It “seems” to happen for real, the shifting of attention, but just being is more there, more obvious. I’m just trying to be as honest as I can. Hmm… “I” cannot “be” honest. I cannot be. It’s just this.

Remember we looked at attention/focus/noticing. Can it be separated from experiencing? Are there attention and experience, or just THIS? Are thinking, seeing, hearing, etc separate from each other without thought content? Do you see where it becomes ungraspable? Thought content contains different concepts for thinking, hearing, etc, describing different ‘aspects’ of THIS. Then further conceptualising describes one happening more than the other, while it’s just THIS. Thoughts are always out of whack with reality, and they put a filter on top of how things actually are. Reality is very simple. Once you see this, you will stop trying to find answers and figure out how things are :)

Attention/focus/noticing cannot be separated from experience. It’s part of this. Thought content does indeed separate. I definitely see that all of this is ungraspable. There’s no problem with this being ungraspable. This just is. Yeah. That’s obvious. It’s not possible to figure any of this out.

🤔🙄🤷🏼‍♂️

There are not two places to be. There’s only direct experience. Thoughts can’t compare nor comprehend THUS. It’s only thus, so simple. Attention/focus, hmm. I’m going to keep exploring and looking. Movement? Not movement? That’s thinking? Perhaps, I’m definitely not getting that one. That’s irritating. I’ll keep looking.

[Kaiser]

Movement, activity? Yep. Action as in willful doing? Not there.

Focus/attention? Nothing add is needed. It’s all available all the time. So anything supposing a will or doer to sustain isn’t there. Nope.

Might not make sense but there it is.

[poppyseed]

Hi Kaiser
I’m sorry for overwhelming you with questions! I just assumed that that was your answer and you’re done – I didn’t notice that you still have answers to give. I’m not going to give you new pointers but I will address what’s been answered so far. Hopefully, that will give you time to catch up!

Does the body move? 🤔
In direct experience, damn. How to say? Silence and, well the body senses AND is in direct contact with what is being sensed, literally direct contact. What is sensed give rise (shape, form, etc.) to what perceives, without separation whatsoever. So that’s ONE. A silent one of everything. It just is. That’s clear.
The body moves for sure but spontaneously. Movement is happening, movement is sensed. There’s movement all around.
Yes, this one moves through what it is.

Movement/action is thought? In direct experience sensations umm… Sure, movement is noticed. This oneness of body senses movement. I can’t sense a solid unmoving. Silence, unmoving silence yes. Movement and sound pairing with silence and stillness as one. I’m not seeing how there is not movement.

But you said that earlier in our conversation:

The direct experience is just sensing. “My body” and “just a body” are thought content. The body refers to “this, thus”. Oh, that’s what they’re talking about… oneness. How simple and obvious.
Hmm… I guess the body can’t really do things. This is quite familiar and obvious, yet very disorienting. Thinking is so well “grooved” and habitual that it’s forgotten. And I fall so quickly back into “this body sensing out there” almost immediately, without concern. Hmm… I’m gonna have to play with this for a while as it “shuts back into thought” so quickly.

Now let examine this carefully. Remember the cup of coffee example:

Seeing a cup, simply= image/color
Smelling coffee, simply = smell
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought

Try applying the same format for different parts of the body moving…

So as we agreed before, ‘body’ is just a label for certain sensing, seeing, smelling… Can a label do anything? Can a thought do things? Is ‘body movement’ DE or just a label for certain sensations and colours?

What is action in direct experience? 🤔
Change. Sensing changing.

Perhaps there’s no acting (one separate object changing amongst other separate objects). I understand how action is a thought construct, content of just thinking. Moving, not stationary is directly experienced.

Earlier:

There is absolutely no such thing as time, past or future. I’ve had a very deep look at this and I’m throughly convinced, I know there’s no such thing as time, or music for that matter.

So, if there is no time when can change be observed? Change supposes time – past event compared to a new one. So how can change be observed (DE) if there is only NOW, NOW, NOW…?

This oneness of body senses movement.

What is “oneness of body”? How is this “oneness” separate of THIS that can experience things (e.g., sense movement)?

If you want you can postpone the walk and deal with this first before we move on. Once it's all clear we can move to the walk
Love
Rali

[Kaiser]

Hi Kaiser
I’m sorry for overwhelming you with questions! I just assumed that that was your answer and you’re done – I didn’t notice that you still have answers to give. I’m not going to give you new pointers but I will address what’s been answered so far. Hopefully, that will give you time to catch up!

No worries Rali, I really appreciate the effort, persistence and generosity. I only hit the pause button so I was able to respect and utilize each pointing. This is a real treasure. I’m very grateful for each invitation and some ask for deeper consideration, requiring more duration. I don’t want to skip over anything here.

If you want you can postpone the walk and deal with this first before we move on. Once it's all clear we can move to the walk

This pointing about movement is not clear and currently seems absurd. I want to get the jist so I can build on it to see further.

So as we agreed before, ‘body’ is just a label for certain sensing, seeing, smelling… Can a label do anything? Can a thought do things? Is ‘body movement’ DE or just a label for certain sensations and colours?

A label cannot do anything.
Thoughts cannot do things.
In direct experience, (reality), body movement is indeed a label referring to sensations and visual phenomena.

What is action in direct experience? 🤔
Change. Sensing changing.

Perhaps there’s no acting (one separate object changing amongst other separate objects). I understand how action is a thought construct, content of just thinking. Moving, not stationary is directly experienced.

Earlier:

There is absolutely no such thing as time, past or future. I’ve had a very deep look at this and I’m throughly convinced, I know there’s no such thing as time, or music for that matter.

So, if there is no time when can change be observed? Change supposes time – past event compared to a new one. So how can change be observed (DE) if there is only NOW, NOW, NOW…?

The logical workaround is nothing is solid. I’m gonna have to see this though…

A little “Life” just happened. I’m distracted and have to do settle down a little. More later.

[Kaiser]

Movement happens spontaneously. The body knows how to move unaided by thought.
Actively/action is, well I’ll be damned! I have no idea. It’s definitely there and sensed. It’s happening, ordinary, but no idea touches this in direct experience.

Does the body move? Remember, what is a ‘body’? What is there in DE? What is an action/movement? Is there an action in DE, or is it a label (for what?)

In direct experience (reality) there is activity, vibrancy, dynamism.

The body doesn’t necessarily move in reality. Sensations are vivid aliveness.

Action/movement is the label for the alive expression of this, thus. Seemingly solid, hard unmoving objects are also symbolic, of pure potential also expressing this vibrancy.

There may be flowery thinking content above, deadening reality, smuggling it back into thought construct, not sure, but it’s my most recent look in this deep way. Kinda fumbling my way through. I’m open to pointers here if I’ve wondered off.

Earlier:

There is absolutely no such thing as time, past or future. I’ve had a very deep look at this and I’m throughly convinced, I know there’s no such thing as time, or music for that matter.

So, if there is no time when can change be observed? Change supposes time – past event compared to a new one.

Change can only be observed in thought constructs of memory paired with thought constructs of comparison. So in reality it can’t be observed, it’s a thought construct. In reality, there’s not necessarily change, just nothing still. What is called/labeled movement is just the vibrant dynamic nature of reality.

That’s fairly close to what is currently seen in direct experience.

[poppyseed]

Hi Kaiser

I’m very grateful for each invitation and some ask for deeper consideration, requiring more duration. I don’t want to skip over anything here.

Well, I leave it to you to set the pace with your answers. If there is an answer, I address it. You can also ask for some more time when you need :)

This pointing about movement is not clear and currently seems absurd. I want to get the jist so I can build on it to see further.

Movement (flow) is there in terms of change (flow) in seeing, hearing, sensing, etc. What was inaccurate in your answer was that the body experiences and does the movement (actions): “The body knows how to move unaided by thought.”. A ‘body’ describes sensations - ‘moving of legs’, ‘hands’, etc are ‘body’ labels for sensations - but can the description/name do anything or is it just describing sensations? Now, can sensations do anything? Language is very quick to create a doer and object of doing out of thin air. As long as there is clarity about that it’s fine. But otherwise, yes, there is a vibrancy – sensing, seeing, etc happening ceaselessly.

Change can only be observed in thought constructs of memory paired with thought constructs of comparison. So in reality it can’t be observed, it’s a thought construct. In reality, there’s not necessarily change, just nothing still. What is called/labeled movement is just the vibrant dynamic nature of reality.

Beautiful!

The reason behind the intensity of the inquiry is to make LOOKING an everyday thing and create a momentum. The more LOOKING the better :). Please let me know, when you are ready to continue, by going for the walk and describing your experience.
Love
Rali

[Kaiser]

Please let me know, when you are ready to continue, by going for the walk and describing your experience.

I have a big day at work today. I will do the walk if time presents itself.

but can the description/name do anything or is it just describing sensations? Now, can sensations do anything?

Clearly, descriptions are only descriptions, empty of any ability, save representation and/or confusion.

In direct experience (reality) there is activity, vibrancy, dynamism.

The body doesn’t necessarily move in reality. Sensations are vivid aliveness.

Action/movement is the label for the alive expression of this, thus. Seemingly solid, hard unmoving objects are also symbolic, of pure potential also expressing this vibrancy.

There may be flowery thinking content above, deadening reality, smuggling it back into thought construct, not sure, but it’s my most recent look in this deep way.

I don’t know this 👆🏻 to be true yet. It’s not in the narrow, it’s on the skin still. If I receive an additional question I’ll work with it. Otherwise I’ll chew on the above for a while.

[Kaiser]

It’s very interesting, this process. My “leading edge” is rich with questions and challenges. When something is articulated beyond my current experience (which is often) it’s a question or challenge for direct examination… is this true. This inquiry won’t end, this life becomes an invitation to look.

[Kaiser]

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. Again, 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”?
Are there others?

There isn’t anything save thoughts that separates anything. Thoughts that separate are so familiar to the point of preference. There isn’t anything that separates “me” and “my body” from anything else. Yet thoughts- the content they’re of are incessant distracting and dominant. It was difficult to rest and look at direct experience to see movement as movement yet when looking, it was just movement, no inside not outside. To rest and see happens, yet thinking is convinced it requires an effort. And the effort offered is more thought through labels to navigate. Thinking cannot be suppressed, it’s also part of the happening, and subtle thinking sneaks it’s content of “this feels like there’s a real reality and a thought reality and “I’m being pulled between the two, effort will help”!
Thinking is convinced it can have its content help, create a “me” to witness its own absence. This cannot be controlled as it’s no more real than a label, without substance.

I cannot yet glimpse in direct experience the validity of if there are others. The very question fires up though, it’s content. An openness is available to be experienced amongst “others” yet when it’s considered that there is no separation thoughts dominate.
🤷🏼‍♂️

[poppyseed]

Hi Kaiser

In direct experience (reality) there is activity, vibrancy, dynamism.

The body doesn’t necessarily move in reality. Sensations are vivid aliveness.

Action/movement is the label for the alive expression of this, thus. Seemingly solid, hard unmoving objects are also symbolic, of pure potential also expressing this vibrancy.

Well, there are sensing and seeing which create the illusion of “movement of body”, like the frames of a movie create the illusion of movement when the frame rate is sped up, but when the rate is slowed down, the illusion disappears. Illusions are quite interesting – you know it is an illusion, but it can look the same even after truth about it is known. Have you ever seen a Kanizsa Triangle?

What if the link you perceived is just like the above; an optical illusion?

It’s very interesting, this process. My “leading edge” is rich with questions and challenges. When something is articulated beyond my current experience (which is often) it’s a question or challenge for direct examination… is this true. This inquiry won’t end, this life becomes an invitation to look.

When the core belief has been busted, a lot of other beliefs will still be hanging around. What you want to do at this point is LOOK and LOOK again. As soon as you start holding on to beliefs and ideas, you get stuck - you feel right about something and feel like you have an opinion. To unstick, just let it all fall off. That means question everything you are certain about. It may take a few months to settle in, but everyone is different, so there is no way to know how long it will take for everything to be re-examined. Sometimes it is intense, sometimes it’s gentle, but there is no finish line, only falling deeper and deeper into peace. Looking is the tool that has to be used over and over again. “Crossing the gate” is only the beginning of a long integration and re-evaluation. All this old conditioning has to be seen for what it is. The best part is that the cleaning happens on its own – it takes care of itself. If fear or resistance appears, it just shows that there are areas that have not been examined and need to be explored with DE.

Thinking is convinced it can have its content help, create a “me” to witness its own absence. This cannot be controlled as it’s no more real than a label, without substance.

I don’t know if this is a figure of speech, but just in case…Again, can a thought do anything? Can thinking plan to create a “me” or is it just an illusion? Who creates the mirage in the desert? Does it have a purpose? Who notices the mirage/illusion of “me”? Does the illusion exist without a reference point – anything that observes and sees an illusion and defines it as that? OR is it all self organising thinking – the path of least resistance?

I cannot yet glimpse in direct experience the validity of if there are others. The very question fires up though, it’s content. An openness is available to be experienced amongst “others” yet when it’s considered that there is no separation thoughts dominate.

Can the “I” of “others” be directly experienced? Can you directly experience "others"?
Are others somehow outside of seeing? Are others seen (i.e., an object of seeing)? Where is the border where others and seeing are separated? What is the difference between seeing an ‘stranger’, seeing an ’enemy’, and seeing a ‘friend’ in DE – they are all colour with different thought content, right? How is one colour different from another in DE if all there is to colour is seeing?
In DE there is only seeing/hearing/etc. and thinking provides the labels. It’s 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. Different levels of sounds create the illusion of a song but all that is there is hearing. Can you see that?
When you touch 'another', are there two sensations one of 'you' and one of 'other' or just one/just sensing? Are others outside of sensing? Where is the border that marks where sensing ends and "other" begin?
Also, is there space where these others exist? What is the difference between “here” and “there” without thought content?
Love
Rali

[Kaiser]

As soon as you start holding on to beliefs and ideas, you get stuck

P A U S I N G

To unstick, just let it all fall off. That means question everything you are certain about.

. . .

Have you ever seen a Kanizsa Triangle?
Image
What if the link you perceived is just like the above; an optical illusion?

This image is familiar.
If the link I preceded is an illusion, it can’t be destroyed, it will still be apparently seen, it won’t go away AND air has NO power. It’s not real.

More…

[Kaiser]

Again, can a thought do anything? Can thinking plan to create a “me” or is it just an illusion? Who creates the mirage in the desert? Does it have a purpose? Who notices the mirage/illusion of “me”? Does the illusion exist without a reference point – anything that observes and sees an illusion and defines it as that? OR is it all self organising thinking – the path of least resistance?

Thought cannot do anything.
Thinking cannot do anything. Create a plan to create “me”, convincingly is also illusion. It’s not happening in reality. It’s content of thought dominating over other senses.
No one creates a mirage, nor the illusion of “me”.
Hmm… interesting. An illusion requires a reference point. A reference point is content of thought. It is content, self organizing. Water seeking its own level.

[Kaiser]

Can the “I” of “others” be directly experienced? Can you directly experience "others"?
Are others somehow outside of seeing? Are others seen (i.e., an object of seeing)?

The “I” of others is inferred via content of thought. There are no senses that are directly seen in reality.

I think I can directly experience others, the question is absurd… until “I think” is hi-lighted. That’s a big pointer of what’s going on.

Others are included in seeing, not outside.

Are others seen (i.e., an object of seeing)?

Damn this is difficult…

Being honest, there’s a supposed barrier here.
Sidestepping for a moment…

What is being held onto that could make seeing this directly so challenging?

Thinking content including strong beliefs and refusals- just thought
Tightness in throat, lips, tickle in the chest- just sensations

Rali, Do I enter into thought content here?

Sidestepping into thought content slightly…

What is being held onto?

A belief (thought content) that I can see, keep it private and allow others to be others.

Damn, if there’s no me then there’s no you and that’s not negotiable, regardless if it’s nice or not.
A preference of belief based on previous thoughts and interpreted experiences.

Rali, How is this going? Am I on track with the process or sidetracking into the thought maze.

[Kaiser]

Are others seen (i.e., an object of seeing)? Where is the border where others and seeing are separated? What is the difference between seeing an ‘stranger’, seeing an ’enemy’, and seeing a ‘friend’ in DE – they are all colour with different thought content, right? How is one colour different from another in DE if all there is to colour is seeing?

Others are seen within seeing (including moving and hearing)
There is no border between “others” and the inclusive/overall seeing.
The only difference in seeing a friend, a foe or a stranger in direct experience is sensing combined with thinking.

They are all color with different thought content, agreed.

The difference between colors is in thinking content (memory, labels, preferences?).

In DE there is only seeing/hearing/etc. and thinking provides the labels. It’s 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 levels of sounds create the illusion of a song but all that is there is hearing. Can you see

that?

Yes, this is understood, seen, obvious.

When you touch 'another', are there two sensations one of 'you' and one of 'other' or just one/just sensing? Are others outside of sensing? Where is the border that marks where sensing ends and "other" begin?
Also, is there space where these others exist? What is the difference between “here” and “there” without thought content?

When I touch another it is one sensation- just sensing
Are others outside of sensing? Ohh, tricky this!
No, others are included in sensing.
There is no border. As in (ugh, sorry for the spiritual terminology 🤢) one-ness of body the object touched and the subject touching are literally combining for each “other’s” supposed existence of touch- just sensation.
There is only direct experience. There is no space for other to exist.
Here and there is thought content. It doesn’t exist in reality.

Still resisting/having difficulty not seeing others in direct experience. The exercises are understood. Am exploring the possibility and asking is this true in direct experience. Lots of thought content.

🤷🏼‍♂️

Thank you.

[Kaiser]

If fear or resistance appears, it just shows that there are areas that have not been examined and need to be explored with DE.

Are others seen (i.e., an object of seeing)?

Damn this is difficult…

Being honest, there’s a supposed barrier here.
Sidestepping for a moment…

What is being held onto that could make seeing this directly so challenging?

Thinking content including strong beliefs and refusals- just thought
Tightness in throat, lips, tickle in the chest- just sensations

Sidestepping into thought content slightly…

What is being held onto?

A belief (thought content) that I can see, keep it private and allow others to be others.

Damn, if there’s no me then there’s no you and that’s not negotiable, regardless if it’s nice or not.
A preference of belief based on previous thoughts and interpreted experiences.

In direct experience are there preferences? In direct experience is there kindness, privacy? Is there honesty?

In direct experience there are no preferences, everything is naked and neutral. Kindness, sentimentality is content of thinking. There is nothing hidden therefore nothing is private. Honesty is also a thought label describing something real in direct experience, an un-hidden no preference is-ness.

Are there others in direct experience?

There is no room for an other or others. Regardless of what I can see or am still ignoring, there are no others.