Am I who I think I am?

[dottymoo101]

Hi Rali,

It took me a while to work through your latest post. I found it challenging and may not have addressed all the questions.

Now, stay with this moment when the mind can’t label what is seen. What is actually present in direct experience? Is there any “thing” there at all, or just seeing (colour and shape), without separation, without inherent meaning?

Sitting here scanning my front room, in direct experience there doesn’t appear to be any ‘thing’, no ‘objects’ just seeing. It’s as though seeing, colours and shapes are all arising in one space. When colour and shape is recognised by mind, mind labels it. Then there is a tendency to feel that the labelled ‘thing’ exists. Then the labelled thing feels separate. It’s as thought the act of labelling creates separation.

Without the label, is there an object? Or just experiencing/what IS/this? I like this as it is more like a pointing word, like an arrow to what is silently happening right now, and now… (free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction).

Without the label, there’s colour and shape arising with seeing, no ‘object’, just this experience of colour, shape and seeing and a ‘knowing’ that is whats happening. I’m not sure it’s even that. All I can say about it, is it’s just is/this.

Also… What is recognition in direct experience?
Look closely—does recognition happen to someone? What is there to be recognized, other than this?

In DE, recognition seems to be the same as labelling. Recognition is not discernable as a separate process, it can’t be seen happening, it justs happens, like labelling just happens.

When a sound arises and is “recognized,” what exactly is happening? For example, the sound of "birds chirping"... Does the sound have any birds in it? Is there a moment where there is just sound, and then suddenly a knowing of what it is? Does recognition/labelling come as a separate event?

This morning, there were birds chirping while I was meditating. What seem to happen is sound arises with hearing and instantly the sound is known as ‘birds chirping’. Again, this all seems to happen by itself, automatically. I’m not aware of any process of recognition taking place. Rationally I know it has, as the mind has applied a label. The way I experience it is, hearing, sound, thought label - ‘birds chirping’ all together

If you stay with something that isn’t immediately recognized—before a label appears—what is different?
Is there an actual thing waiting to be identified, or does the mind’s labelling create the sense of a distinct, recognizable something?

When a sound is not known, and no label appears, there’s a feeling that the mind is wanting to label the not known. It’s quite a strong impulse, like the mind has come up with a label.

Look at an unfamiliar shape or listen to an unknown sound—before a label arrives, what is there? What is the raw experience, without assuming something needs to be recognized?

I watched the video. Thought was trying to see relationships between the random shapes, trying to establish patterns, looking for repetitions, looking for something known, something to hook in to. The raw experience is just the seeing.

Furthermore, notice the sounds you’re hearing, like the chirping of the birds. Notice the habitual thought, "Those are birds." Notice the habitual thought, "I hear that." Now just pay attention to how hearing happens. Take your time with it. Can you find a dividing line between the sound and the hearing of the sound? Are you doing the hearing? Or is it truer to say that hearing is just happening? Then look to see whether there's a dividing line between the hearing of it and a separate entity, a "you"/"awareness" doing the hearing. In other words, what does it mean when you say, "I'm hearing that sound"? Are there really three entities there in direct experience, an "I"/Dot/awareness/entity and hearing and a sound (of birds)? Or is there just one experience of hearing, with no one as a hearer in any shape or form?

Paying attention to how sound happens. So there’s hearing. A sound arises with hearing. Also here, is an assumption that sound is external to ‘me’. When this is looked in to, no boundary can be found between the sound and hearing. There’s no point to be found at which sound passes from the outside in to ‘my ear/me’. Sound, hearing, and awareness oseem to be one experience.

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

1. implies 3 ‘things’ – subject, experience, object
2. implies 2 things – experience, object
3. implies – experience

So 3 best describes DE.

With thanks,
Dot

[poppyseed]

Hi Dot

It took me a while to work through your latest post. I found it challenging and may not have addressed all the questions.
What was most challenging about it? Where did the looking become unclear or difficult?
When colour and shape is recognised by mind, mind labels it. Then there is a tendency to feel that the labelled ‘thing’ exists. Then the labelled thing feels separate. It’s as though the act of labelling creates separation.

Yes, it seems that labelling carves up what is otherwise undivided experience. If you rest with just the raw colour and shape, without applying any labels, does the sense of separation remain? Or is it only when "thingness" is added that separation appears?

Without the label, there’s colour and shape arising with seeing, no ‘object’, just this experience of colour, shape and seeing and a ‘knowing’ that is whats happening. I’m not sure it’s even that. All I can say about it, is it’s just is/this.

Yes, it’s just this. Before the mind carves it up, before the habit of naming rushes in—just pure experience.
If there’s no object without a label, is there a subject – a knower, a seer,…?
Look directly—does knowing have a shape, a colour, a texture? Is it made of anything at all? Or is it simply the undeniable fact of experience happening?
Can you find an edge to knowing? Does it start anywhere or end anywhere? The experiencing/this is there, but does it need knowing to be there? Is there anything to be known if there are no objects to be known and no knower?

Paying attention to how sound happens. So there’s hearing. A sound arises with hearing. Also here, is an assumption that sound is external to ‘me’. When this is looked in to, no boundary can be found between the sound and hearing. There’s no point to be found at which sound passes from the outside in to ‘my ear/me’. Sound, hearing, and awareness oseem to be one experience

Yes! When you look directly, does "hearing" actually involve an "I" or an "ear" as something separate? Or is there just this seamless arising of hearing, without an inside or outside?
If no boundary can be found, where does the idea of "external" even come from?
Let’s explore what “body” and “body parts” are in DE…

1. Take something cold from the fridge – like a can of cooldrink. When you touch the can, what does more accurately describe your experience:
a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”? With eyes closed, where does the cold appear?
Observe the order in which the details appear
2. Sit comfortably on a chair. Close your eyes and relax. Pay attention only to the feeling of your body. Just notice the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images. Keep your eyes closed and look:
Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair? At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation?
Is it "my" body, or is it just a body?
Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?
What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
Can the 'body' do things?

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

Love
Rali

[dottymoo101]

Hi Rali,

Todays offering....

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

It’s b and with eyes closed, it’s not known where the cold is, it’s just sensation. To say where the cold is appearing/felt needs thought.

2. Sit comfortably on a chair. Close your eyes and relax. Pay attention only to the feeling of your body. Just notice the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images. Keep your eyes closed and look:

Can it be known how tall the body is?

No

Does the body have a weight or volume?

No

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

No

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

No

At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation?

There’s only sensation

Is it "my" body, or is it just a body?

With eyes closed there’s only sensation, no body.

Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?

No inside and no outside

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?

Just this

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Sense perceptions

Can the 'body' do things?

When this is looked at, my experience is that the ‘body’ just knows how to do things. So when washing hands for example, the experience is that the hands know how to wash themselves. I might say to myself. ‘I’m going to wash my hands’, but the ‘going’ and the ‘hand-washing’ just happen. It can feel like I’m making it happen, but that’s not the direct experience.

Another example, making a coffee, I say out loud to someone or in my mind to myself, ‘I’m going to make a coffee’, then the sequence of events that follow that thought that get the coffee made, just seem to happen. It’s like the thought about ‘making a coffee’ , runs a programme ‘make a cup of coffee’. All that’s needed to make a cup of coffee is known and happens automatically following the thought.

This looking is fascinating. The feeling of I’m going to, or I’m making this happen is so strong, but my experience there’s a thought and then the thing happens.

It seems to me that the ‘body’ can do things. It just knows how.

Happy weekend,
Dot

[poppyseed]

Hi Dot

Brilliant looking!

b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”? With eyes closed, where does the cold appear? It’s b and with eyes closed, it’s not known where the cold is, it’s just sensation. To say where the cold is appearing/felt needs thought

Yes! That’s it. Without thought, there’s just coldness—no “fingers,” no “can,” just raw sensation appearing.
Now look deeper:
What is feeling the cold?
Is there an experiencer separate from the sensation, or is there just the experience of cold, happening on its own?
What happens when you stop assuming a "someone" behind experience?

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?

Just this

The actual experience of the body is thought. Thought points to sensation and labels it a ‘body’, but a body cannot be found as actual experience, only thoughts about a body. But you are right even thoughts and sensations are just labels - about DE, but nonetheless still labels.
So if we apply the apple exercise to body

Yes, sensation labelled as “body” is known, as are the thoughts ABOUT a “body”, but a “body” isn’t actually known. It is a concept…and concepts aren’t an issue, unless they are believed.

So following on this, what will happen if you apply the same to the sense of self. So if you look at the 'I/me' , is it actually known?
Does the label "I" contain an actual I...does it contain an actual person?
Does the label "I" itself, suggest in any way that it is an I?
Does the label "I" know anything about an I?
What does the label "I" point to? In other words, what does the word/label "I" actually refer to?

When this is looked at, my experience is that the ‘body’ just knows how to do things. So when washing hands for example, the experience is that the hands know how to wash themselves. I might say to myself. ‘I’m going to wash my hands’, but the ‘going’ and the ‘hand-washing’ just happen. It can feel like I’m making it happen, but that’s not the direct experience. Another example, making a coffee, I say out loud to someone or in my mind to myself, ‘I’m going to make a coffee’, then the sequence of events that follow that thought that get the coffee made, just seem to happen. It’s like the thought about ‘making a coffee’ , runs a programme ‘make a cup of coffee’. All that’s needed to make a cup of coffee is known and happens automatically following the thought. This looking is fascinating. The feeling of I’m going to, or I’m making this happen is so strong, but my experience there’s a thought and then the thing happens. It seems to me that the ‘body’ can do things. It just knows how.

Yes! This is the raw truth of it—thought claims ownership after the fact. "I'm going to wash my hands" appears, and then the hands simply move.
Here is a video that might surprise you when it comes to running a programme:
https://vimeo.com/90101368?fbclid=IwAR3

Now look closer:
What is doing this?
Is there an "I" controlling it, or is everything—every movement, every action—just unfolding by itself, like a river flowing downstream?
Can you find a separate controller, or only the assumption of one?

Look deeper: Are there hands in direct experience, or just sensations appearing?
Close your eyes. Where are “hands” without thought? Is there anything but “pressure”, “warmth”,” movement”—raw sensations?
Is “hand” anything more than a mental label tying together these sensations?
What is actually here before the label “hand” arises?

So can a body do things? You said when it comes to the body there is only sensations. So can a sensation do things? And are there “things” to be done - apples to be picked ;)?

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?

Love
Rali

[dottymoo101]

Hi Rali,

Lots in your last message so here's what I've looked at so far. I'll work on the nine questions tomorrow.

Thank you for the video, it was very interesting and quite surprising.

Yes! That’s it. Without thought, there’s just coldness—no “fingers,” no “can,” just raw sensation appearing.
Now look deeper:
What is feeling the cold?

Thought

Is there an experiencer separate from the sensation, or is there just the experience of cold, happening on its own?

There’s no experiencer to be found, just an experience of coldness.

What happens when you stop assuming a "someone" behind experience?

Then there’s only experiencing

Yes, sensation labelled as “body” is known, as are the thoughts ABOUT a “body”, but a “body” isn’t actually known. It is a concept…and concepts aren’t an issue, unless they are believed.
So following on this, what will happen if you apply the same to the sense of self. 
So if you look at the 'I/me' , is it actually known?

No

Does the label "I" contain an actual I...does it contain an actual person?

No

Does the label "I" itself, suggest in any way that it is an I?

No

Does the label "I" know anything about an I?

No

]What does the label "I" point to? In other words, what does the word/label "I" actually refer to?

Thoughts about an I

Yes! This is the raw truth of it—thought claims ownership after the fact. "I'm going to wash my hands" appears, and then the hands simply move. Now look closer:
What is doing this?

Nothing is doing this, it’s just happening

Is there an "I" controlling it, or is everything—every movement, every action—just unfolding by itself, like a river flowing downstream?

There’s no I, so no I controlling it, everything is just unfolding/flowing

Can you find a separate controller, or only the assumption of one?

No separate controller can be found, just thoughts about a controller

Look deeper: 
Are there hands in direct experience, or just sensations appearing?

There just sensations

Close your eyes. Where are “hands” without thought?

Hands can’t be found

Is there anything but “pressure”, “warmth”,” movement”—raw sensations?

Nope, just sensations

Is “hand” anything more than a mental label tying together these sensations?

No, that is exactly what it is

What is actually here before the label “hand” arises?

Just sensations

So can a body do things? 

You said when it comes to the body there is only sensations.

 
So can a sensation do things? And are there “things” to be done - apples to be picked ;)?

No, sensations can’t do things and as there are no ‘things’, there are no things to be done

With thanks,
Dot

[poppyseed]

Hi Dot

Lots in your last message so here's what I've looked at so far. I'll work on the nine questions tomorrow.

No problem! Thanks for letting me know!
Love
R

[dottymoo101]

Hi Rali,

Here's responses to the 9 questions....

Stand in front of a bigger mirror.
1. First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.

OK

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?

There was no connection with the felt sensations labelled ‘body’ and the image in the mirror. Not even any thoughts saying there was a connection. Theres was simply felt sensation and an image recognised as label ‘Dot’.

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?

There was felt sensations labelled ‘hand’ and image of recognised label ‘hand’ in the mirror, but no connection between them.

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?

There was felt sensations labelled ‘hand’ and an image ‘of movement’ but no connection between them.

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?

The image in the mirror was recognised as label ‘Dot’, but with thought just colour and shape.

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?

The image in the mirror was just the image in the mirror - colours and shapes. No thoughts arose about that there must be legs or arms or a head, none of which were in view in the mirror.

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?

Just sensations, when thoughts and mental images are ignored.

8. Start to walk slowly.
Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?

Just sensations

Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?

There’s an experience of shifting pressure between contact of feet and floor, but that’s thought so no, no actual experience of walking.

Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?

Yes just thoughts

Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?

Again it’s just thoughts

Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

The action of walking was recognised as walking by thought, but the actual experience walking cannot 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?

The actual experience was sensations arising in label ‘space’. Sensations can only be localised using thoughts and images.

With thanks,
Dot

[poppyseed]

Hi Dot
Very good!!

The actual experience was sensations arising in label ‘space’. Sensations can only be localised using thoughts and images.

Yes! Sensations just appear—raw, unbound, without actual location. "Room," "space," "here"—all just labels added after the fact.
Now look deeper:
Where exactly is “you” in all of this?
Is there any actual self-location, or is that also just another thought-created reference point?
Right now, without relying on mental images—where are you?

Now, I’d like to ask you to explore the sense of self ("the experience of the entity of me") very-very thoroughly. Not by thinking about it, but by FEELING it. Keep the focus of attention on the sense of self and inquire:

Does the sense of self have a location?
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?

Notice! 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

[dottymoo101]

Hi Rali,

Just wanted to let you know that I need more time to sit with your last message. I will try to respond tomorrow, but will more likely be Friday.

Best,
Dot

[dottymoo101]

Hi Rali,

Now look deeper:
Where exactly is “you” in all of this?

A you can’t be found in DE.

Is there any actual self-location, or is that also just another thought-created reference point?

Self-location can’t be found without thought-created reference pointing.

Right now, without relying on mental images—where are you?

Here, but that suggests there, all concepts dualistic. In DE ‘where are you?’ can’t be found.

Now, I’d like to ask you to explore the sense of self ("the experience of the entity of me") very-very thoroughly. Not by thinking about it, but by FEELING it. Keep the focus of attention on the sense of self and inquire:

Does the sense of self have a location?

No DE, but it feels likes its in my head – a thought.

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

No

Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?

Not in DE, but the experience is that it communicates what I’d describe as ‘executive’ decisions.

If the answer is yes, how does the sense do this exactly?

The experience is an internal voice.

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?

Thought

What is found?

Self can’t be found in seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, sensation. Sitting with this for sometime, the feeling that ‘a me’ is making decisions has changed. What seems to happen is a decision arises from a bunch of previous conditions. An example, lets say, I need groceries, do I walk or take the car? It feels like I’m deciding which, but lets say ‘I choose’ to walk. That decision might include thoughts like, I’ve got plenty of time free today and I could do with some exercise, and it would be good to support local stores rather than go to the supermarket. It doesn’t happen like that in the moment the decision is made, it’s instant, but I’ve had to draw it out to explain, what has been seen so far. Then the mind claims it and that’s the bit that feels like ‘me’ – ‘I’ve made this decision’. So the bit that is experienced as me feels like a bundle of thoughts all happening with no ‘me’.

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

Mind/thought

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

Mind/thought

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")?

Mind/thought

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 feel that ‘me’ as arisen through identifying with an aspect of experience.

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

To me, identifying with something suggests a strong affinity or connection with the something and identifying as something suggests you are the something. So yes, there is a difference.

Best,
Dot

[poppyseed]

Hi Dot

Wonderful!

I feel that ‘me’ as arisen through identifying with an aspect of experience.

Yes! The sense of "me" wasn’t there inherently—it arose through identification with aspects of experience.
But now, what was doing the identifying?
Was there ever an actual entity choosing to identify, or was it just thought labelling experience and “claiming” ownership?
Right now, in direct experience—is there anything left that needs to identify at all?

No DE, but it feels likes its in my head – a thought.

Yes! No direct experience of a self anywhere—just a feeling that seems located in the head, and a thought claiming it’s “me.”
But now, what is that feeling, actually?
Is it anything more than sensations + a mental image/label?
Without calling it “me” or “in my head”—is it even personal at all? Or just another experience appearing, like any other?

The experience is an internal voice.

Yes! The sense of "me" is just an “internal voice”, a narration appearing, thought sequence—nothing more.
Now, look closely:
What is speaking and what is hearing this voice?
Is there a listener, or is there just the “voice” appearing by itself?
If you stop assuming a hearer—what happens?

Look deeper! Have you ever been able to record thoughts as they spontaneously arise and then play them back in order to hear them, and to know that there is a voice and that voice is “your voice”? So do thoughts actually have a sound? Or is the ‘voice in the head’ simply thoughts/memories about sound (labelled “my voice”)?

Self can’t be found in seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, sensation. Sitting with this for sometime, the feeling that ‘a me’ is making decisions has changed. What seems to happen is a decision arises from a bunch of previous conditions. An example, lets say, I need groceries, do I walk or take the car? It feels like I’m deciding which, but lets say ‘I choose’ to walk. That decision might include thoughts like, I’ve got plenty of time free today and I could do with some exercise, and it would be good to support local stores rather than go to the supermarket. It doesn’t happen like that in the moment the decision is made, it’s instant, but I’ve had to draw it out to explain, what has been seen so far. Then the mind claims it and that’s the bit that feels like ‘me’ – ‘I’ve made this decision’. So the bit that is experienced as me feels like a bundle of thoughts all happening with no ‘me’.

Yes! The decision just happens, conditions align, and then thought comes in after the fact and takes credit—creating the illusion of a "me" that chose. It is 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. Consider all of the conditions that were necessary for a "decision" 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)?

Now look even deeper:
If every decision is just arising like this (a description of what is already happening)—where is the chooser or is there only thought claiming one exists?

Here are some exercises to explore the idea of control, choice and decisions. 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.

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?

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

[dottymoo101]

Hi Rali,

But now, what was doing the identifying? Was there ever an actual entity choosing to identify, or was it just thought labelling experience and “claiming” ownership?

No entity exists in DE – just thought labelling and claiming ownership.

Right now, in direct experience—is there anything left that needs to identify at all?

No

But now, what is that feeling, actually? Is it anything more than sensations + a mental image/label?

Yes the more it’s looked into, its an idea/belief, so nothing more than mental image/label and sensations.

Without calling it “me” or “in my head”—is it even personal at all? Or just another experience appearing, like any other?

Removing thought labels ‘me’ and ‘in my head’, and looking again, its just experience, without the process of identification, it’s just this.

Something else is coming up, I might be off on a tangent and it’s definitely thought based. If there’s nothing personal about the way I experience the world, why is my experience different from those around me and not the same experience?

Now, look closely:
What is speaking and what is hearing this voice?

It just is

Is there a listener, or is there just the “voice” appearing by itself?

Just the voice (and that’s less than it was before this inquiry started)

If you stop assuming a hearer—what happens?

Nothing happens, the experience of the voice is the same, thought sequencing with internal narration?

Look deeper! Have you ever been able to record thoughts as they spontaneously arise and then play them back in order to hear them, and to know that there is a voice and that voice is “your voice”? So do thoughts actually have a sound? Or is the ‘voice in the head’ simply thoughts/memories about sound (labelled “my voice”)?

This question makes me smile. Of course the answer no, I haven’t been able to do this (but how useful it could be in certain situations!) The more the voice is looked in to, it looks like an idea or a way of describing what I think I’m experiencing using thought, ideas, memories.

Consider all of the conditions that were necessary for a "decision" 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)?

When this is looked in to, the whole idea of a self controlling the show breaks down? It’s quite shocking to see that all actions (body, speech and mind) are not ‘mine’ (not in my control) and never have been. Not sure what you know about Buddhist teachings, but the doctrine on ‘paticcasamuppada’ (dependent arising) feels to have dropped in a bit deeper.

I’m grappling a bit with how this fits with the buddhist teachings on karma (volitional part) and vipaka (effects/consequences). So what arises in this moment is vipaka, can’t do much about that, but what I now do now, karma, what action is carried out, is happening by itself, nothing to do with choosing. How does one transform ones actions? Or do they transform themselves? And how? It’s OK to ignore this. Just wanted to get it down for myself.

Here are some exercises to explore the idea of control, choice and decisions. 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.

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?

The movement just happens

Does a thought control it?

Thoughts can arise before the movement saying , ‘I’m going to turn the hand’.
Thoughts can arise after the movement saying, ‘I turned the hand’.
No thoughts arise and the hand still turns.
Thoughts don’t control the movement, it just happens.

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

No separate controller or entity that’s choosing can be found.

How is the decision made to turn the hand over?

 
A decision maker can’t be found, the hand simply turns.

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

I can have a thought, I’m going to turn over my hand, the hand turns.
I can have a thought, I’m NOT going to turn over my hand, the hands still turns.
I can be doing another activity, the hands still turn, no decision, no thought needed to turn the hand.

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?

The qualities just appeared. The preferences just popped up by themselves. Then I noticed thoughts coming in trying to make connections between the qualities of the drinks and qualities of other random ‘things’.

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’?

Attention did move to the numbers while I counted, no experience of sequencing, it just happened after dropping in step 2. The experience of preferences just wasn’t there while counting. No direct experience of an entity doing any ‘choosing’ was found.

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 nothing arose in the moment that I choose. Shortly after, a ‘narrated thought’ arose saying, why did you choose that one, you know you prefer the other! Madness!

Best,
Dot

[poppyseed]

Hi Dot
Wonderful!!

Something else is coming up, I might be off on a tangent and it’s definitely thought based. If there’s nothing personal about the way I experience the world, why is my experience different from those around me and not the same experience?

Yes, this is thought trying to reassert separation, trying to find a gap.
But look—what is experiencing “the world”?
Right now, is there an actual "someone" having a personal experience? Or is there just seeing, hearing, sensing—happening without an owner?
Where exactly is this “my” experience located? Can you actually find a boundary where one experience stops and another begins (i.e. that of others)?
Or is it just thought dividing what was never separate?
Look now—where is the direct experience of “others” ?
Not the thought about them. Not the mental image of them. Not the story saying they exist.
Right now, in raw experience—can “others” actually be found? Or is there just appearance happening, with thought coming in afterward to divide it up?

The belief in others as separate entities, the belief in relationships, the belief in self and world—it all starts to unravel. What seems to be “Dot’s world,” the totality of her experience of all that is happening, is a creation of language, and words (like "apples") are the building blocks that create the story about it, right?
But look—does this negate anything? Or does it just expose that everything was already happening without separate selves?
Right now, let go of the resistance for a moment. Without labels, without stories—what is here?
Is anything actually lost? Or was it only ever an illusion being seen through?
The entire sense of “the world” (there not here), of separateness, of being someone in something—just a story built from words, concepts, and labels.
Now look: without language, without labels—what remains?
Is there an actual “world,” or just raw experience, appearing and disappearing effortlessly?
Right now—before a single word arises—what is this?

The more the voice is looked in to, it looks like an idea or a way of describing what I think I’m experiencing using thought, ideas, memories.

Yes! The “voice” is just thought narrating experience after the fact—pulling from memory, ideas, and assumptions.
But now, look: without that narrating voice, without the descriptions—what is actually here? Is anything missing? Or was it always just this, silently obvious, without words?
Can an experiencer be found – one that thoughts describe to? What is thought talking to? Is there an actual experiencer receiving these thoughts, or just thought appearing, claiming an audience that can’t actually be found? Right now, in direct experience—without assuming a listener—is there anything separate from what is happening? Or is it all just appearing on its own, to no one? Is there an “I” that is having this?
Or is there just experience, happening on its own—without a center, without an owner?

When this is looked in to, the whole idea of a self controlling the show breaks down? It’s quite shocking to see that all actions (body, speech and mind) are not ‘mine’ (not in my control) and never have been. Not sure what you know about Buddhist teachings, but the doctrine on ‘paticcasamuppada’ (dependent arising) feels to have dropped in a bit deeper. I’m grappling a bit with how this fits with the buddhist teachings on karma (volitional part) and vipaka (effects/consequences). So what arises in this moment is vipaka, can’t do much about that, but what I now do now, karma, what action is carried out, is happening by itself, nothing to do with choosing. How does one transform ones actions? Or do they transform themselves? And how? It’s OK to ignore this. Just wanted to get it down for myself.

Yes! The whole idea of control collapses—the body, speech, and mind were never "yours." Actions just happen, choices just appear, without a chooser – the Buddhist dependent origination or emptiness.
Karma is that conditioned cause and effect – one thing leading to the next, “suffering” the consequences of that conditioning…
Now, about karma: If there’s no one choosing, where does karma belong? What suffers or collects the fruit of karma?
If actions arise spontaneously, conditioned by everything before—what could own them?
Right now, is there an “actor” that transforms actions, or do they simply unfold on their own, just like everything else?
Look deeper: 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? Right now, without thought explaining anything—isn’t this already effortlessly happening, needing no cause at all?

No nothing arose in the moment that I choose. Shortly after, a ‘narrated thought’ arose saying, why did you choose that one, you know you prefer the other! Madness!

Yes! The actual choosing moment is empty—just happening. Then, after the fact, thought comes in and claims ownership, narrating a story about "why" or "how" it happened.
But look:
If the choice happened before the thought explaining it—what chose?
Isn’t it just happening on its own, with thought scrambling afterward to make sense of it?
Right now, without believing the narration—what is left?
Love
Rali

[dottymoo101]

Hi Rali,

Thank you for your continued guidance.

Yes, this is thought trying to reassert separation, trying to find a gap.

Yes I can see that now, it’s as if thought has stepped up a notch to try and derail the inquiry.

But look—what is experiencing “the world”?

There’s just experience.
Another thought… what knows experience? Does experience know itself?

Can you actually find a boundary where one experience stops and another begins (i.e. that of others)?

No I can’t.

Or is it just thought dividing what was never separate?

It’s thought doing the dividing.

Look now—where is the direct experience of “others” ? Not the thought about them. Not the mental image of them. Not the story saying they exist. Right now, in raw experience—can “others” actually be found? Or is there just appearance happening, with thought coming in afterward to divide it up?

‘Other’ can’t be found in direct experience, just seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, sensation and thoughts arising, then thought carves is all up and starts labelling ‘this is me’ and ‘that is other’, but a boundary, a point of separation can’t be found in DE.

The belief in others as separate entities, the belief in relationships, the belief in self and world—it all starts to unravel. What seems to be “Dot’s world,” the totality of her experience of all that is happening, is a creation of language, and words (like "apples") are the building blocks that create the story about it, right?
But look—does this negate anything? Or does it just expose that everything was already happening without separate selves?

It’s as you point to, nothing is lost or negated, experience is just happening like it always has been, just without the illusion of a separate self.

Right now, let go of the resistance for a moment.
Without labels, without stories—what is here?
Is anything actually lost? Or was it only ever an illusion being seen through?

Sitting here looking around the room, without labelling without adding anything, experience is simply unfolding, nothing is lost, on the contrary, experience is richer and more beautiful without thought cutting, carving, labelling etc.

The entire sense of “the world” (there not here), of separateness, of being someone in something—just a story built from words, concepts, and labels.
Now look: without language, without labels—what remains?
Is there an actual “world,” or just raw experience, appearing and disappearing effortlessly?
Right now—before a single word arises—what is this?

What remains is raw experience unfolding/flow - now and now and now. Like it says in the Bahiya sutta ‘in the seen only the seen, in the heard only the heard’ etc. Just this. Suchness.

But now, look: without that narrating voice, without the descriptions—what is actually here? Is anything missing? Or was it always just this, silently obvious, without words?

There’s nothing missing from experience and without the narrating voice labelling, experience is just silently unfolding, no narration needed.

Can an experiencer be found – one that thoughts describe to?

No it can’t

What is thought talking to? Is there an actual experiencer receiving these thoughts, or just thought appearing, claiming an audience that can’t actually be found? Right now, in direct experience—without assuming a listener—is there anything separate from what is happening? Or is it all just appearing on its own, to no one? Is there an “I” that is having this?

No separate listener can be found that receives and responds to thoughts. It’s as if the thoughts are talking to themselves. Experience is happening on its own—without a centre without an owner.

Now, about karma: If there’s no one choosing, where does karma belong? What suffers or collects the fruit of karma? If actions arise spontaneously, conditioned by everything before—what could own them?

Karma can’t belong if there’s no chooser/self for it to belong to. And if there’s no separate self, there’s nowhere for the suffering or fruits of karma to reside.

Right now, is there an “actor” that transforms actions, or do they simply unfold on their own, just like everything else?

In DE there’s no actor separate from experience, so no actions to transform and actions are just unfolding like all other experience. I can feel thoughts fighting back saying this all sound so deterministic. This is tough, but really, that’s my direct experience – no separate ‘transformer of actions’.

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? Right now, without thought explaining anything—isn’t this already effortlessly happening, needing no cause at all?

I can’t find anything that causes sensations to arise, they simply arise by themselves with no effort. Take a cramp for example, it justs arises by itself suddenly then passes way, afterwards, thought starts trying to rationalise why that has happened. Same for experience, nothing found that causes experience to arise, it just unfolds.

Yes! The actual choosing moment is empty—just happening. Then, after the fact, thought comes in and claims ownership, narrating a story about "why" or "how" it happened.
But look:
If the choice happened before the thought explaining it—what chose?

No chooser can be found in DE, it’s all just happening on it’s own like breathing, digestion, hearing or seeing.

Isn’t it just happening on its own, with thought scrambling afterward to make sense of it?

The thoughts arrive after the ‘event’ claiming ‘I’ did the choosing, but they’re just thoughts with stories about choosing, not a separate chooser.

Right now, without believing the narration—what is left?

Just this experience - happening, effortlessly, by itself, without a chooser. Experience rising and passing without a ‘me’, without a controller.

Best,
Dot

[dottymoo101]

Hi Rali,

Just to let you know that I'm away this weekend so I'll aim to respond again on Tuesday.

Best,
Dot