?

[poppyseed]

Hi Chal
Wonderful looking!!

Do you mean taking notes throughout the day and writing a bit more detail than just a simple list, like in our examples here? I can do that, feels like a great exercise.

Like the ones you did before:
Standing next to a tree on the deck
Seeing leaves move = colour (seeing)
Hearing wind = sound (hearing)
Feeling air on skin = sensation (feeling)
Smelling earth = smell (smelling)
Thought “this is calm” = thought (thinking)
:) Keep them coming!

I guess I want to be a certain kind of person, with things lined up in ways I believe are good. It might sound a bit crazy, but even though I don’t desire disorder, there’s this background fear that if I stop trying to maintain control, I’ll somehow get swept up by the darker currents of the world. A bit like possibly throwing oneself to the wolves. Seeing it written out like this, it sounds ridiculous. Yet there it is lol — the familiar thoughts of my supposed demise and descent into chaos and corruption haha.

Maybe it will help to see that you were never in control in the first place. We’ll come back to that…

Now that you ask, it actually feels like the “trying to stay present” thought is just another thought, but with a kind of cheap or artificial quality to it. Still, it seems to trigger something, sometimes — like a movement out of the mind and into direct experience. But I’m not totally sure. I’d love to hear your perspective on this. It feels like something is right there to either understand or release, and I’m just not quite there. Please say more if you would!

Where does that trying start?
Does a signal appear before it, giving permission to begin?
Watch carefully: the impulse to “try,” the thought about trying, the small bodily tightening that follows—do any of them wait for you to approve them?
Or do they appear on their own, as everything else does?
See if you can find even one movement that you cause to happen.
Breathing, blinking, the next thought, the sense of “I’m getting it” or “I’m missing it.”
Are any of them yours?
Stay right there until it’s obvious that the whole rhythm—trying, relaxing, focusing, losing focus—is simply happening.
Then tell me: without the idea of control, what’s actually left? What remains right now?

Right now, from some distance, it feels like the controller is a collection of thoughts held together with their own personality and drive, accompanied by sensations of pushing and pulling. Not really contained within the body, but more like a field in and around it. Looking closer, though, it seems more like everything is just happening on its own.

Yes, wonderful! I think it’s a good idea at this point to investigate the “body”
Here are a few exercises to try:
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. Where does “cold” appear? (finger? palm? Or nowhere spatial—just sensation?)
What shows first: raw sensation or a thought/image about “can/cold”?
You can do that in ‘the cup of coffee’ break down format:
Sting, cool, dense, prickle, simply = sensation
“this is cold,” “my hand,” etc., simply = thought

Did any “someone feeling it” show up, or only sensation + thought?
Do not say “my fingers feel cold because can is cold.”
“Because” = 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?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
Can height/weight/shape be known from sensation alone?
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/point to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
Can the 'body' do things? Or do sensations simply change?

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.

When you say “a field around the body”:
Eyes closed. Slowly scan for the outer edge of “me.”
When an “edge/field” is noticed, is it tactile (pressure/tingle) or a mental image of space around the body?
If it’s image/thought, what sensation is actually present at the same time?
Hold one hand up. Feel the hand (eyes closed). Open eyes, keep feeling.
Is the feeling coming from the seen hand, or do sight and sensation just appear side-by-side with a thought linking them?

Love
Rali

[cha0101]

Hello Rali,

These are great pointers. Thank you Rali for taking time for all of this, and offering your insights.

Like the ones you did before:
. . .
:) Keep them coming!

Ok! I’ll add some at the bottom of my reply posts.

Maybe it will help to see that you were never in control in the first place.

Yes, that cuts through the story pretty quick. Very good.

Where does that trying start?

Seems like a combination of the head and mid-chest area. What a terrible feeling when touching it up close lol

Does a signal appear before it, giving permission to begin?

I don’t find a signal anywhere, prior to trying. Either in memory of the event, or ’trying’ something in the present moment. Even if I suggest I’m going to ’try’, that thought feels independent of the moment of trying (with the thought and contraction etc).

Watch carefully: the impulse to “try,” the thought about trying, the small bodily tightening that follows—do any of them wait for you to approve them?
Or do they appear on their own, as everything else does?

No approval to be found. It just appears when it does, with no connected sequence.

See if you can find even one movement that you cause to happen.
Breathing, blinking, the next thought, the sense of “I’m getting it” or “I’m missing it.”
Are any of them yours?

Strangely, no. Breathing, blinking, the next thought, and so on, none of it seems actually initiated by me. Reading about non-agency has been interesting, but here by simply noticing it directly, and with simple examples, it’s an entirely different experience.

Stay right there until it’s obvious that the whole rhythm—trying, relaxing, focusing, losing focus—is simply happening.
Then tell me: without the idea of control, what’s actually left? What remains right now?

Without the idea of control, there doesn’t seem like anything much to do, as in nothing to really put effort into. Just notice and see, feel, hear etc. It also seems like it then opens the door to more depth of awareness, in the body, in the space in the room. When you ask “what remains right now” I feel like saying ‘nothing remains’ even though there is DE still left. When control and belief in agency gives way for a moment, it feels like ‘nothing’ because there is a freedom, with the chatter of the mind having subsided.

Here are a few exercises to try:
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. Where does “cold” appear? (finger? palm? Or nowhere spatial—just sensation?)

When taking something cold from the fridge, option B is closer to the experience. First is the registering of ‘cold’, without an immediate location. Perhaps ‘cold’ registers in the mind first? And then within what feels like a fraction of a second, the mind focuses on the tips of the fingers, the area touching the cold item. And then it’s the fingers that feel cold.

What shows first: raw sensation or a thought/image about “can/cold”?

Raw sensation

You can do that in ‘the cup of coffee’ break down format:

tingling, smooth, light, refreshing = sensation
“This is cool,” “my fingertips” “the container” = thought

Did any “someone feeling it” show up, or only sensation + thought?
Do not say “my fingers feel cold because can is cold.”
“Because” = thought.

I see that it was first sensation, then added thought. But, even without saying ‘because,’ it still feels as if, eventually, particular fingers experienced the cold, even if that wasn’t immediate.
Is it worth trying to return to that very first moment — before the cold localized — to see if the mind can stay with the raw experience, rather than drifting to awareness of the fingers?

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?
Can height/weight/shape be known from sensation alone?
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/point to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
Can the 'body' do things? Or do sensations simply change?

With eyes closes and in a relaxed state, it cannot be known how tall the body is.

The sense of weight or volume seems to fluctuate.

The body does seem to have some loose shape and form, although not a solid or defined sense.

I can’t sense a boundary between the body and the chair, there is just one sensation.

It feels more like “a body”, not belonging to an “I”, as an “I’ can’t be located.

Inside and outside are seeming to be just thoughts.

The body — this now feels more like a thought, although there are clustered sensations in movement. It does feel like the sensations are being noticed or experienced, but it’s vague and ambiguous.

The sensations in the ‘body’ simply change. It doesn’t seem to be able to ‘do’ anything.

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.

Doing the exercise repeatedly really does deepen the awareness of sense of non-agency. There is such a lightness in this observing.

When you say “a field around the body”:

Eyes closed. Slowly scan for the outer edge of “me.”
When an “edge/field” is noticed, is it tactile (pressure/tingle) or a mental image of space around the body?
If it’s image/thought, what sensation is actually present at the same time?

I would have said it’s purely sensation, if you didn’t ask also about the mental images. So on closer observation, it seems here that the mind somehow generates a boundary, as if holding a background belief in a dispersed field. The mind then seems to reach toward its own projected field, and only then do the sensations appear to fill in that mental form. Could that happen? Or what might you say is actually happening here in this example?

Hold one hand up. Feel the hand (eyes closed). Open eyes, keep feeling.

Is the feeling coming from the seen hand, or do sight and sensation just appear side-by-side with a thought linking them?

The feeling, with closed eyes, initially felt like it was in my head. Then with open eyes, it localized more to the hand. I can’t tell if they are linked or not!

Have a great day Rali!

With so much appreciation,

Chal


DE exercises

Cooking at the stove
Seeing concentric circles on the lid of the pot = colour (seeing)
Hearing metallic chatter of the lid bouncing = sound (hearing)
Feeling warmth near the hand = sensation (feeling)
Smelling earthy scent = smell (smelling)
Thought “food is cooking” = thought (thinking)

Looking at empty glass jar with fractal light
Seeing shifting patterns of light through glass = colour (seeing)
Feeling the textured surface of the jar = sensation (feeling)
Hearing glass jars clink together = sound (hearing)
Smelling faint scent of the jar’s history, what it previously held = smell (smelling)
Thought “it looks like liquidy light” = thought (thinking)

[poppyseed]

Hi Chal
Wonderful!!

... it seems here that the mind somehow generates a boundary, as if holding a background belief in a dispersed field. The mind then seems to reach toward its own projected field, and only then do the sensations appear to fill in that mental form. Could that happen? Or what might you say is actually happening here in this example?

Let’s slow that down.
When you say “the mind,” what exactly shows up in direct experience?
Is there a visible or tangible thing (mind) generating anything?
Or is there simply a thought appearing that says, “the mind is doing this”?
Watch carefully: the sense of a field, the thought about it, the impulse to explain—do any of these wait for someone to perform them?
Or do they, too, just appear side-by-side like sight and sensation?
Right now, look again. Without referring to what you believe happens—what’s actually here?

Try to stop the next image, or make the next thought different. Does it obey?
Or write down a sequence of 5 thoughts in the order that they appear. Check:
Could you predict the order of their appearance?
Did you know which will be the second or the fourth?
If the “mind” is doing anything, can you find where that “doing” starts? Or where it is happening?
Or is it simply another event, appearing the same way sound or touch does?

The body — this now feels more like a thought, although there are clustered sensations in movement. It does feel like the sensations are being noticed or experienced, but it’s vague and ambiguous.

Yes!!! 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.

Perhaps ‘cold’ registers in the mind first? And then within what feels like a fraction of a second, the mind focuses on the tips of the fingers, the area touching the cold item. And then it’s the fingers that feel cold.

Is it worth trying to return to that very first moment — before the cold localized — to see if the mind can stay with the raw experience, rather than drifting to awareness of the fingers?

So is the location “in the fingers” any different from a label for the sensation (mapped onto a mental image of the body)? Is there a finger that the “mind” can go to? Or a finger - in the cup of coffee break down - is just a label for a sensation and a colour? And “mind” a label for thoughts appearing?

The body does seem to have some loose shape and form, although not a solid or defined sense.

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

[cha0101]

Hi Rali,
I just wanted to send a quick note to say I’ll write tomorrow, back into the dialogue that I've grown to look forward to more than almost anything else! A close friend was taken by ambulance to a larger city a few days ago, and it’s been a bit hectic with family flying in and an unexpected surgery today. Thankfully, the surgery went well, and things should start to settle back to normal now.
Chal

[poppyseed]

Hi Chal

Thanks for letting me know! I'm glad all went well at the end!

Looking forward to your reply!
Love
Rali

[cha0101]

Hi Rali,
These pointers will be probably a go-to for me for a while. Hopefully I'll get more steady.

Let’s slow that down.
When you say “the mind,” what exactly shows up in direct experience?
Is there a visible or tangible thing (mind) generating anything?
Or is there simply a thought appearing that says, “the mind is doing this”?
Watch carefully: the sense of a field, the thought about it, the impulse to explain—do any of these wait for someone to perform them?
Or do they, too, just appear side-by-side like sight and sensation?
Right now, look again. Without referring to what you believe happens—what’s actually here?

Ok yes, there’s nothing in direct experience that actually confirms there’s a mind. It just keeps slipping away whenever I look for it, lol. Still, it somehow feels like something — even after seeing again and again that it’s not really there, haha.
It’s just a thought appearing. Arising on its own, without anyone authorizing or performing the sense, thought or impulse.
Noticing thought, sensation, and awareness as a single happening.

Try to stop the next image, or make the next thought different. Does it obey?
Or write down a sequence of 5 thoughts in the order that they appear. Check:
Could you predict the order of their appearance?
Did you know which will be the second or the fourth?
If the “mind” is doing anything, can you find where that “doing” starts? Or where it is happening?
Or is it simply another event, appearing the same way sound or touch does?

A thought can’t be stopped and attempting to prevent it is another thought.
After writing down 5 thoughts, it is clear that I couldn’t predict the order or anything about what would arise. The thought of a mind doing something is just another thought. Without a starting location, or happening, that can be found.
Yes, I guess it is only another event, appearing the same way as sound or touch does.

So is the location “in the fingers” any different from a label for the sensation (mapped onto a mental image of the body)? Is there a finger that the “mind” can go to? Or a finger - in the cup of coffee break down - is just a label for a sensation and a colour? And “mind” a label for thoughts appearing?

My brain can’t really process this as clearly. I understand the words, and agree it must be accurate. But somehow there is resistance to allowing it to sink in, to get a connection. I’ll have to come back to it again.

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?

1. There are only sensations that thought labels as “body.” Nothing more can be found.

2. There’s no real connection between them at all. Just the thoughts saying the sensations and image are connected.

3. There is simply both sensation and image at the same time. But no real connection.

4. The felt sensation and imagine appear together, and thought says it’s the same hand. I realize it’s only thought that suggests it. But this is again not easy to process. I will carry out the steps again for a 2nd day tomorrow. Another day might loose the resistance lol

5. Compared to above, it’s easy to connect to the DE that it’s just colors and shapes. The idea of “my body” comes from thoughts.

6. When the legs can’t be seen, only thought assumes they must still be there. Trippy lol.

7. There’s no body to be found when turning away, just sensations arising.

8. While walking, there is only sensations moving and changing but no DE of a body walking. Only thoughts about walking, no actual experience of walking. No DE of a body at all, just thoughts. So, in fact, there is no walking to be found. Again, very trippy!

9. The sensations don’t actually have a location, so the sense of being “in a room” is just a thought. There are only sensations appearing and a location can’t really be found in direct experience. Still, it’s not always staying clear. Some of these logical insights seem to fade in and out — like they are clear for a moment, then suddenly it’s hard to connect with the clarity again. Thread of understanding can slip away.
It might be a good idea to get out of bed in the morning and do the deeper investigation above while thoughts are still in that in-between state — present, but not yet gripping so firmly.


Thanks Rali. This one really challenged the seeming-frameworks! Have a great day.

Sincerely,
Chal

[poppyseed]

Hi Chal

It’s clear you’re looking carefully, and you’re seeing how sensations, images, and thoughts just appear side-by-side.

Still, it somehow feels like something — even after seeing again and again that it’s not really there, haha.

"Seems like", "feels like" = thought content
Nothing in DE is "seems like" – it’s either here (clearly seen, smelt, felt, heard, and/or tasted) or NOT. If it "feels like" it’s there even though it’s not, then it must be a thought. All you have is the five senses and thinking, so whatever is not in the five, it is a thought. What this thought says could be true or false/fiction – in accordance with DE or not. It’s important to see this. Just because a thought says something, does it make it true??

Noticing thought, sensation, and awareness as a single happening.

So what is there without the labels (“awareness”/observer, DE labels)?
Without the labels there is just THIS. In Buddhism the term “suchness” or “thusness” (whatever is happening) is used, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction. I like the word “THIS” as it is more like a pointing word – pointing to whatever is directly experienced like an arrow with no extra meaning – rather than labelling the experience.

So is the location “in the fingers” any different from a label for the sensation (mapped onto a mental image of the body)? Is there a finger that the “mind” can go to? Or a finger - in the cup of coffee break down - is just a label for a sensation and a colour? And “mind” a label for thoughts appearing?

My brain can’t really process this as clearly. I understand the words, and agree it must be accurate. But somehow there is resistance to allowing it to sink in, to get a connection. I’ll have to come back to it again.

Some of these logical insights seem to fade in and out — like they are clear for a moment, then suddenly it’s hard to connect with the clarity again. Thread of understanding can slip away.

There is a sink in process (integration) in any stage of seeing no self. It takes time to clean up all the mess, to settle in and adjust (thinking). The journey continues, the story carries on, but thoughts have been seen to be just thoughts. The story is no longer solid, true, or real.

Let’s make things clear… “Understanding” is just another thought about DE. THIS (what is happening in DE) is indescribable but experienceable.
Let's look at the difference between thought content (description / understanding / insights) and the content of direct experience. Close your eyes and imagine a glass of cool fresh water in your hands. Feel the weight of the glass, its texture, the temperature. Does the water sparkle? Have a sip. Feel the coolness in the mouth running down to the stomach, the refreshing feeling.
Now open your eyes. Drink the water you just imagined.
What is the difference between thought content and the content of direct experience in the world of the 5 senses and what do they have in common?
So whatever story you have about DE it will be not it. However, some stories are truer (less problematic) than others. Sense perception is the habitual (conditioned) way of describing reality – the story we live in. There is a resistance to the change of story, because it demands energy – constantly checking the DE in order to correct and build a new habit/perception. Cognitive bias helps save energy by discarding new ideas that contradict the core of beliefs. So to “reduce the resistance’ you need to painstakingly examine all thoughts one by one as they appear vs DE in order for thoughts to self-organise and form a new core of beliefs. And I underlie self-organise as this is not in your control, it just happens :). I introduced the virus thought “LOOK!” which causes this reorganisation.

So let’s look at the idea of experience having a location again and again...

Does experience have a location? If it does, where, exactly, is it located?
For example: Image of hammer hitting thumb, sensation of pain, thought saying, ""Ouch!!".

Where exactly did all of that happen?
Where was experience located?
Was experience of pain located in the thumb?
Was experience of images located at the thumb and hammer?
Or is experience always "closer" than even the word "here" can convey?
Does anything actually have a location? Sensations? Smells? Sounds? Sights? Tastes? Thoughts?
How would you know?
What would count as evidence of actual location?
Does the sound appear in a different place to thoughts? Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides the thoughts and the sound? Or is the line a mental construct?
With eyes closed, where exactly is a thumb located? Ignore the mental images of a thumb on the mental map of the “body”. What is there without the mental images/thoughts?
If “body” is a label/thought about sensations, where could possibly the locations be? Also… Where is the reference point for locations – to the left of what, above, below, right, in front, behind of what?? Touch the exact location of the reference point.
LOOK, don’t just retell the usual story, what is actually there and what is not?
Love
Rali

[cha0101]

Nothing in DE is "seems like" – it’s either here (clearly seen, smelt, felt, heard, and/or tasted) or NOT. If it "feels like" it’s there even though it’s not, then it must be a thought. All you have is the five senses and thinking, so whatever is not in the five, it is a thought. What this thought says could be true or false/fiction – in accordance with DE or not. It’s important to see this. Just because a thought says something, does it make it true??

Yes, that’s right. Ok, lining up again with .. that it’s either here (clearly seen, smelled, felt, heard, or tasted) or not. Reality check Ty.

Just because a thought says something, absolutely doesn’t make it true.

— So what is there without the labels (“awareness”/observer, DE labels)?
Without the labels there is just THIS. In Buddhism the term “suchness” or “thusness” (whatever is happening) is used, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction. I like the word “THIS” as it is more like a pointing word – pointing to whatever is directly experienced like an arrow with no extra meaning – rather than labelling the experience.

Just “this”. Yes, I like this too. Initially, saying it randomly throughout the day was horrible lol. Like, what? ONLY this? Now I like it, even while it’s not yet integrated.

There is a sink in process (integration) in any stage of seeing no self. It takes time to clean up all the mess, to settle in and adjust (thinking).

like combing out knots from long tangled hair :)

Let’s make things clear… “Understanding” is just another thought about DE.
THIS (what is happening in DE) is indescribable but experienceable.

Yes ok, confirming and agreeing to help this penetrate.
-Understanding is just another thought about direct experience.
-And, THIS is indescribable but experienceable.

Let's look at the difference between thought content (description / understanding / insights) and the content of direct experience. Close your eyes and imagine a glass of cool fresh water in your hands. Feel the weight of the glass, its texture, the temperature. Does the water sparkle? Have a sip. Feel the coolness in the mouth running down to the stomach, the refreshing feeling.

No, there is vivid imagery in the mind only. The water sparkles just as thoughts.

Now open your eyes. Drink the water you just imagined.
What is the difference between thought content and the content of direct experience in the world of the 5 senses and what do they have in common?

Thought happens in the mind. There is nothing actual being seen, smelled, felt, heard, or tasted with the senses.
Drinking the water, there is sight, sound, touch, taste, and some smell being experienced.

“not a thought about an experience; it is the experience.” yes, this is great, simple. Ty

Cognitive bias helps save energy by discarding new ideas that contradict the core of beliefs. So to “reduce the resistance’ you need to painstakingly examine all thoughts one by one as they appear vs DE in order for thoughts to self-organise and form a new core of beliefs. And I underlie self-organise as this is not in your control, it just happens :). I introduced the virus thought “LOOK!” which causes this reorganisation.

Very interesting. Thank you for sending in the virus :) A strong one is needed again and again. Even after learning and practicing, the delusions can reform so easily. Like those Japanese jelly-textured warabi mochi cakes. You can see them “mending” themselves back together, even after you cut fully through it :)

So let’s look at the idea of experience having a location again and again...
Does experience have a location? If it does, where, exactly, is it located?

No, experience doesn’t have a location — that’s just another thought. As I sit here trying to find where it is, all that really happens is more and more thinking.

For example: Image of hammer hitting thumb, sensation of pain, thought saying, ""Ouch!!".
Where exactly did all of that happen?

Imagining the image of a hammer, this happened in thought.

Where was experience located?

There was no actual location — only thoughts constructing the appearance in the mind of one.

Was experience of pain located in the thumb?

No pain was experienced.

Was experience of images located at the thumb and hammer?

No, only thoughts suggesting a location.

— Or is experience always "closer" than even the word "here" can convey?

I guess experience is closer than “here” can covey, yes. When looking for “here”, as in a location, you’re back in your mind, removed again from THIS.

Does anything actually have a location? Sensations? Smells? Sounds? Sights? Tastes? Thoughts?

Nothing actually has a fixed location. Sensations, sounds, smells, sights, tastes all arise or appear. And a location is the mind making a thought about the DE.

How would you know?

What would count as evidence of actual location?

In DE there’s no proof of location but only the appearance of sensations, sounds, or images. There is only the idea that they’re happening somewhere.

Does the sound appear in a different place to thoughts? Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides the thoughts and the sound? Or is the line a mental construct?

No, the sound does not appear in a different place from thoughts. Any division is just a thought or mental construct.

With eyes closed, where exactly is a thumb located? Ignore the mental images of a thumb on the mental map of the “body”. What is there without the mental images/thoughts?

With eyes closed, there is only sensation, no location and no actual ‘thumb’.

If “body” is a label/thought about sensations, where could possibly the locations be? Also… Where is the reference point for locations – to the left of what, above, below, right, in front, behind of what?? Touch the exact location of the reference point.
LOOK, don’t just retell the usual story, what is actually there and what is not?

What is actually there is simply awareness of sensations. No hard lines, or boundaries, or forms that hold any positions or distance. it's not at all like the mind projects or constructs. As the mind loses the stronghold, the sensations are more and more, clearly, not localized.

PS: I recorded an audio of the mirror exercise you wrote out. it’s great to press play, and easily do the DE practice. if you happen to have more exercises in that same style/flow, pls do share!

[poppyseed]

Hi Chal

There was no actual location — only thoughts constructing the appearance in the mind of one.

In DE there’s no proof of location but only the appearance of sensations, sounds, or images. There is only the idea that they’re happening somewhere.

PS: I recorded an audio of the mirror exercise you wrote out. it’s great to press play, and easily do the DE practice. if you happen to have more exercises in that same style/flow, pls do share!

Wonderful looking!! You’re describing direct perception really clearly. It’s normal that these realizations feel strong or even a bit strange afterward. Before this spirals into a hunt for special states, let me remind you that this is not about a state. This has always been that way, what changes is just the description, the overlay. You don’t have to twist yourself (special efforts) to see this as it is. Just bring attention to something simple and physical—feel the soles of the feet on the floor, notice temperature on the skin, or take a slow breath and feel the whole body move. Notice sensations as they happen.
Over the next few days, notice ordinary activities—washing hands, walking, eating—and see how sound, touch, and movement naturally show up without effort. There’s no need to go further than that right now. The stability comes from allowing ordinary life to be included in the same clear seeing.

What is actually there is simply awareness of sensations.

When you say “awareness,” what’s the evidence for it right now?
Can you see it, feel it, hear it, taste it, or smell it? Are there "awareness" and sensation with clearly defined borders/putlines?
Or is there only sensation, and then a thought saying “awareness of sensation”?

Look at the order: sensation first → thought “awareness” second.
Does the thought add anything real, or just describe what already is?

Notice that “awareness” itself is an idea appearing in experience, just like “body,” “mind,” or “me.”
Apart from that word or image, what’s actually present?
Is there anything that is aware of DE?

Love
Rali

[cha0101]

Before this spirals into a hunt for special states, let me remind you that this is not about a state. This has always been that way, what changes is just the description, the overlay. You don’t have to twist yourself (special efforts) to see this as it is. Just bring attention to something simple and physical—feel the soles of the feet on the floor, notice temperature on the skin, or take a slow breath and feel the whole body move. Notice sensations as they happen.
Over the next few days, notice ordinary activities—washing hands, walking, eating—and see how sound, touch, and movement naturally show up without effort. There’s no need to go further than that right now. The stability comes from allowing ordinary life to be included in the same clear seeing.

Ok yes, the stability of just seeing, hearing, etc. is enough. The contraction of thoughts towards securing DE feels like an impulse. All thoughts and beliefs, like it's saying there is some effort needed to get 'there', to DE. Sneaky thoughts, so believable lol

"What is actually there is simply awareness of sensations."
When you say “awareness,” what’s the evidence for it right now?
Can you see it, feel it, hear it, taste it, or smell it? Are there "awareness" and sensation with clearly defined borders/putlines?

I don't know why I even said that. The drive to complicate things? There are not 2 things called sensations AND awareness.
And, no, definitely not finding a clearly defined border or location, and awareness isn't separate from sensation.

Or is there only sensation, and then a thought saying “awareness of sensation”?

yes! this is it. The thought says "awareness of sensation". It's not a DE at all.

Look at the order: sensation first → thought “awareness” second.
Does the thought add anything real, or just describe what already is?

I don't even know what the thought does. Does is describe? or does it distort and move away from describing? What would you say here?

Notice that “awareness” itself is an idea appearing in experience, just like “body,” “mind,” or “me.”
Apart from that word or image, what’s actually present?
Is there anything that is aware of DE?

There is only an experience of directly, through the senses. In this case, sensation. There isn't actually another layer that is aware of DE.

Over the next days, I'll be observing more the direction experiences in general, the simple and ordinary things.
"The stability comes from allowing ordinary life to be included in the same clear seeing." This is great, thank you Rali!

In appreciation,
Chal


Exercises:

Walking on the beach
Seeing the light reflect on the water = colour (seeing)
Hearing a lapping sound of the water on the rocks after a boat goes by = sound (hearing)
Feeling small rocks move under feet = sensation (feeling)
Smelling salt and seaweed = smell (smelling)
Thought “this feels alive” = thought (thinking)

Making tea in the kitchen
Seeing steam rise from the cup = colour (seeing)
Hearing the stove make snapping sounds = sound (hearing)
Feeling the mug warm in hands = sensation (feeling)
Smelling the tea = smell (smelling)
Thought “this moment is a good way to start the day” = thought (thinking)

[poppyseed]

Hi Chal

Wonderful!!!

I don't even know what the thought does. Does is describe? or does it distort and move away from describing? What would you say here?

You don’t have to decide whether the thought describes or distorts—both are still thoughts.
You can say it’s an evolutionary tool for survival by providing a layer of meaning :). I suppose, when it comes to meaning and concepts, the analogy with the icons on your computer desktop comes handy. They are used as a visual representation of what is actually a binary code – zeros and ones - so you can make use of them. But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it? And in DE is there anyone making use of it or is it all self-organising?

Thought is self-organised around the experience but at some point becomes organised around itself. Language is basically the relationship between concepts – how they are organised. That carries meaning on top of the meaning of the actual concepts. That is why different concepts mean different things to different people and in different situations. One very good example of how words and language are just pointers to but not the actual DE, and how meaning is formed, is AI. GPT (Generative pre-trained transformers) are large language models that are based on the semantic relationships between words in sentences (natural language processing). GPT models are trained on a large amount of text. The training consists in predicting the next token (a token being usually a word, sub-word, or punctuation). Throughout this training, GPT models accumulate knowledge about the world, and can then generate “human-like” text by repeatedly predicting the next token. But does AI have any direct experience of what it’s talking about? And is AI an entity or just a bunch of processes/ a language model? That is why I always use the analogy with the desktop icons – they give meaning to 0’s and 1’s. There are no actual eraser or pen there, nor a mailbox :) These concepts are empty on inherent existence

Anyway, all of this is just more story about DE and the story is never the DE – the presence of thoughts is, but their content is not. Whatever explanation we come up with, it won’t be it – it will at best an approximation, an interpretation (still fiction)…The simple fact is: sensation happens, then a thought about it happens. Nothing extra needs to be done with that.
Each time the mind starts explaining, notice that explaining is just another sound or movement appearing in the same space as everything else.
For now, keep bringing this to ordinary life: dishes, walking, hearing voices, traffic, breathing.
Let it be as simple as sound-sensation-thought. No hierarchy, no layer that’s “more aware.”
The steadiness grows naturally from seeing that even the commentary is "part" of the same field of ordinary experience.

At this point, it will also 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

[cha0101]

Hi Rali,

Thanks so much. There's a deepening or simplifying of DE here. Like I'm 'getting it' in these small but satisfying glimpses. Not that it matters if it feels one way or another, but I must say it's somehow relieving nonetheless :)

You can say it’s an evolutionary tool for survival by providing a layer of meaning :). I suppose, when it comes to meaning and concepts, the analogy with the icons on your computer desktop comes handy. They are used as a visual representation of what is actually a binary code – zeros and ones - so you can make use of them.

But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it? And in DE is there anyone making use of it or is it all self-organising?

Right, the icon is just a symbol, and it’s not being made use of in DE. What you wrote about concepts and learned patterns without any direct experience, lacking inherent existence, etc, is very helpful. And then after understanding it to a certain degree, one can forget all about it, and go with “The simple fact is: sensation happens, then a thought about it happens. Nothing extra needs to be done with that.”
Thank you for both of these.

Each time the mind starts explaining, notice that explaining is just another sound or movement appearing in the same space as everything else.

Would you say it’s ever useful to attempt to short circuit the impulse to make too many comments in your mind? A thought arises on its own, so it's not possible. But effort or focus around one’s relationship to thoughts still feels like it's something. When the mind explains, what do you think of ‘trying’ to get some perceived distance from the explaining?

You wrote that “seeing that even the commentary is part of the same field of ordinary experience” .. that ‘seeing’ isn't quite a kind of trying. But maybe 'trying' to see or notice is ok for now?

For now, keep bringing this to ordinary life: dishes, walking, hearing voices, traffic, breathing.
Let it be as simple as sound-sensation-thought. No hierarchy, no layer that’s “more aware.”

I’ll try this simple approach tomorrow: sound, sensation, thought. Lately, it’s been happening naturally at times. For example, while making coffee this morning, the whole process felt different — the crinkle of the package, the smell of the grounds, and simply noticing the mental commentary about the smell and texture and sounds. Not with the goal of having a DE to write down, like on other days. But more as a natural way of carrying out an activity.

At this point, it will also 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”?

Ok great! We are surrounded by nature here. Trails and fields and old forests with big trees. It’s funny how the bigness of the trees, or the wilder the nature, seems to make the DE more impactful. I'll hold the questions in mind.

Have a great Sunday Rali!

In appreciation,
Chal

[cha0101]

PS

But does AI have any direct experience of what it’s talking about? And is AI an entity or just a bunch of processes/ a language model?

This I don't know! But to me, it appears to be a bunch of processes, as you explain it.

[poppyseed]

Hi Chal

Would you say it’s ever useful to attempt to short circuit the impulse to make too many comments in your mind? A thought arises on its own, so it's not possible. But effort or focus around one’s relationship to thoughts still feels like it's something. When the mind explains, what do you think of ‘trying’ to get some perceived distance from the explaining?

You wrote that “seeing that even the commentary is part of the same field of ordinary experience” .. that ‘seeing’ isn't quite a kind of trying. But maybe 'trying' to see or notice is ok for now?

You’re seeing the difference between doing and simply noticing.
Trying to “short-circuit” commentary isn’t needed; the wish to control thoughts is just another thought appearing. When you notice that, you’ve already stepped out of the loop.
If thought keeps commenting, see that to be part of the sound–sensation–thought rhythm. Commentary is another "sound" in the environment—nothing more personal than the rustle of leaves.
On walks, keep the focus wide and physical: feel your feet, air on the skin, the movement of branches. Ask those questions lightly, not as problems to solve but as reminders to keep sensing connection.
Each time you notice the impulse to “try,” pause and feel one breath. That breath itself is the demonstration that everything—including thinking—moves on its own.

I think it might be helpful to 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.

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

[cha0101]

Hello Rali,

Life has taken on a subtly different flavour these past few days. Almost like things are in a kind of slow-mo. Like the relationship to time feels a bit different. Although liberation isn’t about benefits, I can’t help but appreciate that life feels lighter and different:)

Trying to “short-circuit” commentary isn’t needed; the wish to control thoughts is just another thought appearing. When you notice that, you’ve already stepped out of the loop.

Something gave way today — an observation that there isn’t actually a battle. Thoughts appeared but were not identified with, and it no longer seemed like ‘me’ battling ‘my thoughts’. An arising thought was just arising.

Ask those questions lightly, not as problems to solve but as reminders to keep sensing connection.
And
That breath itself is the demonstration that everything—including thinking—moves on its own.

These pointers were really helpful. Thank you. Sometimes you can hear something, believe you know, have familiarity with a concept, but it doesn’t sink in, until it does :)

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.

At first, this concept felt uncomfortable (not using “seems like / feels like” phrases), but with some practice — and a bit of discipline — it’s bringing more clarity. Vagueness is starting to lose its appeal.

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.

-A thought doesn’t control it. A thought does appear after the action and inquiry, that “I” did it. But it’s just a thought arising. Empty of truth, if you can say it that way.
-No separate controller can be found.
-The turning simply occurs. It feels very smooth and independent.
-There is no point where thought makes the decision but the movement and thought arise together.

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?

-The qualities appeared on their own, as did the preferences. There was some intensification of thoughts, with more thoughts piling in about choosing one over the other. Even thoughts about proving wrong the 'no chooser' idea lol. But they were just thoughts, not agents in making a choice.
-Counting happened by itself with no one chose or shut down the preferences.
-No entity was found doing the choosing.
-Nothing arose that announced being the chooser. The action and choosing appeared at the same time.

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)?

Ok so I’m just adding one example here:
I planned to go into town to pick up a few things from the store. As I was about to leave, I noticed how quiet the evening was and thoughts arose that were about how nice it would be to walk in the dark, on the quiet dirt road outside my home instead. That impulse just appeared with no clear reason. The decision appeared to came from many conditions, like the weather, the time of day, the distance to the store, memories of how calm night walks feel, the fact that I wasn’t out of groceries after all. If any of these were different (if it were raining, if I were hungry) I guess the outcome would’ve changed. The conditions were outside my control. Thought later said, “I decided to walk instead, it was a good choice and I’m happy to have done that instead.” But really, the walk simply happened. With no chooser or decision-maker.

Q. What do you think about repeatedly saying to oneself, “This is just happening”? For example, using it as a brief reminder instead of engaging in a longer inquiry, at least when there isn’t time for extended reflection. Could the mind co-opt this intention to point in a non-dual direction, given its brevity?


Hae a great day Rali!

In so much appreciation,
Chal