Removing the illusion

[Pwkitchen]

Hi Rali! Thanks for sharing these thoughts.

Is "experiencing" something that can actually be found? Or is it another label describing what is present?

No, experiencing is just a label describing what "is". Very tricky, I am finding, to verbalize these things without smuggling in a presumed "doer" of some kind - but all I can say is that as I use these word-labels to communicate, it is abundantly clear to me that every word I reach for is "falling short" and here I just mean that every word, every label appears by necessity to be one step removed from the 'IT' or 'THIS' or 'THUS' (the DE), such that putting "it" into words already betrays the truth of "it" ... "this" is all that is happening directly - and it seems that ANY move away from THIS is conceptual. And I mean ANY move. In the flash of a millisecond that it takes for the "experiencer" to show up - to just have what is assumed to be the most basic of human experiences: "I am experiencing," you've already lost the game, so to speak!

When "seeing" is labelled seeing, hearing labelled hearing, sensation labelled sensation, are those labels describing something real, or are they already one step removed?

The labels are one step removed. The label "hearing" is not required for "it" to be happening ... "senses" are also a label.

So even though it might look as there are clearly defined senses, what is DE showing? Does the sound appear in a different place to the thought? Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides the thought and the sound? Or is the line a mental construct?

I did the exercise, and there are no boundaries. It's all just happening. The mind seems to want to notice this thing or that, back and forth, and so it is creating the boundary - then it is a mental construct, it must be a mental construct because nothing is required for these things to be going on.

No description survives inspection.

Descriptions are labels - they are not experienced directly. It is utterly impossible to communicate without them but it is evident that they are "empty" or "not the thing" (no-thing), "not THIS" ... reading ahead, yes, "THIS" does seem to be the most appropriate label. It might be interesting to try that - rather than notating things with a label, simply noting "this".

Again, using DE labels or any other everyday label is useful as it helps communication - they are good pointers (like fingers pointing to the moon). There is nothing wrong with using them as long as their empty nature is seen (not mistaking the finger for the moon).

Yes, absolutely. This was something that clicked during the apple excercise: not only is "apple" a label but all of these sense words are labels too - the sensation itself just "is" - as you say, they are very useful for communication, but it is clear now that they are not the thing's "thusness" or "not the thing, itself".

Everything is just happening all the time, so to speak.

It's striking how simple it all seems - it's almost ridiculous!

When you consider how much work and effort and suffering is required to hold "yourself" together ... and how everyone is doing it ... how very limiting it is ... strictly limiting ... oppressive, even ... I'm left with a very deep sense of compassion for others ... and myself! Hard to explain. It all seems very unfortunate, in a way. This is wonderful work you are doing!

Pat

[poppyseed]

Hey Pat
Beautiful. Notice what has happened here. We started with "apple." Then "self." Then "observer." Then "experiencer." Then "seeing," "hearing," and even the idea of separate senses. Now you're seeing that the same mechanism is operating everywhere.

No description survives inspection.

Yes! And yet descriptions still have practical value. We can talk about apples, hearing, seeing, Pat, neighbours collecting cans, and nobody gets confused. The difference is that the labels are no longer being mistaken for what they point to.

The mind seems to want to notice this thing or that, back and forth, and so it is creating the boundary.

Have another look here.
Is the mind creating boundaries? Or is "mind creating boundaries" itself another description appearing afterwards?
Look very carefully. Can an actual boundary be found? Can an actual creator of boundaries be found? Or is there simply the appearance of distinctions, followed by thoughts ABOUT distinctions?
Don't answer from logic. Look.

“Mind” is not the villain. Have you heard the saying: "The mind is a wonderful servant, but a terrible master"?
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 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? That is why I always use the analogy with the desktop icons – they give meaning to 0’s and 1’s.

So what/who is doing the looking, if there is no observer? What is so exited about:

It's striking how simple it all seems - it's almost ridiculous!

What is doing the inquiry? What is doing the looking? What is looking made of?

Focus on focusing, attention itself. Do you move it, or it moves by itself?
Hold focus on breath - see how it moves to thoughts, sensations, feelings, sounds.
Is this something you control?
Where is the “you” in the looking? What is looking made of?
There is what IS happening and the description of it (aka thought). But where exactly is the looker / the inquirer?
What is “focus” in DE? Is it something like a torch lighting up things in the dark waiting to be illuminated? OR…
Is there anything more than just this + thought that says “I’m looking…”? Is there focusing/looking + THIS?
I guess what I’m pointing to is – is there a difference between focus and labelling??

Love
Rali

[Pwkitchen]

Hi Rali!

Is the mind creating boundaries? Or is "mind creating boundaries" itself another description appearing afterwards?

The latter - it is a narration, a sort of storytelling. If I look, there is nothing there.

Can an actual boundary be found? Can an actual creator of boundaries be found? Or is there simply the appearance of distinctions, followed by thoughts ABOUT distinctions?

Again, the latter - things only are, it’s only “this” … anything about a mind creating boundaries is some kind of “thinking about” - it is additive to the DE. An easy habit to fall back into!

But does AI have any direct experience of what it’s talking about?

No, it does not. It cannot. Its entire world is fundamentally made up only of concepts.

So what/who is doing the looking, if there is no observer? What is so exited about:
It's striking how simple it all seems - it's almost ridiculous!
What is doing the inquiry? What is doing the looking? What is looking made of?

No one and no thing. It’s just substance of thought. “It” being simple and feeling almost ridiculous is jumping right back into a narration. Thank you for pointing this out.

Hold focus on breath - see how it moves to thoughts, sensations, feelings, sounds.
Is this something you control?

DE feels like a letting go of focus more than anything, like focus is just a label - adding something to “this” It’s a pos-construct. It’s the same mechanism!

There is what IS happening and the description of it (aka thought). But where exactly is the looker / the inquirer?
What is “focus” in DE? Is it something like a torch lighting up things in the dark waiting to be illuminated? OR…
Is there anything more than just this + thought that says “I’m looking…”? Is there focusing/looking + THIS?
I guess what I’m pointing to is – is there a difference between focus and labelling??

The looker/inquirer does not exist. Looking and inquiring themselves are labels. Focus is also a label.

My direct experience is that “all this” is complete in and of itself. Focus does not illuminate anything because nothing is in the dark. There is nothing more than just this that can be directly experienced. The thought “I’m looking” is a conception.

So, no, no difference between focusing and labeling! There is just what’s going on around right now. It’s just this!

[poppyseed]

Hi Pat,
Good. There doesn't seem much point in continuing to dismantle labels for the moment.
You've looked at self, observer, experiencer, focus, boundaries, and each time the same pattern has been revealed. The common mistake here is to just assume - if there is no self there is no... That would be bypassing. For these beliefs to drop away / change, they need to be seen through. So let's look somewhere else...
A common assumption is that while there may be no self, there is still someone making decisions – having likes and dislikes.
Let's investigate.
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.

You can think back to something simple today. Perhaps what to eat. What to wear. Whether to reply to a message. Watch carefully.
Before the decision appeared, did you know what would be chosen?
Did you choose the thoughts that arose during the weighing up?
Did you choose the preferences that appeared?
Did you choose the reasons that seemed important?
Can you find an actual point at which a chooser stepped in and made the decision?
Or did thoughts, preferences, memories, feelings, circumstances and actions simply arise as part of one seamless happening?
Look in direct experience rather than reasoning this out.
Love
Rali

[poppyseed]

Hi Pat

It's been a while... Is everything OK?

Love
Rali

[Pwkitchen]

Hi Rali,

Apologies for the delay - 13-month-old has had hand, foot, mouth, so it's been an adventure over here - ready to dive back in!

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?

There seems to be an intention to turn the hand over ... but the same thing when I go to trace it back, I cannot "locate" a controller. So it's puzzling. My hand is clearly not just turning over spontaneously. You asked me to perform the exercise and reading the words, I did - so it seems there was some intention there. By who or what, I have no idea bc it is still clear that if I just stop and look directly, nothing is there.

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?

OK, I am looking at a mug of coffee and a cup of water. No preference comes up. One is water. The other coffee. One is hot. One is cold. I've taken a sip of each. One makes the mouth somewhat dry. The other leaves the mouth moist. There is no preference. Just 'attributes'. These qualities were not chosen - they just kind of are. Ah, I just reached for "a drink" and reached for the coffee. Preference? Hm .. if so, it must be spontaneous. I might have reached for the water instead and I do not think there would have been a moment of, "no, I meant to reach for coffee because that is my preference right now." I mean, typing it out, I guess it seems logical that one is being "chosen" but that is not my direct experience. The choosing just happens. Wait, a thought of chilliness just crossed my mind and this brought along a preference for the hot beverage. This seemed to arise on its own.

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’?

Hm, in one sense it's the same as the hand. You instructed to count to 5 and I did, so it doesn't seem like it's "just happening" Some decision to count to five has apparently been made because it would not have happened without the suggestion ... Now, in terms of what came into focus, the numbers took the front seat but there was no direct experience of doing the switching. The switching just happened. But still, and maybe this is where I feel a little stuck, the switching just happened, yes, but it does seem to have been prompted.

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, it felt much more subtle than that, like a flash, both drinks are seen, one is reached for ... if I forcefully inject "thinking" it actually seems to interrupt the choosing, a sort of analysis paralysis.

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)?

The decision I am thinking of is our recent move from Texas to California. If any of the conditions were changed I am not sure there is any way to know if thing would have been different. That seems to require a bunch of hypothetical projection. I could assume that if some thing had happened differently then some outcome, as a result, may have differed, but that's all just thought. All conditions are experienced as outside my influence. They are navigated, not brought to be, so to speak. I'm not clear on the last question in this inquiry, what you mean by "what was in my control (according to thought)" -- I chose my route. I didn't just sort of arrive. Well, in one sense that's exactly what happened. But decisions were made. That's plain to see. I made reservations, arrived at those reservations, so the planning seems to have been "in my control".

You can think back to something simple today. Perhaps what to eat. What to wear. Whether to reply to a message. Watch carefully.
Before the decision appeared, did you know what would be chosen?
Did you choose the thoughts that arose during the weighing up?
Did you choose the preferences that appeared?
Did you choose the reasons that seemed important?
Can you find an actual point at which a chooser stepped in and made the decision?
Or did thoughts, preferences, memories, feelings, circumstances and actions simply arise as part of one seamless happening?

Before the decision appeared:

no, I did not know what would happen. So, in a way, even choosing seems spontaneous when see this way. I guess what I'm poking at is that a tangible moment of "decision" does not seem to exist. You can inject one, sure, "I've now decided!", but the actual "thing" seems just to happen!

Did I choose the thoughts:

no, they arose, they went, in a frantic sort of jumble of impressions and ideas that, when I really look at them, seem almost unintelligible, like a garble of noise.

Did I choose the preferences that appeared:

no -- choosing which shirt to wear: you can just go to the closet and grab one - no preference. In a moment of "choosing" though, even still, it ultimately FEELS like the choice was random - as if it just happened - could have been either way, was just THIS way. Not sure this makes sense. A bunch of impressions arise. Maybe one comes to the fore and something is chosen. But the experience is not of me doing it, if that makes sense. It's just happening. Hard to explain.

Did I choose the reasons that seemed important:

no, same as above - some "reasons" come to the fore but they are not chosen - this is my direct experience - they just arise like any other thought. For instance, I'm wearing a blue shirt. When "choosing" this shirt, there was an impresson of "the blue one" of reaching for it, but this all seems spontaneous to me.

Can I find the actual point of a chooser:

no, it feels more like "a decision arises and is made" But "made" feels wrong. There is no maker here, so it really is more like a decision "happens" ... a shirt is chosen in the sense that a choice just happens and you're wearing a shirt. Did I CHOOSE this shirt? Hm, maybe a thought occurred that it would go better with the pants I "chose" but that thought is arising from "nowhere" I'm not "doing" it. Choosing the pants the same thing. I saw a pair of pants in my closet and put them on. So the pants were seen and being seen were grabbed and being grabbed were pulled on.

O

r did thoughts, preferences, memories, feelings, circumstances and actions simply arise as part of one seamless happening:

this is what it feels like. All of these things seem to arise as a jumbled bit of noise. I seem not to "be" them though or to be "doing" them. I can observe them. They are there. But it's odd: even when I try to "focus" on one it feels to sort of come apart at the seams and then some new thing arises. This is what i meant in my previous message about focus: there is this kind of trick where you can think you are focusing but it does not appear actually to be something you are "doing" ... which is again hard to verbalize.

[poppyseed]

Hi Pat,
Excellent. But let’s look where uncertainty still appears. Several times you wrote something along the lines of:

It seems to have been prompted.

It would not have happened without the suggestion.

Let's look there. A suggestion appears. Words are read and interpreted (thinking). Then more thoughts arise. Then movement (sensations) happens. Agreed?
Now look carefully.
Did you choose the arrival of the suggestion?
Did you choose your understanding of the words?
Did you choose the thoughts that appeared in response?
Did you choose the sensations (movement)?
Or did all of those simply arise?
You seem to be comparing two imagined scenarios:
1.Nobody gives the instruction.
2.The instruction is given.
And from that comparison concluding: "Therefore something must have made the decision."
But that's reasoning. Let's stay with direct observation.
When the instruction was read, could you find an entity receiving it?
Could you find an entity generating the response?
Or was there simply reading, thoughts, movement?

You also wrote something beautiful:

A decision arises and is made. But 'made' feels wrong.

Stay there. That discomfort is interesting.
A shirt gets worn. Coffee gets drunk. A move to California occurs. The question isn't whether decisions happen. The question is:
Can a decider actually be found?
Or is "decider" added afterwards in exactly the same way that "apple" was added to colour, shape and sensation?
Look carefully. Don't solve it. Just look.
Have a look at your example:

All conditions are experienced as outside my influence. They are navigated, not brought to be, so to speak. I'm not clear on the last question in this inquiry, what you mean by "what was in my control (according to thought)" -- I chose my route. I didn't just sort of arrive. Well, in one sense that's exactly what happened. But decisions were made. That's plain to see. I made reservations, arrived at those reservations, so the planning seems to have been "in my control".

I just wanted an example of a decision that you would normally consider that you’ve made. The point was to look entirely in thought content where cause and effect “live” and see that even there there’s no “you” making a decision. It was just one event leading to another, leading to another, with “actions” based on previous conditioning. The thought “decision is made” is layered on top of other thoughts/beliefs/descriptions of what has happened before.
Why does the wind blow? It just blows. Yes we can say it happens as a result of previous events but there’s no entity “wind” that does the blowing. There is no wind that decides to blow. It’s just language.
What is “moving of the hands” in DE? We’ve seen that it’s just a sensation, labelled “hands moving” + colour 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?
We can argue which comes first - the thought or the sensation... Here is an interesting video on the subject:
https://vimeo.com/90101368?fbclid=IwAR3
However, there is still one big assumption that there are different parts of this – thoughts influencing sensations, or the other way around. But these are just labels – DE labels but non-the-less…
We don’t experience our senses and thoughts individually. Rather, these are different “aspects” (aka labels) of experience/this. Mind tells us that our senses are separate streams of information. We see with our eyes, hear with our ears, feel with our skin, smell with our nose, taste with our tongue, we think with our brain. DE shows a different picture.
Even the senses are dependently originated which makes them also empty of inherent existence.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k8fHR9jKVM )
See that... We did that exercise where we looked at thoughts and sound appearing right now ("simultaneously"). The pointing question was:
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?

You said:

No description survives inspection.

So...
Love
Rali

[Pwkitchen]

Hi Rali,

Sorry again for the delay. I am no longer receiving email notifications of your responses. I'll see if the subscription changed or if they got moved to spam. OK, onto your questions!

Let's look there. A suggestion appears. Words are read and interpreted (thinking). Then more thoughts arise. Then movement (sensations) happens. Agreed?

Yes, agreed.

Now look carefully.
Did you choose the arrival of the suggestion?

No - it just happened.

Did you choose your understanding of the words?

No - they are just understood.

Did you choose the thoughts that appeared in response?

No, thoughts just arise.

Did you choose the sensations (movement)?

No - there was movement. And what you said next is why I was getting hung up on this part. I was reasoning. I was running the exact mental script you gave as an example.

When the instruction was read, could you find an entity receiving it?
Could you find an entity generating the response?
Or was there simply reading, thoughts, movement?

No, you are right! "Nobody" is home - there was reading, thoughts (about my hand moving), and movement.

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?

No - cause and effect cannot exist outside of thought content- They are just more reasoning! A thought of cause and effect. There is nothing "doing the doing" - there is just happening. Things happening. Sensations. Thoughts. They are not "called forth" - "this" is not a product of any kind of effort or willfulness or anything at all. It just is.

You're right. In DE things just happen. One of those things may be thought, but the misstep is to sort of mistake the thinking as the vehicle of the arising - or, wait, the misstep is more like there is any kind of cause and effect or relationship or even difference there at all to begin with. Saying anything more than "this just happens" already kind of misses the point, I guess! Whatever it is - it's just happening!

So this gets right back to the "even labels are labels" thing - everything is just a mental construct of sorts for explaining/thinking about "this" -which is always just ... this (whatever is experienced directly).

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?

It certainly does not! no line, no boundary. There is no "experience" of separation or "Im choosing this to end here and this begin here" - any relationship between them is simpy a construct. - after the fact.

No description survives inspection it is never inherently "there"!

Pat

[poppyseed]

Hi Pat
I loved this:

No description survives inspection it is never inherently "there"!

Good! What I notice is that whenever you stop and actually look, the same pattern keeps showing up. Thought comes along afterwards and tells a story about what happened, but the thing being described is never actually found in the way thought suggests.

Let's leave choice and decisions alone for a moment and look at something that most people never question. "Others."
Right now, think of your wife, your child, a neighbour, or a stranger in a grocery store.
What exactly makes them "other"?
Don't answer conceptually. It’s not the same approach as the looking for the “I” when it comes to ”others” as you can’t really see that that they don’t have an “I” – it will be a deduction (thinking). How we approach it from DE is the same way we see there is no “apple” – that apple is a label. If we have to repeat the “apple” example but with a “person”:
Taste labelled ‘person’ is known
Colour (visual information) labelled ‘person’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘person’ is known (when a person is touched)
Smell labelled ‘person’ is known
Thought about/of a ‘person’ is known
However, is a ‘person' actually known?
Look.
When you touch 'another', are there two sensations one of 'you' and one of 'other' or just one/just feeling (sensation)?
Is "other" something that is directly experienced? Can a boundary be found that divides "you" from "them"? Where exactly is that boundary? Where is the border that marks where “one” ends and "other" begin? Is it seen? Heard? Touched?
Or does the distinction appear as thought content, just as "apple" and "self" did?
Take your time with this. Don't try to get the right answer.
And before you say "there are no others, "others" is just a label" check this...
Your little one has been sick recently, so let's use something real. Imagine your child crying at 3am.
What actually appears?
Does a parent appear? Does responsibility appear? Does love appear? Does concern appear?
What is directly experienced?
And of those things, which are actual and which are stories ABOUT what is happening?
Take your time with this. Not interested in the correct answer. Only in what is actually found.

Love
Rali

[Pwkitchen]

Hi Rali, thanks - let's continue!

What exactly makes them "other"? However, is a ‘person' actually known?

No! there is no DE of "person" ... same as "apple" same as "thought" same as "I" - there is no boundary, it can't be found. There is no demarcation of "me" vs "you" ... in other words, it seems wholly impossible, no matter how hard I try, to say, "HERE is the boundary between 'me' and 'other'" ... there is no boundary. Me, other, et al appear same as all other conceptions we have identified.

When you touch 'another', are there two sensations one of 'you' and one of 'other' or just one/just feeling (sensation)?

No, there is just sensation - just touching. "Touching" does not break down to me vs. this in DE. There is just the experience "touching"

Is "other" something that is directly experienced? Can a boundary be found that divides "you" from "them"? Where exactly is that boundary? Where is the border that marks where “one” ends and "other" begin? Is it seen? Heard? Touched?

No DE of other. No boundary can be found. Thinking adds me, other, you, I, after the fact.- it appears to be the same move no matter where you look or what 'grain' you try to observe, i.e. small or large concepts are still just concepts. There is no component of DE that can identify/quantify/experience other, same as "me". It's just not there!

Or does the distinction appear as thought content, just as "apple" and "self" did?

Exactly this - impossible to "experience" or "find" other. Just "is" this ... anything else comes after - thought stuff.

Your little one has been sick recently, so let's use something real. Imagine your child crying at 3am.
What actually appears?

What actually appears is a sound which is labeled 'crying' - but the sound is what's there. Then a sensation - tightness, say - in the body. Then a rising out of bed and a walking to the baby's room. I might pick Harper up out of bed - but this is just lifting, holding, rocking. There is touching but no experience of me ending and Harper beginning. The classical thought is that there "must be", of course, but this does not seem to suvive inspection once you look. It is simply impossible to actually EXPERIENCE "other" - you only think it.

Does a parent appear? Does responsibility appear? Does love appear? Does concern appear?
What is directly experienced?

These may appear as thoughts but these things are not "there" in any sort of DE sense. Love, as lovely a concept as it might generally be accepted to be, is still a concept. The idea of it being lovely is also a concept that implies preference. But whose preference? "Parent" is a label as transient and "empty" as any other. Concern as well. Concern is a label likely associatd to some felt tightness in the body. Sensation + thinking label. It's not "there" though!

What is directly experienced?

Sound which is labeled 'crying'. Sensations (tightness, etc). Thoughts about the crying and the sensations. Thoughts about thoughts, etc. Holding. Touching. These are experienced. Any "meaning" about them ALWAYS comes after the 'fact' of expereince.

And of those things, which are actual and which are stories ABOUT what is happening?

Stories: "harper is upset" "I'm tired" "I'm worried" "'I'm' holding 'her'" "Hoping to get back to sleep" "cuteness" "love" "duaghter" "father" -- these are all stories. They are all additive. They don't make up the "thusness" of the moment - what is. What is is just "what is happening".

And so, the "perspective," "Locality," "circumstance," "relationship," etc. of the "looking" seems not to matter. It's the same move happening at every level and from every angle. You can't "escape" it. Because that thought is itself contained in conception. Same move, different words. I could smoke a cigarette, throw my body through a fence, hike up a mountain, go to sleep, swim, dance, talk, run, and it's all the same principle working. There is "this" and then a bunch of conception about/of "this" - hmm ... so then this must also be true of death ... except, what's the DE of dying? Interesting! We haven't had or probably can't 'remember' the DE of dying - even the idea of dying as some sort of cessation is merely a concept. Hm ... I have no DE of dying. None. Is sleep a DE of dying? No, because that's a bunch of conception and comparison stuff. So then death must be a concept, a thinking thing - there is no DE of death for the living ...

[poppyseed]

Hi Pat,
Good. However, notice where the looking stopped and reasoning began.

So then death must be a concept...

Must it? Or is that thought drawing a conclusion? Look carefully.
You don't need to solve death. You don't need to know what happens after death.
What is actually being experienced right now?
Stay with what can be looked at directly. No need to arrive anywhere. No need to build a model. Just look.

Let's leave death alone for the moment. Instead, let’s look at something simpler - time.
There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future (where death potentially "lives"). The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time, or an event that is moving forward on a linear line, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?
How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?
Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?
How long does the ‘now’ last?
Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?
When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?
What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?
So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?
Can you experience directly 30 sec ago?
Right now, where is yesterday?

Almost everybody believes that a memory thought is referring to something that has happened. That a memory thought is a different thought than a non-memory thought.
Please don’t go to thought explanations, but just let a memory be there, and look at it. Look at what is actually going on and not what thoughts say.

What is memory exactly?
What is the memory ‘made of’?
WHEN does the memory appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?
WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference and how is that difference is known exactly?
Take your time with this :) Don't answer philosophically. Look.
Love
Rali

[Pwkitchen]

Hi Rali, I took my time with this round and was careful to reply based on experience, not philosophy or reasoning or anything like that.

Must it? Or is that thought drawing a conclusion?

Actually, I'm not sure I arrived at any conclusion - I have no Direct Experience of death, so anything "thought" about it must be a conception. But yes, any idea about death is a conclusion occurring in thought. But yes, OK, let's stick with what's here now.

What is actually being experienced right now?

Sights, sounds, sensations, thoughts, movement of fingers on a keyboard. Traffic noises. Etc. Just "this" is being experienced right now.

But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?

Nope - this is not experienced. "now" is experienced "here" ... so it's not moving along anything or progressing anywhere - it's "all around" ... even as "time passes" according to the clock, "now" has nowhere to go. There is no experienced difference between "now-now" and "then-now" or "future-now"; it's all just now when it's "here" and then/now/future stuff is thought.

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

No - not experienced it all. We always frame time this way (such and such is "upcoming") but it is not experienced this way - I don't really know what to say about the direct experience of now other than just to say "it always is" ... So no moment gives way to another moment. There is just "the moment" which (and I'm speaking from DE here) seems to stretch out in all directions. It's ubiquitous, so to speak. It is what is experienced.

Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?

No, this does not appear to happen in direct experience. When just looking, it is "now o'clock" ... when just looking there is just "this" ... this doesn't follow or precede this ... it just is. This idea of sequential time/events/cause and effect is all after-the-fact - thought labels.

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

I'm not sure I'm really able to say - I have no direct experience of the present moving anywhere at any speed. There is no direct experience of "beginning" or "ending" or going anywhere or movement in a direction, except perhaps in all directions

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

No I cannot! Any notion of beginning is a thought or a conclusion I am drawing - in other words, I would have to mentally "mark" a beginning. Which is just a thought. There is no DE of this moment beginning or ending - just now.

How long does the ‘now’ last?

There is no direct experience of now beginning or ending - it just is. I could say it "goes on and on" but even that feels like conception. There is no real way (or need) to know how long now lasts. But for all practical purposes and in its direct experience it seems more or less limitless as I cannot seem to experience anything " beyond " it directly.

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

There is no experience of 'past' or of now becoming past. It actually feels quite impossible or even absurd. It's as if to say there is some magical door in front of us and some magical door behind us, from which now appears and into which now retreats - but this is of course not at all the experience. There simply is no experience of 'linear-progressive' time.

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

A thought - the past is only a thought. And to answer the next question, there is no actual experience of time. None. Literally. There are only thoughts about time. The sun may change positions in the sky. It may be light. It may be dark. But this is not experienced as a "thing" called "time".

Can you experience directly 30 sec ago?
Right now, where is yesterday?

I cannot and 'yesterday' only exists as a thought, in that sense, and in the other "yesterday only exists now."

What is memory exactly?

Memory is a thought, exactly. It is not "of" anything but the mind.

What is the memory ‘made of’?

Looking directly at a memory, it appears to be made of images and sounds, but I am feeling that even this is a step too far because I am not ACTUALLY experiencing sights and sounds - they are thoughts. All of a memory is experienced in thought and thought alone. I experience no such thing as recalling anything into actual experience.

WHEN does the memory appear?

DE answer: now - memory appears now.

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

But there literally is no difference. The differentiation is just more thought stuff. Thought = thought.

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

There is no "how" to it because it is not known. I don't really know what else to say about it: the question itself assumes something that is not there - what I mean is that I have absolutely no direct experience of referencing the 'future'. There is not even any kind of direct experience that is "future" - it is not even possible.

What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?

As far as I can tell, looking directly at a past thought, a future thought, a non-time thought, any kind of thought we could conceive, there simply is no difference. Perhaps we conceive of a difference or conclude there "must" be some difference (because, and I don't even know why we do this, but because the language is different?) but the rock bottom direct experience of it is just "thought".

If there is difference and how is that difference is known exactly?

No difference - a difference can't be "known" what is known is just what all this is up to - what's happening is what's happening. All this other stuff is just additive. Any kind of conclusion, feeling, distinction, etc. is all thought/mind stuff. And as you mentioned before, I don't see anything inherently wrong with these things "happening" (they just happen), but no reason to mistake them for what actually "is".

Thank you!

Pat

[poppyseed]

Hi Pat
Good! A couple of things stood out immediately:

But there literally is no difference. The differentiation is just more thought stuff. Thought = thought.

Perhaps we conceive of a difference or conclude there "must" be some difference (because, and I don't even know why we do this, but because the language is different?) but the rock bottom direct experience of it is just "thought".

Excellent. Don't rush past that not-knowing.
A thought appears labelled "memory." A thought appears labelled "future."
In direct experience they are both simply thought. Yet functionality remains. You don't reply to yesterday's email. You don't feed your daughter tomorrow's breakfast. You don't drive to a house you lived in ten years ago. Somehow life functions. Let's look at that.
How is it known that one thought is relevant now and another isn't? What exactly makes one thought get labelled "memory" and another thought get labelled "future"?
What is the direct experience of functionality?
A thought about your daughter appears. A thought about a random stranger appears.
You are quite right that all of these appear as thought. But something interesting remains.
Life doesn't seem to treat them all identically.
A thought about your daughter's cry at 3am is responded to differently than a thought about what you had for lunch three weeks ago. Not because "you" decide or intervene. Yet a difference in functioning appears. What is the direct experience of this differentiation?
Not why, or how - just look. What exactly is present?
Is there any direct experience of relevance? Of significance? Or does even that arrive afterwards as thought content?
Is there anything there besides another thought saying: "This refers to the past" or "This refers to the future"?

What I’m trying to point to here is – yes , you are seeing very clearly that thoughts are thoughts. But look at that:
Tomorrow morning, the alarm goes off. A thought appears "Time to get up", follow by "I'll be late for work", then "Taxes need paying" or "Harper needs breakfast." All thoughts, no issue there. But look carefully.
What happens if these thoughts are treated as completely irrelevant because they are "just thoughts"? What is your direct experience of this?
Not philosophically - look in ordinary life.
Thoughts may be thoughts, but do they all function identically?
Is there any direct experience of some thoughts being acted upon and others not?
How is that known?
Take your time. Don't answer from previous discoveries. Look freshly.
Love
Rali

[Pwkitchen]

Hi Rali, let's have a look!

How is it known that one thought is relevant now and another isn't? What exactly makes one thought get labelled "memory" and another thought get labelled "future"?

OK, I am going to try my best not to give thinking answers, but I'm just going to be honest in my observation, and you can let me know if I'm giving philosophical answers or something. OK, so in DE labeling, thought is thought. But you are right that there is some kind of relevance at play in relation to functioning in the world ... so let's see. I have a thought. Some thoughts seem to "matter" - this is likely conception, but I'm just giving my most honest answer here - there seems to be some kind of known locality. It's almost to say that the mind is, in fact, needed to function in the world. So maybe this is more about noticing the "right thought" (which now feels like conception) rather than being "lost in thought" - that doesn't feel quite right. It feels very "thinky" ... The DE experience is of a kind of "knowing" this thought matters. If my daughter is crying, I don't just say, "oh, well, that's just crying, you know, and my thought that she needs me, well, that's just thought, so let me go back to sleep." But I honestly don't know how to get at it, Rali: I can only really say, thoughts arise ... my mind seems to "flag" some thoughts as relevant/requiring response ... then a corresponding action occurs (but I' not sure a flagging actually occurs, there is no DE here). Some thoughts seem relevant to "now" - there is not a deliberate mental debate, though, it's more like: stimulus (Harper cries) → appropriate action is just known or just happens. So, it just arises. It isn't a product of any deliberate debate. It could be, of course, I could sit there and think about it, but the response was "known" - I think I may be off here, this is just my most honest answer. And I'm honestly not even sure I've answered your question! I don't know what makes one thoguht get labeled memory and another thought get labeled future - my immediate answer each time I read the question is "context" - context seems to make it known. But context is all bound up in memory. So ...

What is the direct experience of functionality?

The direct experience seems to be just "doing"

You are quite right that all of these appear as thought. But something interesting remains.
Life doesn't seem to treat them all identically.
A thought about your daughter's cry at 3am is responded to differently than a thought about what you had for lunch three weeks ago. Not because "you" decide or intervene. Yet a difference in functioning appears. What is the direct experience of this differentiation?

Honestly, it feels like the difference is sensation. The difference in response seems to be bound up in a physical reaction in the body. There seems to be some kind of "tension to act" that is not produced by "me" when I think about a "relevant" thought - for instance, I'm thinking about the gardening supplies I ordered and how I need to pick them up today. The DE is a thought arises (flash of relevance) action is taken. It's that parenthetical part that I can't quite seem to articulate. it just "feels" different. And i mean that in the physical sense.

What happens if these thoughts are treated as completely irrelevant because they are "just thoughts"? What is your direct experience of this?

I mean, in a word: decay. My direct experience of this is "being cut off" from life itself, as a non-participant - it is a willing (thinking)/purposeful non-participation in the stuff of life. I don't mean this philosophically. I mean it practically. Life needs to dance, or something. In other words, my daughter won't just be fed - she will need to "get" fed. I mean I'd be "treating" them that way (as irrelevant) rather than experiencing them that way! The DE is just of knowing/sensing/experiencing a response. But yet this seems to imply some mechanism of "sorting" the relevant from the irrelevant. And I don't seem to have any direct experience of that sorting, the sorting does not survive inspection ... so ...

I can only really say I just don't know. It does not appear to be a function of "me" - relevant response seems to be "baked in" - in fact, it seems like the "not responding" is the thinking/conceptualizing here - the only product of a "me". The doing is just the doing. A response just happens. It "feels right" - but even that's a step too far, I suppose. Let me say it like this: it can be very clear to me that thoughts are thoughts are thoughts, yes, ok, labelled, good, but this does not seem to in any way cloud the in-moment reality of identifying a relevant thouht and acting. They don't seem to be mutually exclusive.

Thoughts may be thoughts, but do they all function identically?

Hmm, they seem to "be the same" but not function the same. I really don't know. All I can honestly say is that some thoughts inherenty "feel" physically different than others. There is some kind of physical response to thoughts - there could be tension about a memory (this seems irrelevant) but there can also be tension about "needing to respond" There seems to be a definite feeling associated here.

Is there any direct experience of some thoughts being acted upon and others not?

Aside from the acting itself, I'm not sure there is a direct experience here! It's kind of where I keep getting stuck. It seems apparent that some thoughts are relevant, some are not. But that again implies a kind of sorting that I can't really seem to locate no matter how closely I look. So it seems the only possible answer is no, there is no direct experience of this. The response seems in the same vein as the thought. As if to say there is only a doing, not a responding - they do not appear to be "separate" as cause/effect. It is not experienced this way directly. It all just happens. But I can't say I understand it. It just dpesn't appear that these is some kind of mental ledger where some thoughts are acted upon while others are not. It keeps seeming like all one can really accomplish with thought is NOT dancing the dance. You have to "go with the flow" - it's all kind of seeming baked in. conception tries to make a story of it - cause and effect, this and that, etc. - but the direct experience is of no story, just a sort of codependent arising. Codependent is not the right word -- mutual may be better.

I've tried taking my time here but there also seems to require some kind of immediacy of observation so apologies for the stream of consciousness writing. Sometimes it seems to help me get at the most honest answer.

Pat

[Pwkitchen]

Hi Rali - I've worked with this a bit more today and have a little more clarity here. It seems there is a pattern when I look at this from a new angle to think aloud about it rather than experiencing directly even though my intention is to do so! At any rate ...

There is no direct experience of functionality or of choosing which thought to act on or label this way or that. There is no direct experience of relevance or anything else of the sort. "I" don't choose these things or create them. They just are. "I" don't choose to enjoy chard but not kale. "I" don't pick which shirt to wear. And "I" don't choose which thoughts to act upon and which not to act upon. There is no experience of these differentiations.

It all, again, just "is" ... it is "this".

So when you asked "what happens if these are treated as irrelevant," well, there is actually no experience of "treating" them as irrelevant or just thoughts or anything else - these are just more labels. So what really happens is I start "reasoning" again.

Thoughts may not function identically, but they are still "functioning" within thought. Doing is doing. But you can't EXPERIENCE the boundary or the moment when that "decision" is made. There's nothing there. There is no DE of some thoughts being acted upon and some not - it's not known/it is not experienced. It's all the same "stuff" ...

The tension I experience in the moment of "relevance" I mentioned earlier seems to be again "after the fact" - probably all the sensation + thought stuff of being woken up of "having" to run an errand - all additive.

Pat