Removing the illusion

[poppyseed]

Hi Pat,
Good. What stands out is that every explanation you offered eventually collapsed when examined. That's exactly what inquiry is supposed to do.
Let's forget relevance, functionality and decision-making for the moment. Suppose Harper cries in the night. A thought appears "crying", then "Harper needs me", then "I hope this doesn't last all night", then "Tomorrow is going to be difficult".
Look carefully. Are all of these thoughts functioning in the same way?
Or are some thoughts pointing to what is happening right now, while others are thoughts about thoughts - interpretations, projections or just plain stories?
In my analogy of the icons on your desktop - clicking on the icon of mail is about writing an email, while thinking about how ugly or pretty/small or big the icon is, is about imaginary stuff - there is no actual mailbox, just 1's and 0's.
Don't analyse. Look in direct experience. What do you find?

Let's take this even further... One thing caught my attention in your answer:

There is no direct experience of choosing which thought to act on.

Now look at this supposed relationship between thought and "action".
Is there actually a direct experience of acting on a thought?
Take something simple. You stand up and walk across the room.
What is directly experienced? Can an actual link be found between a thought and the movement? Can a point be found where the thought ends and the action (aka sensation, colour, sound...) begins? Can you see one actually pulling the other/others?
Or is that another story added afterwards?
Don't think about it. Look. What is actually found?
Love
Rali

[Pwkitchen]

Hi Rali,

Thank you - I'm beginning to feel a little stuck. I think you are trying to guide me somewhere, but I feel as if I am going in circles a bit, and I'm not sure how to "break out of it". I'm trying to focus on direct experience, but it still feels like thinking. Like I have to interpret the direct experience, and that requires thought and language. When you ask if all thoughts function the same way, my experience is that, no, they do not. There are thoughts pointing at what is and there are thoughts that are about more thoughts. But these are all thoughts so trying to suss out the "difference" just feels like a lot of thinking to me. Some of these insights feel immediate (like time, labels, "I" being a label), but this particular inquiry about relevance, thought, etc. it just all seems to collapse. I can't seem to get at a DE of this in the way you mean for me to.

Are all of these thoughts functioning in the same way?
Or are some thoughts pointing to what is happening right now, while others are thoughts about thoughts - interpretations, projections or just plain stories?

Yes, there does seem to be an experiential difference between a thought pointing to what is right now and thoughts about thoughts, ideas, past/future, etc. In your example, the thought "crying" is the direct experience. But this feels like a bunch of thinking and comparison, which all just feels like "thought" to me. I see plainly there is thought as label of experience and thought as thought about thought - but it's all thought.

In my analogy of the icons on your desktop - clicking on the icon of mail is about writing an email, while thinking about how ugly or pretty/small or big the icon is, is about imaginary stuff - there is no actual mailbox, just 1's and 0's.
Don't analyse. Look in direct experience. What do you find?

Yes, I see these are different. The difference is clear. But I don't see the point. I'm not sure what we are getting at here.

Now look at this supposed relationship between thought and "action".
Is there actually a direct experience of acting on a thought?

This is where i just get stuck. I am not trying to think. But I don't seem to know how to "look at" this relationship - No, I cannot find this exact spot where thought ends and action begins - but I have a direct experience of having a thought, "I'm thirsty" and then choosing to pick up my water and have a drink - or not! It's not as though I'm "locked in" or without agency. And I can clearly see a difference between "I'm thirsty" and "Why am I always thirsty?" or "I need to drink water more regularly" - I see that. But "thirst" is still a thought, no? So, I'm pretty hung up here on this point.

You could say "but do you really choose" and I would say yes, I really choose 100/100 times, because we are talking about DE, and that's my direct experience. But if you asked "Who" chooses, I wouldn't be able to say. Which seems at direct odds with this experience of "I" being merely a label which just flat out cannot be experienced. It's a bit frustrating. I CAN recognize the "I" as merely a label. I can see that clearly. I experience it directly. But what I can't seem to separate myself from is this idea of intentionality.

The difference between the thought "crying" and "Harper needs me" is that "crying" is a label pointing at a direct experience. "Harper needs me" is not pointing at a direct experience; it is a thought about a thought. But it is that thought about the thought that prompts my action - there is no "crying" without context. I have absolutely no direct experience of things just existing without context.

Where I feel stuck is this inquiry about "how to know which thoughts to act upon" or even who is knowing or deciding - this is when this all really starts to feel like a thought exercise to me. My DE is not that I am going through some internal debate about it - my experience is not even of morality. It is just of "happening" Harper cries - there is crying - there is action. But I could choose to lie in bed and not get up to help Harper. So that action would directly follow a thought. This is where I am stuck. No, I cannot identify a point where thought ends and action begins. BUT there is definitely a direct experience of choosing to act on thoughts. I don't know by who or why but I also would be being dishonest if I said this was not my direct experience. Right now, I can have a thought, which I am very intentionally calling forth, "think about having a sip of coffee for the sake of showing that taking a sip of coffee can directly follow a thought" - the thought is had and the coffee is drunk (or not).

Where I'm going with this is that my DE is not one of a lack of agency. I seem to have very real, direct, tangible local control. I could throw a rock through my window or lie on my back on the floor. In both cases, it will not "just happen" it will be following a thought of doing so, will it not? Sorry, Rali, I feel I've taken a step back here.

Pat

[poppyseed]

Hi Pat,
I don't think you're stuck. I think you're trying to understand and cathegorise something that may need to be seen instead.

I have absolutely no direct experience of things just existing without context.

The following link is a 7 minute clip of a soccer game. If you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5pL-myDzw

1. Watch one minute with the sound turned OFF, watching ‘people’ messing about with a round thing on a field, up and down, up and down. Let it sink in, the whole experience.
2. Once the first minute is completed, now watch another whole minute with the commentary turned ON.
Notice the differences. Notice how the commentator (thought) offers lots of know-how, even advice. It seems to feel as though they can influence, somehow, what is going on, as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome. The commentary may seem to heighten any supporter feelings which are there, and call for an identification with one team or other, and with the importance of the game itself.
3. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary, the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Again notice all the differences in what is appearing as experience.
4. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know thought is talking about, and just notice it as sound.

What did you find when doing this exercise? Is the commentary on the soccer game a necessity for the play to happen?
The game still unfolds. Players run. Passes happen. Goals are scored. Fouls occur. The commentary describes the game.
But is the commentary causing the game?
Or is it simply talking about what is already happening?

And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?
Look at ordinary life. Harper cries. A thought appears: "Harper needs me." Action (sensation) happens. Look carefully.
Is the thought causing the action? Or is the thought more like commentary describing what is already unfolding?
Don't answer from logic. Look in direct experience.
Furthermore… the whole first this then that requires time where all of it unfolds…

No, I cannot find this exact spot where thought ends and action begins - but I have a direct experience of having a thought, "I'm thirsty" and then choosing to pick up my water and have a drink - or not!

How fast is the thought “Harper needs me” actually moving?
Just look at thought, can you find a point where it began?
How long does the thought last?
Where does the thought start, and where does it end?
Is there any direct experience of one event (e.g. thought “Harper needs me”) following another (e.g. sensation, sound… labelled “action: getting up and attending to her”) outside of the thought about sequence?
What is there without the DE labels?
The point is to see it all, collapse it further – does the separation between DE and thought survive when looking?
Yes, it is helpful to use the DE labels to see past the beliefs, but that's just a stepping stone...

Yes, there does seem to be an experiential difference between a thought pointing to what is right now and thoughts about thoughts, ideas, past/future, etc. In your example, the thought "crying" is the direct experience. But this feels like a bunch of thinking and comparison, which all just feels like "thought" to me. I see plainly there is thought as label of experience and thought as thought about thought - but it's all thought.

Of course they are all just thoughts. Earlier we looked at the boundary between self and other, sound and thought, past and future.
Let's look at another boundary… Thought appears. A sensation appears. A sound appears.
Can an actual dividing line be found between them?
Is thought happening outside of direct experience? Or is the presence of thought - thought itself - directly experienced too?
Can a diving line between DE and thought be found?
The subtlety here is that stories are also appearing. They are not outside experience; they are simply stories. That's a very different insight from "thought is separate from DE", right?
Have you heard the Buddhist saying "Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and rivers once again rivers "? What do you think it means?

Furthermore… you say:

I see plainly there is thought as label of experience and thought as thought about thought - but it's all thought.

Who is doing the seeing? What is looking made of?
Love
Rali

[Pwkitchen]

Hi Rali,

Thank you!

OK, I watched the soccer video and this was a beneficial exercise. It is clear that the commentary (thought) is not needed for the game to happen. Yes, it adds color, context, etc. but the game is being played whether on mute or with commentary. The commentary does not caue anything. It is a mere description of what is already happening, whether or not the commentary is there.

And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

No, it is not. It is not creating or compelling anything - same as commentary on the game. It is describing what is already happening - in no way necessary for the happening to happen!

And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?
Look at ordinary life. Harper cries. A thought appears: "Harper needs me." Action (sensation) happens. Look carefully.
Is the thought causing the action? Or is the thought more like commentary describing what is already unfolding?

No - the thought is definitely not causing the action! Ah! So, then, "I" am not deciding to care. I am not thinking caring into being. It just is. I keep using this term, but it's "baked in"! The action of getting up arises on its own and after (or during) the fact of "getting" up the thought-as-commentary comes in with the old script, "this is what I am experiencing" - but the DE is just "happening"!

How fast is the thought “Harper needs me” actually moving?
Just look at thought, can you find a point where it began?
How long does the thought last?

No, I cannot find a place where the thought begins, nor can I determine its duration. It seems as a flash. And if I really look there is no direct experience of an orderly precession of thought → action. It's all jumbled.

Where does the thought start, and where does it end?

This seems undeterminable.

Is there any direct experience of one event (e.g. thought “Harper needs me”) following another (e.g. sensation, sound… labelled “action: getting up and attending to her”) outside of the thought about sequence?

Ah! No, it's all happening "inside" thought. The "order", that is. In DE, it kind of all seems to just "happen" (at once).

What is there without the DE labels?

Without the DE labels, it is all still "this" - the labelling isn't "doing" it. The labels are not necessary for the "thing to be".

Thought appears. A sensation appears. A sound appears. Can an actual dividing line be found between them?
Is thought happening outside of direct experience? Or is the presence of thought - thought itself - directly experienced too?
Can a diving line between DE and thought be found?

No, there is no actual dividing line. Thought itself does not and cannot happen outside direct experience. There is a direct experience of thought.

The subtlety here is that stories are also appearing. They are not outside experience; they are simply stories. That's a very different insight from "thought is separate from DE", right?

Yes, I see. Thought is within direct experience, and stories are just the flavor of the experience of thought. Thought is not separate from DE.

Have you heard the Buddhist saying "Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and rivers once again rivers "? What do you think it means?

That before practice we take the label as the thing (the thinking about the thing as the thing itself) - inquiry throws this on its head and the labels (river, mountain) are removed such that they are not the label-words. Then, after inquiry, the thing is just what the thing "is" sans labels, which is, of course, the mountain, the river, etc. just being as "this"

Furthermore… you say:
I see plainly there is thought as label of experience and thought as thought about thought - but it's all thought.
Who is doing the seeing? What is looking made of?

I don't experience anyone as doing the seeing. Looking is made of ... looking. Itself. Hearing is made of hearing. The "I" is thought about it.

OK, so, circling back to a previous inquiry

Now look at this supposed relationship between thought and "action".
Is there actually a direct experience of acting on a thought?

There is not! There is commentary about it.

So when I get up to help Harper, it's because she is my daughter and caring happens. I do not think it into existence. I do not choose to care. I don't have to. It's all commentary at this point. There is crying. There is caring. There is action. The self "I" may not perform the action, but there are still actions; those actions have effects, and those effects land on others - life, in a word, is arising one way or another.

"I am going to take a sip" feels different simply because of the word "I", it seems. But it's still just language, just words, just a thought. It does not cause the sip. It's just a co-arising, so to speak.

Thanks,

Pat

[Pwkitchen]

Just to continue: there is no experience of my intention (thought) actually causing or leading to an outcome (action). A thirst-thought arises. Then, maybe, at some point, an action of taking a sip of water happens. Maybe soon after; maybe a while later. Any perceived relationship between these things is a matter of thought/commentary.

[poppyseed]

Hi Pat,
Good. The soccer exercise seems to have landed.
What stood out most for me was this:

I don't experience anyone as doing the seeing. Looking is made of ... looking. Itself. Hearing is made of hearing. The "I" is thought about it.

Look carefully. Is “hearing” made out of hearing or “hearing” is a label for a particular pattern of just “this”? Is "looking" anything more than another label?
We explored “focus” some time ago. You can go and revisit the exercise…

Before the word "looking" appears, what is there? What remains?
Not because we're trying to arrive at some final answer, but because "looking" can become the next refuge in exactly the same way "awareness" often does. I picked this up in the context of this:

Where I feel stuck is this inquiry about "how to know which thoughts to act upon" or even who is knowing or deciding - this is when this all really starts to feel like a thought exercise to me.

So there is a danger of giving a subtle agency to “looking”. The key distinction for me is:
•"I am looking" → obvious selfing.
•"There is looking" → subtler conceptualization.
•What is actually present before either sentence appears? → inquiry.
Is there looking at and objects (hearing, seeing, thoughts, …) – or just whatever is here (hearing, seeing, thoughts…)? Stripped a bit further, are there even objects without the DE labels or just THIS (indescribable, inseparable, unknowable)?
There is nothing particular about “this” – it just “IS”. There are no patterns, relationships among them, etc., to be observed in DE – these are all labels (either icons or stories about icons). So saying for example: “these are all just thoughts” is not looking per se, it’s a new “improved” commentary/perception, one that helps flow instead of hindering it – and even that is a story, but a bit more “helpful” (an icon on your desktop). It’s just thoughts self-organising to be a bit more efficient after the virus-thought “LOOK!” has been introduced :). Do you see that? Do you get the distinction?
This is why I said in the beginning:

I can promise you there will be no fireworks; it is just a subtle shift in perception!

Love
Rali

[Pwkitchen]

Hi Rali - apologies for the delay here, will reply first thing in the morning my time.

Pat

[poppyseed]

Hey Pat

No worries! Thanks for letting me know!

Love
Rali

[Pwkitchen]

Hi Rali!

Look carefully. Is “hearing” made out of hearing or “hearing” is a label for a particular pattern of just “this”? Is "looking" anything more than another label?

No, hearing is a label, looking is just a label. I just got caught in the trap of language. Anything described is a label for THIS.

Before the word "looking" appears, what is there? What remains?

Before the word looking appears, it is just "this"

Is there looking at and objects (hearing, seeing, thoughts, …) – or just whatever is here (hearing, seeing, thoughts…)? Stripped a bit further, are there even objects without the DE labels or just THIS (indescribable, inseparable, unknowable)?

The "objects" are the labels - apple - there is no direct experience of apple. It is a label. Hear, see, taste, think - all labels. Even the "DE labels" that "constitute" "apple" are themselves labels. THIS is indescribable as an experience - it just "is" ... anything that could be said about it is label/thought/thought about thought, etc. "This" just IS happening! Happens, happening. It's all I can say about it. There's nothing to "work out" - no place to be stuck, in the end (which is itself also a kind of story). This is just "this" - nothing to do with it, nothing to "get".

Where I feel stuck is this inquiry about "how to know which thoughts to act upon" or even who is knowing or deciding - this is when this all really starts to feel like a thought exercise to me.

Our previous inquiry helped tremendously here. It is clear that there is no direct experience of this kind of "doing" by an "I" . Or any kind of order of thought → intention → action, or anything like that. There is no experience of one leading to another. It is like the sports commentary. It is not required/it is not "doing" anything. All just labels. As you said: icons and thoughts about icons → a good analogy. It's all just THIS.

There is nothing particular about “this” – it just “IS”. There are no patterns, relationships among them, etc., to be observed in DE – these are all labels (either icons or stories about icons). So saying for example: “these are all just thoughts” is not looking per se, it’s a new “improved” commentary/perception, one that helps flow instead of hindering it – and even that is a story, but a bit more “helpful” (an icon on your desktop). It’s just thoughts self-organising to be a bit more efficient after the virus-thought “LOOK!” has been introduced :). Do you see that? Do you get the distinction?

Yes! There's nothing to "do" with it or about it. No cause/effect, no then/now, no nothing. It is clear that "these are all just thoughts" is itself a label/conceptualization; it doesn't "get at it" as a manner of speaking. Anything we can say about "this" is commentary. Yes, I see that "these are just thoughts" might be a "better" story but it is still a story/icon: a "looker" is still implied, which is, again, not anything there is a direct experience of. Which is interesting because before when "I noticed" that apple was just a label and taste was a label, etc. that is STILL just thought - I guess what I mean is: at some point (being THIS point) there is nothing to do. Nothing to say. It's like "the eye cannot see itself" - there is just rock-bottom nothing to it, to "this" - it's all just THIS. No fireworks. Nothing changes, per se. Here it all is as THIS.

Pat

[poppyseed]

Hi Pat,
Good. What stands out most is this:

Anything we can say about 'this' is commentary.

Yes. Not because commentary is wrong and it needs to stop, but simply because it is commentary. Life doesn't wait for the commentary. It doesn't require it. It simply unfolds.
At this point, it will be a good DE exercise to get out for an actual walk in nature and observe interconnectedness. See how ALL is moving interdependently, including thinking and the senses. Hold these questions in mind:
Is there anything that is separate from everything else?
Is there a border that divides “me” and “my body” from everything else, or is it just a thought? Is that interdependent movement outside of you? Is there an “inside” and an “outside”?
Is there an owner of being?
Are there others? Is there an “I” in others?
Is there a “you”?
Don't try to hold onto anything. Don't try to maintain a state. Just notice whether an actual separate self, owner or controller ever appears outside of thought.
Then let's review where we are at with the following questions.
What has changed and what hasn’t in normal everyday living. What changes? What stays the same?
What is the biggest difference from before starting this conversation?
Is seeking still going on?
Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?
Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?

Love
Rali

[Pwkitchen]

Hi, Rali - taking another day to be with this. Will chime back in tomorrow. Thanks for your patience!

Pat

[Pwkitchen]

Hi Rali!

Is there anything that is separate from everything else?

No, there is nothing that is separate from anything else. Any idea of separation is thinking stuff.

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”?

No there is no border. There is the thought of a border, perhaps, but it can't be found. It can only be conceived.

Is there an owner of being?

No, not at all. There is just being. Any "idea" of ownership is just more that is being. Being does not rely on someone/me/anyone doing anything

Are there others? Is there an “I” in others?

No, no others. No experienced boundary of "me" and "you" - no "I" in "me" or "others" - all stories.

Is there a “you”?

No, certainly not. "You" and "I" are merely labels - there are thoughts, sensations, experiences - they arise but are not owned or caused by "me".

The separate self ONLY appears inside thought.

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

Well, nothing has changed in the day-to-day goings on. Only the perspective has changed. It's like "being outside thought" or experiencing what just is. Hard to explain. It's as if someone used a device to see the world, taking the device for granted until one day simply looking up. That is: nothing has changed, it's just being looked at directly.

What is the biggest difference from before starting this conversation?

A change in perception/pov. A "letting go" or "release" of sorts. I'm not "doing" this. I'm not owning it. Nothing has been added. Nothing has been actually taken away either. There's nothing I need to "be doing" or "seeking" - these are just thoughts - they have nothing to do with, nor are they responsible for "this" - "this" being just the natural arising of, well, all this. And all of this was already the way it was, "I" am not doing anything to it, nor has it sort of magically "resolved" into this as some product of "effort" - literally nothing has changed "here" - I've now just looked. Or "put down the device" - so the biggest difference (the only difference) is just seeing directly that "this" is not contained in thought. Thought is neither separate from nor requisite for "all this" to be happening.

Is seeking still going on?

Nope! What's to seek? Seeking is a thought. It is a thought that tends to erect a bunch of other thoughts around it. "Seeking" means "I" am the "seeker", there is something to seek, there is somewhere to go, something to do, to strive for, to try, etc. (All VERY serious in the mind of the seeker) - but that's all a bit silly, isn't it? It's as if to say: "Here it is, happening." Sorry, nothing more to it than that! You can seek and seek and seek and it was just "this" all along. There's just downright nothing to seek. You can only just kind of shrug at it! All this "seeking" for what just is - right there!

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

No, no confusion. It is clear that whatever is just is. There is no separate stuff. There is no "doing" or "doer". Nothing like that. nothing separate or outside or as some kind of "supreme cause" that is setting anything in motion. It's all right here.

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

YES! With a big fat yes, I can say that the illusion of a separate self is simply a thought. That's really all there is to it. It's simply a (previously very persistent) thought!

Pat

[poppyseed]

Hi Pat
Wonderful!! I'm really happy to read your reply!
I'm going to post some checkpoint questions that are given to everyone to see where they are at, and to check if we’ve missed anything. Would you please answer all questions in full, and what's true for you rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer. Also please provide examples where asked.
Here are the questions.
1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

5) Describe decision & give examples from experience.

Describe intention & give examples from experience.

Describe free will & give examples from experience.

Describe choice & give examples from experience.

Describe control & give examples from experience.

What makes things happen? How does it work?

What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

6) Anything to add?

Enjoy looking!
Love
Rali

[Pwkitchen]

Hi Rali - thank you! Let's dive in!

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

Nope! No separate entity of 'self', no 'I/me/mine' - not anywhere, and there never was. There is only the thought-construction of a separate self.

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

Basically, the illusion of a separate self is a label misaken to be real (directly experienced) - which it is obviously not. As apple is a label for something red, flavorful, juicy, roundish, etc. the self is a label of thoughts and sensations ... and thoughts about those thoughts and sensations. But there is definitely no thing of "self" - it is not there, it cannot be found, there is no boundary between 'me' and 'this'.

The way it seems to work is as a sort of running commentary or an organizing of thought. But it is clear that this commentary 'does not make the game' as we discovered. This is apparent once seen. There is no ordering. All that arises/occurs is not waiting on me. Even my own actions are the same. The illusion of self says "I intended this action" but there is actually no experience of this happening. None. There is only an arising of all 'this' - thoughts, 'intentions', acts, relationships between actions/occurrences - all mind-thought stuff. All this happens - and that's ok - but the reality is all this about intention, cause-effect, past, future, etc. - just thoughts. All that's happening is "this, now".

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

The feeling, if I'm being honest, is one of humor. And levity or almost like a 'relief' - all this time (all this time!) I've been holding so tight to everything - taking it personally, striving, grasping, ruminating. And while these sensations may continue to exist and be experienced, there's nothing to them, in truth - literally nothing. Nothing to do about it. The seeking and striving have come to an end. What's to seek?? it seems so apparent now - the whole thing is a sort of facade or charade - no need!

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

I'll give you the first and the last because the first felt like the biggest breakthrough that made way for the rest:

First - the apple labelling. This was it. I can't even properly put words to this but it seemed to "open me up" to seeing outside of thought-conceptions to what just 'is'. It is a sort of analytical way to go about it, I suppose, but this realization - that the separate self in reality is just this bundle of sensation and thought/emotion - that there is nothing "there" - was like a floodgate opening up.

Last - the notion of 'the game' not relying on or needing the commentary to be played. This felt like the last place I couldn't quite get unstuck. Something clicked there. It made me look in another way - almost like the apple label thing in motion, if that makes sense. What I mean: a label has a static property to it - but life is more in motion than that and this made me look at the nature of 'this'/action/arising to see that, again, there is no self which is separate or ordering principle "doing" this - nothing to observe - nothing to understand - nothing to grasp - it just is - it's just "all this".

5) Describe decision & give examples from experience.

A piece of cognition in which multiple possibilities resolve into some single action, e.g. this morning I brewed coffee. This 'decision' occurred but certainly no self/me/I decided - it just came to be. There is no decider.

Describe intention & give examples from experience.

Intention is a mental activity that describes/organizes what is happening - it happens only in the mind. It does not cause anything. There is no discernable point where the order of intention → action occurs, or where there is some kind of handoff. E.g. A thought occurs, "I need to reply to my coworkers email this morning" ... later today, an action may happen of replying to the email. One is not caused by the other. There is a thought. There is an action. Taken further: there is just "this" in which both are contained.

Describe free will & give examples from experience.

Free will assumes there is a self-entity that is deciding - but there is no decider. So the most I can say about free will is that everything is happening. There is no cause, no decider, no order. It's all "this" which is happening "freely" - no example comes to mind. While the other questions might be considered 'mental phenomena' or something, this seems more like a theory about a mental phenomenon so I don't really currently have an example from experience. It just doesn't really seem possible.

Describe choice & give examples from experience.

Choice seems to assume that there are options being decided upon by some decider. Or like there are other possibilities maybe besides what just "is" - which seems a bit absurd. E.g. There is a glass of water and a glass of coffee here on the desk. But there is no "choice" to make. Like: it goes back to the nothing surviving inspection. I'll sip one or the other but there is no one making the "choice" to do so. The thought about choice and the drinking of water, say, sometime later, are not related any more than both just being "this" / what's happening now.

Describe control & give examples from experience.

Control is a mental story about causing/deciding for "this" to occur (wrapped up in a million other thoughts about future, past, expectations, desires, fears, etc.). It assumes some separate self as causing or preventing this or that to be. E.g. I might think I'm 'controlling' my career based on some 'intention' and set of actions that I imagine myself to 'decide' but all that smuggles the separate self as a controlling entity back in, which is not the experience of 'this'. The truth is that "I" don't "control" anything.

What makes things happen? How does it work?

Honest answer: I have no idea whatsoever. And I don't feel anymore that I need to know. There seems no point in it. Beyond that, it seems utterly impossible to know or much less describe "this". It is just self-apparent, self-occurring. It "works" by "being" is all I can really say about it!

What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

'Responsibility' as a concept again seems to imply a bearer — someone standing in relation to consequences, holding them/bearing them. But that someone isn't findable - no one is home. However, actions occur, other actions occur, there is no direct experience of one causing the other (I cannot find the line of causation; ACTUALLY, it is constructed mentally). Caring happens. A mental-sense of responsibility 'happens', sure, why not? Action happens. What doesn't happen is a chain-reaction of cause and effect instigated by "i" E.g. When Harper cries, there is hearing, caring arises, it may not relate to an "I" but it is there, an action of going to her happens. Even if there is no separate "I" performing these actions, these actions exist. The circumstance arises one way or another. Or, "this" arises; no line found between them, no causal link found either.

6) Anything to add?

I answered the above questions in good faith for the exercise. But the examples I gave seem more like anti-examples. My honest gut reaction to all these questions is that I can't give a true example of any of them. Decision, intention, choice, control - they are all just 'this'. Nothing separate to describe. I don't mean this nihilistically. These mental phenomena occur - however, giving examples for things that don't seem to 'be' in any 'real/direct' sense feels like reapplying scaffolding that has already been removed.

In other words: all of 'this' is happening - it is its very nature to 'be' - that's all that seems to be able to be said for any of it. There are mental occurrences of decision, choice, responsibility, etc. but they exist within that context alone. They aren't 'doing' anything or having an 'effect' on what 'is'. Nothing has to be defended. Nothing has to be pursued or sought. Nothing has to be figured out. Nothing has to be prevented. Because the one who was thought to be doing the defending and pursuing and preventing is really just commentary - life / 'this' carries right on without it - or, more accurately, it carries right on containing it. It's all just "this" - that's where I keep landing. Nothing can quite get at it, linguistically - it just IS.

Thanks, Rali, I appreciate the thoroughness of this inquiry and your patience in helping!

Pat

[poppyseed]

Hi Pat

I really enjoyed reading your answers! I will pass them on to the other guides to check if we've missed anything, so please stay close

Love
Rali