Buddhist that is coming to their senses.

[poppyseed]

Hi Tetsuo

That's fine! Take your time healing, I know how painful it is. Thanks for letting me know! Get well soon!
Love
Rali

[Tetsuo]

Hi Rali,

Thanks for that.

Before that thought appears, can you find the thought that is going to be thought?

No, I can’t. I only know what is going to be thought once it happens.

Can you find anything selecting it?

No. There is intention and then the thought.

Or is there first an intention/thought like “think something pleasant”, followed by another thought appearing?

Yeah, that’s exactly it. There’s the intention to think about something pleasant, and then there is a pleasant thought.

Did the first thought manufacture the second one?

If the intention weren’t there, I don’t think the pleasant thought would have arisen. But that isn’t to say the former manufactured the latter.

What exactly is making the effort?

After looking, I think it is actually thought and intention.

When effort appears, did you produce it?

No. The sense of ‘I am making effort’ would be another thought.

Could you have prevented that impulse to resist from appearing?

No. The moment you notice it, it has already appeared.

Look when an unpleasant thought naturally comes up. There is the thought. Perhaps there is contraction or some other sensation. Then perhaps another thought appears saying something like, “I don’t want this,” or “stop thinking about this.”
Is anything directing this sequence?
Or is the supposed controller simply another appearance within it?

I am going to revisit this one because to answer, I would be relying on memory. With that being said, there is nothing directing the sequence, just a combination of feelings and thoughts. I think the sense of there being a controller is not some separate from or other than that content.

Can you find the point where “you” created the preference?
Or does the preference simply show up when the conditions are there?

Not within my direct experience, no. Preferences express themselves based on what is going on.

Without referring to thought-content, can an actual connection between the two be found?
Can a “stream of thoughts” actually be experienced?
Or is “stream” itself another thought describing what has already appeared?

No, there is just one thought and then another and another. But a thinker producing a stream of thought cannot be found. It always seems to be a thought after the fact that says, “this is what happened; I got lost in thought”, or something to that effect.

Is there a Tetsuo to whom “things just are”?
Can any boundary actually be found between “Tetsuo” and what is happening?

No, there isn’t. A boundary cannot be found. Like, where would the boundary even be?!

Is there, right now, an actual separate entity — a self, me, I — anywhere at all?
Not “does it feel like there is one?” Can one actually be found?

A seperate entity cannot be found.

Kind regards,
Tetsuo

[poppyseed]

Hi Tetsuo,
Very good.

If the intention weren’t there, I don’t think the pleasant thought would have arisen.

You seem to distinguish between thought and intention… We’ll have a deeper look at choice and intention later. Before that:

A separate entity cannot be found.

Is that merely because you looked and failed to find one? Is there a separate entity — “Tetsuo”, “me”, “I”, self — anywhere, in any way, shape or form?
Let’s stay with that and look somewhere very specific. There is often still a sense that “I” am located in, or as, the body. So for now, leave thought, choice and intention alone. Bring attention to what is usually called “the body”. Don’t use memory or imagination, stay only with what is actually being experienced.
Do the exercises without referring to thought:
1. Take something cold from the fridge – like a can of cooldrink. When you touch the can, what does more accurately describe your experience:
a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”? With eyes closed, where does the cold appear?
Observe the order in which the details appear
2. Sit comfortably on a chair. Close your eyes and relax. Pay attention only to the feeling of your body. Just notice the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images. Keep your eyes closed and look:
Can it be known how tall the body is? Can you know its shape or form? Its weight? Its volume?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair? Is there actually “body touching chair”? At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation with thought supplying “body”, “chair”, “contact”, “here”, “there”? Is it "my" body/sensations, or just sensations?
Can you find an actual boundary where “body” ends and everything else begins?
Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?
What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
Can the 'body' do things?
You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, walking, lying down, etc) before replying. Now bring attention to the head.
Without touching it, can a head actually be found in direct experience?
Is there a face? A back of the head? A centre inside the skull where “Tetsuo” is located? Or are there sensations, sounds, perhaps visual darkness, and thoughts about a head?
Now place a finger on one side of the head and another finger on the other side. There are sensations.
Between those sensations, can anything actually be found? Or does thought say, “there must be a head between them”?
Look especially for the place where “I” seems to be.
Does the sense of being located somewhere have an actual location?
Can a boundary around that location be found?
Can a separate experiencer of the sensations be found?
Or are there simply sensations appearing?

Don’t rush this. Look a few times during the day and then answer:
When thought is not used to fill in the picture, what is the actual experience of “the body”?
Can a self be found in it?
Love
Rali

[Tetsuo]

Hello Rali

Is that merely because you looked and failed to find one? Is there a separate entity — “Tetsuo”, “me”, “I”, self — anywhere, in any way, shape or form?

Yes – I looked and failed to find one.

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

B. more accurately describes my experience. The first thing that I experience is the sensation and then faint visual thoughts arise of my hands holdings the cold object. The sense of coldness seems to appear somewhere when the thought related to the experience arises. It is at that point that it feels like the coldness is happening where my hands are.

Can it be known how tall the body is? Can you know its shape or form? Its weight? Its volume?

Not if I am only referencing the sensations. When my eyes are closed, I would need to refer to thoughts (again, some abstract and visual), and those thoughts imply that those things can be known in experience.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

Not if I am only referencing raw experience; only if conceptual thinking occurs.

Is there actually “body touching chair”?

No, it isn’t actually. If my eyes are closed, it’s not “body touching chair”, it’s sensations.

At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation with thought supplying “body”, “chair”, “contact”, “here”, “there”? Is it "my" body/sensations, or just sensations?

It is really just sensation, no ‘here’ or ‘there’ or any other labels. But thoughts arise with reference to the felt sensations. For instance, there will be a vague visual thought of the way in which my left foot is resting on top of my right foot.

Can you find an actual boundary where “body” ends and everything else begins?

Not with my eyes closed.

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

No, those would be concepts and ideas getting referenced again.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
Can the 'body' do things?

It is the experience of sensations, pain, pleasure, tempurature. Can the body do things? I don’t know how to answer that, really.

Without touching it, can a head actually be found in direct experience?

No, there is just what is being seen.

Now place a finger on one side of the head and another finger on the other side. There are sensations. Between those sensations, can anything actually be found? Or does thought say, “there must be a head between them”?

It’s the same as above. It’s those sensations produced by the fingers, and then whatever is appearing in the visual field.

Does the sense of being located somewhere have an actual location? Can a boundary around that location be found?

Well, it seems like the centre of experience.

Can a separate experiencer of the sensations be found? Or are there simply sensations appearing?

There isn’t a seperate experiencer of sensations, just the sensations themselves.

When thought is not used to fill in the picture, what is the actual experience of “the body”?
Can a self be found in it?

The actual experience is that it’s just more content, not innately different from whatever else there is that happens to be occurring.

Some of these questions were difficult to answer. I felt like I was getting semantic satiation. It's probably because I'm tired I guess! I’ll revisit them tomorrow again, If I get the opportunity.

Thanks very much, Rali. I really appreciate it.

Tetsuo

[poppyseed]

Hi Tetsuo,
Good. There is quite a lot of clear seeing here. I liked this:

It is really just sensation, no ‘here’ or ‘there’ or any other labels.

and:

There isn’t a separate experiencer of sensations, just the sensations themselves.

It is the experience of sensations, pain, pleasure, temperature.

Yes! The actual experience of the body is thought/label/description. Thought points to sensation and colour and labels it a ‘body’, but a body cannot be found as actual experience.

Let’s stay with the one place where something still seems to remain:

Well, it seems like the centre of experience.

Seems like, feels like = thought content
Nothing in DE is “seems like” or “feels like” – it’s either here clear as a day or not.
So let’s explore that sense…Don’t try to get rid of it, just examine it very closely.
Right now, notice the sense of being located somewhere.
Where exactly is that location? Behind the eyes? In the head? In the chest? Somewhere else?
Now look beneath the label.
What is actually there before thought says “here”, “head”, “behind the eyes”, “centre”?
Is there a sensation? Pressure (sensation)? Tension (sensation)?
A vague mental image (thought)? A thought/label/description? Some combination of these?
Does the sensation itself contain a location? Does it say “I am here”? Or is location added afterwards as a label?
You already noticed this with coldness - first sensation, then thought seems to place it “in the hands”. So look at this “centre” in the same way.
Is “centre” actually experienced? Or is there experience, and then thought adds a spatial position to it?
And centre in relation to what? For there to be a centre, there would need to be edges, wouldn’t there?
Is there actually a left side of experience? A right side? A front? A back? A top? A bottom?
Where are those boundaries found?
With eyes closed, without referring to an image of the body, can “left” and “right” actually be found?
Or are there simply sensations and sounds, with thought arranging them into a spatial map?
Look carefully at this:
What makes one sensation “over here” and another sensation “over there” before thought labels them that way?
Now let’s go a little deeper into the body, because you said:

Can the body do things?

I don’t know how to answer that, really.

That’s fine. Let’s make it more concrete.
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

[Tetsuo]

Where exactly is that location? Behind the eyes? In the head? In the chest? Somewhere else?

It is behind the eyes.

What is actually there before thought says “here”, “head”, “behind the eyes”, “centre”?
Is there a sensation? Pressure (sensation)? Tension (sensation)?
A vague mental image (thought)? A thought/label/description? Some combination of these?

It is a sensation of pressure, but it is not stable; it fluctuates and moves location.

Does the sensation itself contain a location? Does it say “I am here”? Or is location added afterwards as a label?

The sensation itself doesn’t occupy a fixed location. When I focus my tension on the region behind the eyes, it appears to be there. However, if I don’t do that, a fixed location cannot be identified. It also seems to be an inference that is made not only from the sensation, but sensation in conjunction with sight and the visual field.

Is “centre” actually experienced? Or is there experience, and then thought adds a spatial position to it? And centre in relation to what? For there to be a centre, there would need to be edges, wouldn’t there? Is there actually a left side of experience? A right side? A front? A back? A top? A bottom?
Where are those boundaries found?

Experience is happening but a clearly defined centre cannot be determined. In the absence of referencing thought and labels, boundaries cannot be found either. Same with left, right, up, and down. All of those distinctions are concept that seem to divide up experience, which cannot be divided.

With eyes closed, without referring to an image of the body, can “left” and “right” actually be found? Or are there simply sensations and sounds, with thought arranging them into a spatial map?

Neither left nor right can be found. There is just sounds and sensations.

What makes one sensation “over here” and another sensation “over there” before thought labels them that way?

Before thought maps out felt sensations, they are not ‘over here’ and ‘over there’. They are happening but I think that is all that could be said without moving away from direct experience.

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?

They have nothing to do with one another. As you said, though, thoughts referencing both sensations and the image of my reflection could suggest that they are connected.

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?

No. They are both happening, but they don’t have a direct relationship with one another. The sense of there being one is inferred through thought.

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?

Only thoughts suggest it. But not verbal thoughts, but more like thoughts on the level of belief. After a few moments of conducting that experiment, I could see that there is the image of my hand and there are sensations, but they are not the same thing and they are not connected.

5. Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror. Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’? Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all? Or are there only colours and shapes?

The image itself doesn’t suggest that it is me or my body. The image itself doesn’t suggest that it is a body, but thoughts very quickly recognise and identify it as such.

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?

No, there isn’t any knowledge that there must be legs. That would just be thought and images adding onto the experience.

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?

No body can be found if I do that. There is just what is appearing in the visual field, sound, and sensations.

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

There are just sensations and occasional visual thoughts of a faint outline of the legs (for example).

Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all? Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?

There is experience, which is constantly changing. But there is not ‘an experience of walking’ until thought identifies it as such.

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

Just thoughts about a body. Because there are sensations and there are images (of the body). But that is it.

Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

Only as a concept.

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?

Yes, like that. For sensations to be localised, that would be inferred from thought and mental images.

Thank you very much, Rali.

Kind regards,
Tetsuo

[poppyseed]

Hi Tetsuo,
Excellent. This is very clear:

Experience is happening but a clearly defined centre cannot be determined.

Before thought maps out felt sensations, they are not ‘over here’ and ‘over there’.

No body can be found if I do that. There is just what is appearing in the visual field, sound, and sensations.

Same with left, right, up, and down. All of those distinctions are concept that seem to divide up experience, which cannot be divided.

Yes! The location is a label meant to describe/differentiate the experience, not something that could actually be found. It’s important to see this distinction as labels are useful, but not something found in reality. I suppose 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?

So let’s now look at choice, intention and doing.

If the intention weren’t there, I don’t think the pleasant thought would have arisen.

Let’s examine that distinction very closely.
When there is an “intention” to move the hand, what is that in actual experience?
Is there anything there apart from thought?
Perhaps it is non-verbal. Perhaps it appears as an impulse. Perhaps it is very quick.
But can an intention be found independently of thought?
Or is “intention” simply a label for a certain kind of thought?
Let’s 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.
Before the thought to raise that hand appears, did you know which part of the hand it would be? Did you choose that thought? Could you have produced a different thought at that exact moment?
Does the thought actually move the hand? Can any mechanism be found by which the thought causes the movement? Or is there simply thought, then movement?
Look for the exact point where steps in.
Can a controller be found?

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? Before the thought “I’ll have this one” appears, did you choose that thought?
At what exact point does “Tetsuo” enter the process and make the choice? Can that point be found? And if no chooser can be found, then look carefully at these statements: “I chose.”/ “I decided.” / “I intended.” / “I did it.”
What do those words actually refer to in experience?
Is there an “I” performing those functions? Or do thoughts, preferences, decisions and actions happen, followed by thought claiming: “I did that”?

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

[Tetsuo]

Hello Rali,

When there is an “intention” to move the hand, what is that in actual experience?
Is there anything there apart from thought? Perhaps it is non-verbal. Perhaps it appears as an impulse. Perhaps it is very quick. But can an intention be found independently of thought? Or is “intention” simply a label for a certain kind of thought?

Intention is a non-verbal thought that occurs before an action is made. It certainly is different from or other than thought. When conducting this experiment, there were instances, often initially, where a subtle intention could be observed. However, while paying attention to my hands, that impulse wasn’t continuously observable throughout the duration of me moving my hands. So, certainly for this exercise, when an impulse could be noticed, it was subtle and not ongoing. But, those impulse-thoughts were non-verbal. So yes, intention is simply a label for a certain type of thought.

How is the movement controlled? Does a thought control it?

That doesn’t seem to be the case. I was really trying to notice whether there were thoughts that instigated the process of moving the hand – I couldn’t pick up on them. I switched hands at one point and immediately before doing so, I notice a very quick non-verbal ‘impulse-thought’. Likewise, I also noticed the same thing when choosing to produce a different motion with my hands. However, during that period where those movements were taking place, I couldn’t notice thought controlling it (sorry if I’m repeating myself).

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

At one point, there was a subtle, non-verbal thought to the effect of ‘maybe, I should produce a different motion with my hands to see if a ‘controller’ can be detected’. I could notice a subtle ‘intention-thought’, but not a controller entity.

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.

I don’t think I could reasonably make the claim that the thought made the decision to turn the hand over. After all, there were instances in which similar thoughts arose and yet, no seemingly corresponding action was taken on the basis of those thoughts. What can be said though is that there were instances where before an occasion where I turned my hands over, the impulse-thought could be noticed. Sometimes, however, there would be a delay. By which I mean, the thought to conduct the experiment once again would arise, and then five seconds (or so) would elapse before the movement would occur. What’s more, I would repeatedly turn my hand over for perhaps ten to thirty seconds. The more time that elapsed while watching my hand move, the more difficult any impulse-thoughts were to track or even observe. In fact, once or twice, I think actually, the I started moving my hand over to my desk (where I was conducting the experiment), and very quickly after, the apparent ‘impulse-thought’ arose.

Before the thought to raise that hand appears, did you know which part of the hand it would be? Did you choose that thought? Could you have produced a different thought at that exact moment?

No. The thought coming before the raising or moving of the hand would be non-specific. I would only know precisely what way in which the hand would move when the movement occurred.

Does the thought actually move the hand? Can any mechanism be found by which the thought causes the movement? Or is there simply thought, then movement?

There is simply thought, then movement.

Can a controller be found?

No.

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?

Preferences arose but I didn’t choose those preferences or choose to make them arise.

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’?

I didn’t directly experience an entity doing the choosing. There was the thinking related to counting the thoughts, and then thoughts intermittently evaluating the objects. I didn’t choose the sequence of events. There was a quick, subtle, non-verbal thought of ‘oh, maybe I shouldn’t try to anticipate’ and ‘maybe I should just focus on counting’. I didn’t choose those thoughts, though. And they were about other thoughts.

In step 3 where you made a choice, did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does it look like? Before the thought “I’ll have this one” appears, did you choose that thought?

The thoughts were influenced my preferences, so I can’t say that I chose the thought before it arose.

At what exact point does “Tetsuo” enter the process and make the choice? Can that point be found? And if no chooser can be found, then look carefully at these statements: “I chose.”/ “I decided.” / “I intended.” / “I did it.”

I couldn’t find a definitive point where ‘I’ entered the process; just subtle non-verbal ‘impulse-thoughts’ weighing up the options. But even then, the opposite action could have been taken.

What do those words actually refer to in experience?

They only thing they refer to is concepts and ideas. They are self-referential.

Is there an “I” performing those functions? Or do thoughts, preferences, decisions and actions happen, followed by thought claiming: “I did that”?

I couldn’t find an ‘I’ performing those functions. They just happen and then thought thinks and talks about what was just done.

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 last major decision that I made was moving to a different apartment. Even if I were to like or dislike an apartment that I came across, that wasn’t something I had direct control over, as it was due to preference. Actions were taken to pursue certain apartments, but I couldn’t control what happened on the basis of me doing those things. Had the conditions changed, the situation could have unfolded differently.

As always, thank you very much, Rali.

Kind regards,
Tetsuo

[poppyseed]

Hi Tetsuo,
Very good. This is becoming quite clear.

I couldn’t find an ‘I’ performing those functions. They just happen and then thought thinks and talks about what was just done.

Have a closer look at that last part.
Can thought actually think? Can thought talk about something?
Or is there simply one thought appearing, followed by another thought appearing?
For example, an “action” happens. Then a thought appears: “I did that.” Then perhaps another thought appears explaining why it happened.
Is there anything there doing the thinking? Or is “thought thinks” itself another way a thinker gets smuggled back in?
Can you find a thinker behind thought — even one called “thought”?

There are just a couple of other places where explanation seems to creep back in.

The thoughts were influenced by my preferences

Look carefully. A preference (still a thought, maybe a sensation) appears. A thought appears.
Can “influence” itself actually be experienced? Can you see the preference doing something to the thought? Or are there simply a preference and a thought, followed by another thought describing a relationship between them?
The same applies to:

the opposite action could have been taken.

Could it?
Don’t answer logically. At the exact moment that particular action happened, where is the other action that supposedly could have happened?
Can an alternative action be found anywhere except in thought now?
For example, if the right hand moved, “I could have moved the left hand” is a thought appearing after the fact.
Does that demonstrate that two genuinely available possibilities existed at that moment?
Or does it only demonstrate that another outcome can now appear as thought?
Look at an actual "choice" as it happens. One option happens.
Can a second, unrealised option be found anywhere in experience?
Now this:

There is simply thought, then movement.

Good. But even “then” deserves a look. Thought appears. Movement appears.
Can anything actually be found joining them together?
Does the thought contain an instruction that physically operates the body?
Can the movement be seen obeying the thought?
You already noticed something important: sometimes the so-called impulse-thought comes before movement, sometimes there is a delay, sometimes a similar thought appears and no corresponding action follows, and occasionally movement has already begun when the thought appears.
So what evidence is there that thought is running the show?
Apart from the inquiry, you might find that video interesting:
https://vimeo.com/90101368?fbclid=IwAR3

The last major decision that I made was moving to a different apartment. Even if I were to like or dislike an apartment that I came across, that wasn’t something I had direct control over, as it was due to preference. Actions were taken to pursue certain apartments, but I couldn’t control what happened on the basis of me doing those things. Had the conditions changed, the situation could have unfolded differently.

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 (preferences). 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/shape labelled “hands moving”.
So, what makes the sensations to appear? What makes seeing to appear? LOOK! Is there anything that causes anything to appear? Do cause and effect exist outside of thought content?
Thought comes to describe that things are happening and why they are happening, but in DE things are just happening. Is the description/explanation/label needed for things to happen?

Love
Rali

[Tetsuo]

Hi Rali,

Sorry for the late response. My work days are long, making it challenging sometimes to reply daily. I always read through the responses and think about them throughout the day, though.

Can thought actually think? Can thought talk about something?
Or is there simply one thought appearing, followed by another thought appearing?

Right, yeah. There is just one thought followed by another thought.

Is there anything there doing the thinking? Or is “thought thinks” itself another way a thinker gets smuggled back in?
Can you find a thinker behind thought — even one called “thought”?

There is thought, but a thinker behind thought cannot be found. "Thought thinks" does smuggle a thinker back in.

Can “influence” itself actually be experienced? Can you see the preference doing something to the thought? Or are there simply a preference and a thought, followed by another thought describing a relationship between them?

Influence itself cannot be experienced. There is a preference and then a thought. Then, as you said, potentially another thought implying a connection between them.

At the exact moment that particular action happened, where is the other action that supposedly could have happened? Can an alternative action be found anywhere except in thought now?

The only place that a supposed alternative action can be found is as a thought.

Does that demonstrate that two genuinely available possibilities existed at that moment?
Or does it only demonstrate that another outcome can now appear as thought?

It doesn't demonstrate that two available possibilities existed because the sense of there being options to choose from were thoughts that were appearing. So there were thoughts and a action that was taken.

Does the thought contain an instruction that physically operates the body?
Can the movement be seen obeying the thought?

Movement cannot be seen to be obeying thought. There are instances I've observed where movement is happening and there are no thoughts that are 'deciding what movements to make'.

---

Thanks for sharing the video with me. I appreciate why he would have been so shocked by the result of the experiment.

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?

I think it is just happening.

Is the description/explanation/label needed for things to happen?

No, not at all.

If it weren't obvious, my responses are short because I'm really trying to stick to DE! I'm not usually this laconic.

Many thanks,
Tetsuo

[poppyseed]

Hi Tetsuo,
Beautiful. This is very clear. You’ve now looked through body, thought, thinker, intention, action, choice, control, and a real-life decision. Again and again, the same pattern is seen:
Something appears. Thought labels it. Thought may claim it, but no owner, thinker, chooser, controller, or doer can actually be found.
So now let’s see where the illusion still feels sticky.
What would you like to look at next?
Here are some of the usual places where “me” can still hide:
Attention/focus — what is it, what moves it, is there an observer
Time — past, future, waiting, becoming, “my life”, “my progress”.
Memory — “my childhood”, “my story”, “what happened to me”.
Others — relationships, approval, conflict, being judged, being seen.
Space — here/there, inside/outside, body/world, distance.
Emotions — fear, guilt, shame, pride, hurt, irritation.
Responsibility — work, decisions, consequences, “what I should or shouldn’t do”.
Awakening itself — “am I getting it?”, “will it last?”, “do I need to go deeper?”
Pick the one that feels most charged, most personal, or most unclear - not the one that is most interesting intellectually, the one that still feels most like me.
Where is Tetsuo still hiding?
Love
Rali

[Tetsuo]

Hi Rali,

Could we look into these?

- Attention/focus — what is it, what moves it, is there an observer
- Awakening itself — “am I getting it?”, “will it last?”, “do I need to go deeper?”

When I do the exercises that you've provided me (as well I when I inquire independently), I can consistently see what they are pointing to. For instance, I can observe that a self cannot be found that is doing the seeing. And yet, there is the belief that for whatever reason, there is something that I am still not getting; something that isn't clicking for me; something that is being overlooked. This lingering feeling of doubt and "I don't get it". Like, someone's told me a joke that I don't understand the punchline to.

Sorry for veering away from DE in this message. I just thought it might help to clarify why I chose the above two as topics to pursue further.

Thanks very much,
Tetsuo

[poppyseed]

Hi Tetsuo,
Thank you — and no need to apologise. What you wrote is very helpful.
This part stands out:

there is the belief that for whatever reason, there is something that I am still not getting; something that isn't clicking for me; something that is being overlooked.

Good! We’ll look directly at that, because this may be exactly where the “me” has moved to. First thing:

- Attention/focus — what is it, what moves it, is there an observer

Close your eyes and sit quietly for 10-15 minutes. Watch what focus does.
Can the thing called “attention”/”focus” be found?
Does attention have a shape, location, or boundary?
Can you see anything moving from one image to another, or from one thought to another?
Or is one image simply appearing, then another image is simply appearing, and thought says, “Attention moved from this image to that image”?
Can you choose what will be noticed next?
Sit quietly for a few minutes. Notice sounds, sensations, colours, and thoughts.
What decides which one becomes clear? Is there an entity moving it? Do you move it?
Can you decide what it will land on next? Or does a sound, sensation, image, or thought simply become prominent, and afterward thought says, “attention moved there”?
Hold focus on breath - see how it moves to thoughts, sensations, feelings, sounds.
Is this something you control? Is there anything more than sensation + thought that says “I’m doing this”?

What is looking/noticing/attention made of? There is what IS happening and the description of it. So is there separate looking apart from the description? What we call DE looking is a new way of describing things (DE labeles) / change in perception, or?
Try this now. Sit quietly and notice what becomes prominent next. A sound may stand out. Then a sensation. Then an image. Then a thought.
Was there a controller choosing the sequence?
Could the next focus be known before it happened?
Now look at the labels themselves. “Sensation,” “seeing,” and “thought” are useful words for describing experience (icons on your desktop).
But are three separate things actually found?
At this moment, can a boundary be found where seeing ends and sensation begins?
Can a boundary be found where sensation ends and thought begins?
Or are those divisions added afterward by thought for the sake of describing what happened?

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.

Now look at what we have been calling “focus” or “attention”.
If there are no separate things prior to thought labelling them, is there really a focus moving from one separate thing to another? Or one thing replacing another?
Or does what is happening simply vary in intensity or prominence, and thought describes those peaks afterwards as: “attention moved to the sound”/ “attention shifted to the sensation” / “now there is a thought”
It's like looking at a lava lamp. The wax may seem to change shape, and the shapes it seems to take may seem to be present one moment, and absent the next. But all that is known is the wax. Nothing actually changed and nothing was ever born or lost, although it may have seemed to. All that is known is THIS - nothing can be added to it, nor taken away.
Look directly.
Can an actual boundary be found between one “thing” and another? Can an actual movement of attention be found? Or is all of that part of the description added by thought?
So rather than there being separate objects plus attention travelling among them, is it closer to say that there is simply what is happening — with thought carving it into apparent parts and narrating changes in prominence?
Don’t adopt that as an answer. Check it.
What is actually found before the labels arrive?
And most importantly…
What happens with the observer? Can an observer of attention be found?
We will continue with the “awakening” and “doubt” next…
Love
Rali

[Tetsuo]

Hi Rali,

I’m really busy this week, so I’m going to focus on your post on Friday.

Many thanks and kind regards,
Tetsuo

[poppyseed]

Hi Tetsuo
Life happens :)... Thank you for letting me know!

Love
Rali