The Gate

Hi again

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How
does it work? What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

Experience in terms of action, choice and control feels very different to before. That part was a shock and is still reverberating so is early days. What is clear now is that actions unfold quite spontaneously, in dependence on conditions - sense experience, other actions, sometimes thoughts - that there is no 'me' making a decision to act, no 'me' choosing a course of action. The action happens and at the same time the thought arises 'I'll look at that wall' 'I want this for breakfast' or 'I'll get up now', the thought appropriates the action. This was totally unexpected, to see this.

The first time was at the order convention as I have said before, an exercise in trying to make my hand move that resulted in me looking in different places in the body to see if that was where my 'will' was, if there was a certain place in the head or the chest or the gut from where 'I' could move 'my' hand. That's what started the process. Then we started the guiding and the exercises clarified this even more.

Sometimes too there is a move to act and at the same time the thought 'I don't want to do it' 'why should I do that?' and there is hesitation, the moment at which previously there was either an internal struggle to decide what to do, or I would listen to the 'me' thought and not act. Now it feels always more straightforward to follow through with the action.

In DE there is no experience of anybody choosing, or of intention, or of being able to 'will' anything to happen. The intention to wish someone well for instance, or to be generous, only feels like it could be possible when acting as if the self is present.

The subject of responsibility feels difficult to be clear about, or at least dependent on what has prompted the action. In DE it feels straightforward just to act, as if action unfolds in harmony with the natural order, in harmony with the way things really are, much more so than when directed or resisted in some arbitrary way by a self that does not exist. So in DE it feels most accurate to say that no one is responsible, although that challenges the long held view that I am responsible for my actions. There is a sense of responsibility, but no clear sense of where it lies.

But at times when selfing is happening, acting as if the self is here, then it is clear that I will be responsible for my actions, that I will want to take responsibility. It is also clear that those will be the times when it is possible to act unethically, that there will be times then when I will want to apologise for something, to make amends.

That's it! Let me know if anything is still not clear.

Rip xx

Hi Rip!

All good.

No, sorry, that's not right. The wanting was there in the beginning of the process but it's not there now. In DE there is no sense of wanting. In the moment there is no sense of separation from anything else, no sense of lacking anything.

OK good, glad you clarified that, I misunderstood what you meant.

In DE it feels straightforward just to act, as if action unfolds in harmony with the natural order, in harmony with the way things really are, much more so than when directed or resisted in some arbitrary way by a self that does not exist.

Nice! :-)

I don't have any more questions, but will see if any of the other guides want to clarify anything further.

Taking a bow. It's been a joy
x H

Hi dear Hare

It has been such a joy for me too. I am just so grateful, so moved that this is something that we can do for one another, what an amazing thing. And yes sure let me know if any other questions.

Lots of love Rip xx

Hi again!

One of my guiding friends has a question:

'To whom will 'selfing' occur? Will someone be responsible?'

x H

Hi Hare

'To whom will 'selfing' occur? Will someone be responsible?'

Well although there is no one to whom 'selfing' happens, there is no one really here for that to happen to, at the same time it feels important to take responsibility for action that happens when acting as if the self is real.

Often 'selfing' is momentary and no action happens out of it, the selfing is seen, the thought is seen, and action unfolds spontaneously instead. At other times the selfing is not seen so quickly and action can happen out of it before it is seen. At those times it feels important to take responsibility, 'as if' the self is real, so that action that arises out of 'selfing' needs the 'selfing' to continue in order to take responsibility, just as long as that is needed. For example if I get angry and break something out of selfing, then I need to apologise, replace the thing, or whatever is necessary to make amends, as if the 'me' that had broken the thing is real. Not sure if that makes sense but it feels the most accurate to say right now!

Rip xx

Oh I have something to add to this on reflection: 'selfing' can only happen when the self believes it's real, so it is that 'self' that thinks it is real, momentarily or for longer, that 'selfing' happens to, and that same 'self' who is responsible.

By' taking responsibility', it looks like you mean acting ethically or skilfully - that is to say action based in empathy and connection rather than a sense of separation - please say if that iis not correct.

Is ethical or skilful action more or less likely to arise when the illusion of a seperate self is believed? Or when it is not believed? Look in DE and report back.

In the example given or other similar, is a response of wishing to make amends more or less likely to arise if self-view continues to be believed?
Does skilful action require a separate self to make it happen? Look.
The Buddha seems to have been a highly skilful, one might even say 'responsible' being, yet he had no belief in a separate self.
Who or what iis this self that believes it is real?

bear in mind that we aren't here to work out the metaphysics of this stuff! Just to observe what cam be diin DE and what is simply thought, view or ideas inis DE

Apologies, struggling to type on phone! Ignore last two words after ideas! X

Should have said observe what can be seen in DE and what is thoughts, belief, ideas.
X H

Hi Hare

By' taking responsibility', it looks like you mean acting ethically or skilfully - that is to say action based in empathy and connection rather than a sense of separation - please say if that iis not correct.

Yes that is what I mean by that.

Is ethical or skilful action more or less likely to arise when the illusion of a seperate self is believed? Or when it is not believed? Look in DE and report back.

When the illusion of a separate self is seen through, action unfolds spontaneously in dependence on conditions and feels more naturally ethical or skilful.

In the example given or other similar, is a response of wishing to make amends more or less likely to arise if self-view continues to be believed?

No, more likely to arise if self view is NOT believed. In DE action is more naturally skilful as above and unfolds out of the experience of connection rather than separateness. Sorry for confusion on this - as you say perhaps too much thinking has been happening to try and 'make sense of' this question. Some confusion about the fact that experience can move in and out of DE, in and out of 'selfing' moment to moment, even if DE is always available, always possible. But selfing cannot make the self real! Fortunately.

Does skilful action require a separate self to make it happen? Look.

No, definitely not! Much more likely to happen without believing in a separate self. It is possible to have an intention to act skilfully even when the self is believed, but that arises out of the view of separateness, so may not be skilful at all.

Who or what is this self that believes it is real?

It is just thought, just an idea. In DE there is nothing there but that. So it feels more true to say, based in experience, that there is nothing that 'selfing' happens to.

bear in mind that we aren't here to work out the metaphysics of this stuff! Just to observe what can be seen in DE and what is simply thought, view or ideas

Ok so the confusion arose because I answered that last question through trying to think about it rather than from experience. It has been really helpful to look again and see what is happening in the moment.

In DE action unfolds, feels more naturally skilful and uncomplicated by the illusion of a separated self. When 'selfing' occurs, the thoughts and ideas are believed and I act as if the self is real, but there is still no self here that it happens to, it still isn't real. In effect no one is responsible, there is just a flow of conditions that continues.

In DE it feels like to say 'I need to take responsibility' is an act of making myself separate, interrupting the natural flow of action, imposing something onto it. So that doesn't feel right anymore.

Rip xx

Hi again!

Thanks for these responses.

Does skilful action require a separate self to make it happen? Look.


No, definitely not! Much more likely to happen without believing in a separate self. It is possible to have an intention to act skilfully even when the self is believed, but that arises out of the view of separateness, so may not be skilful at all.

Interesting! Dropping the illusion of self changes things: some aspects of 'spiritual practice' that were previously seen as necessary may now be seen to be reinforcing separation, as you note:

In DE it feels like to say 'I need to take responsibility' is an act of making myself separate, interrupting the natural flow of action, imposing something onto it. So that doesn't feel right anymore.

Good! (I find the process of clarification keeps on unfolding! Partly why I love and benefit so much from guiding :-)

I have some more questions for clarification from fellow guides, as follows:

"just a little clarification. Rip says: "In DE it feels straightforward just to act, as if action unfolds in harmony with the natural order, in harmony with the way things really are, much more so than when directed or resisted in some arbitrary way by a self that does not exist."
This sentence indicates a dichotomy between 'acting from DE" and "acting from 'selfing' mode" (for lack of a better term. )
Does Rip see:
1. a non-existent self being able to act?
2. any difference in the way 'reality unfolds' whether 'in DE' or 'what-else-is-there'?
3. two existential states: 'DE' and 'some-other-state'?
Thanks."

And also:

Rip says ‘'selfing' can only happen when the self believes it's real’. What self is there to believe in selfing? Do we have two selves here? Rip also says ‘At other times the selfing is not seen so quickly and action can happen out of it before it is seen’. Does action spring out of a selfing thought?

Thanks!

Love x H

Hi Hare

Yes! Really interesting, the whole process and what is different, what arises out of this experience.

"just a little clarification. Rip says: "In DE it feels straightforward just to act, as if action unfolds in harmony with the natural order, in harmony with the way things really are, much more so than when directed or resisted in some arbitrary way by a self that does not exist."

This sentence indicates a dichotomy between 'acting from DE" and "acting from 'selfing' mode" (for lack of a better term. )

Does Rip see:
1. a non-existent self being able to act?

Not really. There is just action, unfolding in accordance with conditions. No sense of a self, either existent or not. So not really like a non-existent self acting - just action. At other times there is 'selfing', and that does have an effect on action, but not as the 'self' acting either. There is more about that in the very last question below.

2. any difference in the way 'reality unfolds' whether 'in DE' or 'what-else-is-there'?

No, reality unfolds just as it is, whether 'selfing' is happening or not. When selfing is happening there is still DE, the present moment is unfolding just the same, but as well as that there are selfing thoughts arising, and feeling and sometimes emotion arising out of that, and then action can arise out of that emotion.

3. two existential states: 'DE' and 'some-other-state'?

No there is not an experience of two different states, there is just DE, the present moment. The present moment is always there in experience, always available. Selfing can arise but reality continues to unfold at the same time whether selfing is happening or not. Experience is seamless whatever is happening.

Rip says ‘'selfing' can only happen when the self believes it's real’. What self is there to believe in selfing? Do we have two selves here?

No there is no self here that believes in itself. That was an attempt to answer by thinking instead of experiencing! It seems more accurate to say that selfing thoughts happen, and along with that, feeling. If the selfing thought is not seen for what it is then emotion arises out of that feeling, as in the next question, and action can arise out of that. So it is not necessary for the self to believe it is real. Rather than belief it is more like emotion arises in response to thought and feeling, and the emotion can generate its own momentum.

Rip also says ‘At other times the selfing is not seen so quickly and action can happen out of it before it is seen’.

Does action spring out of a selfing thought?

No I have not experienced that. Selfing thoughts have an effect on action, but not directly - it seems more accurate to say that. A selfing thought arises that may try to 'own' an action that is already happening, for example 'I want to do that' or instead a thought arises 'I don't want to do that' or 'I should do this instead'. That can have the effect of hesitation or confusion, until the thought is seen and the action continues to unfold either as it was, or modified by something else arising out of experience.

This is still unfolding in experience and will probably continue to get clearer. But it feels like selfing thoughts don't have direct effect on action, more like they result in other things arising, other thoughts, feeling, emotion, and that further action arises out of those conditions.

The way selfing thoughts affect action can sometimes feel like trying to slow down or turn something that already has momentum. At other times it is more obvious that a selfing thought has for example resulted in irritation arising, and action based on 'selfing' can arise out of that irritation.

Rip xx

Hi Rip,

Rip says ‘'selfing' can only happen when the self believes it's real’. What self is there to believe in selfing? Do we have two selves here?


No there is no self here that believes in itself. That was an attempt to answer by thinking instead of experiencing!

Yes. Well spotted.

But then you go on:

It seems more accurate to say that selfing thoughts happen, and along with that, feeling. If the selfing thought is not seen for what it is then emotion arises out of that feeling, as in the next question, and action can arise out of that. So it is not necessary for the self to believe it is real. Rather than belief it is more like emotion arises in response to thought and feeling, and the emotion can generate its own momentum.

...which reads more like a reasoned 'theory of selfing' than simple looking in the moment. The last three paragraphs likewise have more the flavour of 'thinking rather than experiencing': thought trying to explain 'selfing'.

The difference between thought and direct looking can be subtle and easily missed, but is absolutely crucial in this process. Do the following simple, direct observation in the moment. Just LOOK. No theorising please.

Look at something in the room where you are now, taking in the colour, shape and so on. Now close your eyes and visualise the object as accurately as you can.

The first part of that is direct experience - sensations of colour, light etc directly coming through the sense of sight. The second is imagined in mind. Compare the two and report back. Observe, don't try to explain.

Now bring to mind your left foot. Locate it in space, get a sense of the shape, position and so on. Notice if there is a subtle picturing of an image of the foot - mind bringing a way of explaining what the label 'left foot' is thought to refer to.

Now tune in directly, purely with the sensations in that part of the body. Do they have a shape and position that matches the image of 'left foot?'

Direct experience is just that - not commentary in mind.

Again, directly, experientially, compare these two and report back.


Direct pointing is all about looking: what can be directly experienced in the moment. Don't be in a hurry to pin it down, let what you observe be as it is, simply, without having to immediately jump to explaining how it all works. Thought will try to do that of course. Watch it trying to make sense of experience. Do you see how identifying with that process in thought closes experience down? Let experience be unexplained; open.

Also:

Two of the guides who asked questions previously are seeking further clarification:

Again, look - don't explain:

1. Question: Does action spring out of a selfing thought?
Rip's answer: "No I have not experienced that."
OK, that's clear. And then: "Selfing thoughts have an effect on action, but not directly - it seems more accurate to say that."
So which is it?

2. In direct experience, is there any tangible, verifiable cause and effect link between a selfing thought and an emotion or an action can be seen, or is that link assumed?

x H

Hi Hare

Ok, I see what you are saying.

Look at something in the room where you are now, taking in the colour, shape and so on. Now close your eyes and visualise the object as accurately as you can.

The first part of that is direct experience - sensations of colour, light etc directly coming through the sense of sight. The second is imagined in mind. Compare the two and report back. Observe, don't try to explain.

OK. The object directly seen has colour, shape, light and shadow. It is vivid, detailed and clear. The object in imagination has shape, some sense of colour and light and shadow, but is not very clear or vivid. It isn't the same as what is seen.

Now bring to mind your left foot. Locate it in space, get a sense of the shape, position and so on. Notice if there is a subtle picturing of an image of the foot - mind bringing a way of explaining what the label 'left foot' is thought to refer to.

Now tune in directly, purely with the sensations in that part of the body. Do they have a shape and position that matches the image of 'left foot?'

No, they don't. When experienced directly there is just sensation, no sense of boundary or shape, not even of position in space. Just sensation.

Again, directly, experientially, compare these two and report back.

When the foot is imagined there is a definite image, shape, position on the end of my leg and inside my boot, position in space relative to the floor. Experienced directly there are none of these things - sensation expands outwards, the image falls away, and there is just sensation.

Direct pointing is all about looking: what can be directly experienced in the moment. Don't be in a hurry to pin it down, let what you observe be as it is, simply, without having to immediately jump to explaining how it all works. Thought will try to do that of course. Watch it trying to make sense of experience. Do you see how identifying with that process in thought closes experience down?

Yes. It narrows things to what is known from previous experience or thinking, or to what is expected. It is helpful to be reminded. As you say it is constantly happening. What has helped the most through this process is to be reminded that that will happen (thought trying to make sense of) and to just watch it happening. This whole area of selfing has resulted in a lot of thinking and a lot of confusion! Mainly because it isn't possible to figure it out, make sense of it.

Let experience be unexplained; open.

That helps!

Two of the guides who asked questions previously are seeking further clarification. Again, look - don't explain:

1. Question: Does action spring out of a selfing thought?
Rip's answer: "No I have not experienced that."
OK, that's clear. And then: "Selfing thoughts have an effect on action, but not directly - it seems more accurate to say that."
So which is it?

When I look I don't see the thoughts affecting action. There are selfing thoughts, and there may be chains of thoughts, as well as feeling and sometimes stronger emotion. And there is action. But in DE there is no link that can be seen between the thoughts and the action.

2. In direct experience, is there any tangible, verifiable cause and effect link between a selfing thought and an emotion or an action can be seen, or is that link assumed?

No, in DE the link can't be seen. That link has been assumed, trying to 'make sense of' what is happening. It is not clear how selfing works, just that thought, feeling and emotion arise, and that action happens.

Rip xx

Hi Rip,

Ok this is more experiential; less thought-based. Stay with what is directly, straightforwardly observed, with no speculation or conceptualisation added on. just look.

Some further clarification requested here from a couple of the other guides:

Rip, earlier you wrote:
"No there is not an experience of two different states, there is just DE, the present moment... Selfing can arise but reality continues to unfold at the same time whether selfing is happening or not."
Then in the previous post:
"When I look I don't see the thoughts affecting action. There are selfing thoughts, and there may be chains of thoughts, as well as feeling and sometimes stronger emotion. And there is action." Some assuming here but generally OK. Then:
"But in DE there is no link that can be seen between the thoughts and the action." 'BUT?' This suggests a "link can be seen between the thoughts and the action." in 'some state other than DE'.
If as stated earlier "reality continues to unfold whether selfing is happening or not" how can there be a 'but' between DE and...?
Thank you.

And a further couple of questions from me:

Can anything at all be observed or seen, in any way, other than through direct experience?

Can "selfing" be found, now, in direct experience? Look.

Just a reminder that experience may not appear that different as a result of this inquiry: habits, including the habit of getting caught into the content of thoughts and ideas, most likely roll on. It's about a shift in view, not an ongoing shift in experience. Like the recognition one day that Santa is just a fictional character. The view has changed: the child won't ever go back to believing that Santa is real. But they will still experience excitement, disappointment and all the usual stuff.

x H