I've exhausted the search, now it's time to be real

[poppyseed]

Hi TK

Take your time with the pointers and please let me know if you struggle with any specific pointers so I can point further or clarify

Love
Rali

[tk12443]

Hi Rali:

It felt strange going back and answering some of these again - seeing the shift is funny - hopefully you can gauge where I am today.

I watched the video twice and a couple others from that channel. I would say I get it but there is no I, no me to get it. Never was anything to get. Never was a path. Never needed to wake up. Nothing to wake up from. There is no enlightenment. No people. No subjects, no objects, just THIS.

But LOOK if awareness cannot be separated from its objects then is there such a ‘thing’ as awareness and such a ‘thing’ as thoughts/colours/sounds, etc.?

No, no such “things”.

If they are the same – one – how can you experience awareness on its own and describe it with the senses?

You can’t.

Is there a listener who hears a sound or just the experience of hearing?

There is no listener.

When you say that awareness exists without an object, how is this experienced?

That was incorrect. There are no objects, no forms. Awareness appears to carve out objects. There appears to be awareness and there appears to be objects but both objects and awareness do not inherently exist.

Even with your eyes closed, there is still red light coming through the eye lids. Even in a complete darkness (like in a sensory deprivation tank) there are still sensations of a heart beating, breathing – aliveness. Is it possible to experience awareness alone? Please describe the DE of it.

It is not possible to experience awareness alone. Awareness does not exist.

There is a noticing/noting/knowing/being aware of an experience ( thinking, sensing, smelling, etc), which hopefully you can see.

Yes.

But are the senses and the knowing of them separate or it’s all one inseparable knowing(aware)_hearing_seeing_thinking_smelling_tasting_sensing (THIS)?

The are inseparable. It’s all inseparable. THIS.

Are you trying to replace the small “self’ with a big ‘Self’?

Yes, I see how I replaced the small self with the big self. That was incorrect because there is still a self. There is no self. Just THIS

Do you see how thought “wants’ to appropriate experiences and create a story?

Yes, that is the nature of thought. Thoughts can also create stories without an experience.

Is it possible that what you are without thinking is just an absence of a ‘you’?

Yes. There is no me with thinking and no me without thinking.

[poppyseed]

Hi TK

It felt strange going back and answering some of these again - seeing the shift is funny - hopefully you can gauge where I am today.

Yes!! I can see it :) I’m really happy with your answers!!!

Do you see how thought “wants’ to appropriate experiences and create a story?

Yes, that is the nature of thought. Thoughts can also create stories without an experience.

Very good observation!

Let’s carry on and have a look at the idea of control, choice and decisions. Please explore the three exercises below and report your findings

1. Hold a hand in front of you; palm turned down. Now turn the palm up. And down...and up and so on.
2. Put two objects that you like in front of you (e.g. a cup of coffee and a glass of juice), then pick up one or the other, while paying attention to the whole process of choosing.
Play with these two exercises. 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…
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.

3. Can you take me through a decision that you made recently - not something very personal so you share more details about it? 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 give me some details about your decision making...
Love
Rali

[tk12443]

Hi Rali! Thanks again :)

I’d like to say to start, that in the past, I had held the belief that all this free will debate culture was not that interesting and even a little boring. I have sat with this exercise today for a couple of hours spread out across the morning with a few other activities sprinkled in here and there. I tried to stay 100% honest and I have tried to not go back and delete whole passages or edit wordings so you can better see where this led me. Doesn’t actually feel like I’ve been led anywhere since there is nowhere to be led and …

Let’s carry on and have a look at the idea of control, choice and decisions. Please explore the three exercises below and report your findings

This first instruction is to look at the idea of control, choice, and decisions. Initially, the word idea points to a thought. Thoughts about control, choices, and decisions. All four of these things (thoughts, control, choices, and decisions) do not exist so I feel the need to bounce between relative and ultimate answering.

1. Hold a hand in front of you; palm turned down. Now turn the palm up. And down...and up and so on.
2. Put two objects that you like in front of you (e.g. a cup of coffee and a glass of juice), then pick up one or the other, while paying attention to the whole process of choosing.
Play with these two exercises. 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…

How is the movement controlled?

The movements can be controlled by thoughts and the movements can be controlled not by thoughts. Or to refine the second part - a thought can slice so thin, appear so fast that is arises and dissolves and causes movement just ahead of knowing(aware)_hearing_seeing_thinking_smelling_tasting_sensing (THIS). But control isn’t really what’s happening - movement just is.

Using memory/thought, I can recall an experience where I was walking on a trail in the woods and was semi-focused on a conversation with another person and semi-focused on bending down to clear tree branches and limbs from the trail. Suddenly, flashed a sound of a rattlesnake and my body felt an instantaneous startle reflex that seemed to precede the awareness of what had just happened. Very quickly after the visceral freeze/flight reaction, thoughts appeared that equated the sound of the rattle to a dangerous concept that needed to be avoided immediately. This is what I am referring to when I answer that movement can be controlled not by thoughts. Perhaps there is still thought on some level but it happens so fast that it can initiate a survival instinct just prior to knowing. The “thought” in this example is just information, just energy, just is.

With all that said…within the one, there is no control, there is nothing separate to control, there is nothing separate to play the controller, there is no movement, there was never a snake, there are no thoughts, there just is. Snaking appeared.

Does a thought control it?

There is no thought, no control, nothing to control, no controller.

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

No.

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.

The decision is not made. There is not a decision and there is nothing separate to make a decision. There is no hand to turn over. There is just…

3. Can you take me through a decision that you made recently - not something very personal so you share more details about it?

I just decided to write about a decision I made earlier in this exercise to get up to pee. I was focusing attention on this process, thinking, typing, looking, etc. and a thought appeared that said (but not so much “said”, more like communicated) that a sensation of a full bladder had just been detected and that it wouldn’t go away until I emptied said bladder. Another thought led me to disengage from the exercise and begin to activate a bunch of different muscles needed to push the stool away and get the body moving towards the bathroom.

After that and many other thoughts/activities such as shipping a painting and mowing the lawn, I then experienced a chain of thoughts that resulted in the decision to use this peeing example of making a decision to answer this particular question.

With all that said, there is no decision. There is no one to make a decision, there aren’t things to decide over. There is no me deciding. There is no me not deciding.

How did it come to be? Consider all of the conditions that were necessary for it to happen.

Deciding just arose. It would be impossible to consider all of the conditions that were necessary for anything to happen because there are no independent conditions - nothing to consider. There just is. No past, no future, no nothing, no everything.

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 give me some details about your decision making...

There are no conditions and there is no control in this moment or a past moment. There must also be no outcomes and no influence, there just is. Control is what seekers seek but it turns out that there is no control and there never was seeking.

[poppyseed]

Hi TK
I can’t avoid to notice that your answers sway between describing your DE and describing the thought reasoning that comes along. Just an observation. As long as you are clear about that, there is no problem…

The movements can be controlled by thoughts and the movements can be controlled not by thoughts. Or to refine the second part - a thought can slice so thin, appear so fast that is arises and dissolves and causes movement just ahead of knowing(aware)_hearing_seeing_thinking_smelling_tasting_sensing (THIS). But control isn’t really what’s happening - movement just is.

I think it’s time to address the elephant in the room :). When you say “the movement can be controlled by thoughts…”, can a thought do anything, can a thought think (consider stuff), see, hear, taste, etc? Can any of the other senses do anything? Is there a link (relationship) between the senses, or the senses and thinking? Or ask it in a different way, do cause and effect exist without thought content?

I can give you an exercise to explore:
Exercise:
1. Sit comfortably on a chair. Close your eyes. Lift your leg and pay attention to the sensation of “leg lifted”
2. Open your eyes and now pay attention to the sight of the leg only.
3. While looking at the leg, pay attention to the sensation of the leg.
Do sight and sensation appear simultaneously? Do they appear separately? Do they depend on each other? Is there a link between them?
Can the senses be isolated without thought content? Is the knowing of each of them separate or it’s knowing of seeing_hearing_tasting_sensing_smelling_thinking / experience?

Also, you might find this video interesting
https://vimeo.com/90101368?fbclid=IwAR3

We can also examine time and space, which are kind of linked to this, but one thing at a time…
Love
Rali

[tk12443]

I can’t avoid to notice that your answers sway between describing your DE and describing the thought reasoning that comes along. Just an observation. As long as you are clear about that, there is no problem…

I am clean on this. I purposely shared the thought reasoning with you so that you could see the thinking.

The movements can be controlled by thoughts and the movements can be controlled not by thoughts. Or to refine the second part - a thought can slice so thin, appear so fast that is arises and dissolves and causes movement just ahead of knowing(aware)_hearing_seeing_thinking_smelling_tasting_sensing (THIS). But control isn’t really what’s happening - movement just is.

Before I go on with today's exercises, I'd like some language clarification. And by the way, I watched the video with the brain scan - 6 or 7 seconds is such a huge amount of time!

I understand that within our human experience, there is brain activity that is expressed "consciously" and/or "unconsciously". There are structurally distinct regions of our brains that have evolved over time. During this evolutionary process, some of the functions that the body needs to survive have been programmed into the "unconscious" parts of our brain and we share these parts with other mammals - ie. breathing, heartbeat, temperature regulation and so forth.

I guess what I am asking is that for the purpose of this dialog, does the brain activity that occurs in the unconscious parts of our brain also constitute a "thought" or does the term "thought" refer only to conscious awareness of brain activity?

I think in yesterday's responses, I on a subtle level was considering unconscious ability to move things "thought" even though outside of awareness. Is this use of the concept "thought" misguided?

[poppyseed]

Hi TK

I understand that within our human experience, there is brain activity that is expressed "consciously" and/or "unconsciously". There are structurally distinct regions of our brains that have evolved over time. During this evolutionary process, some of the functions that the body needs to survive have been programmed into the "unconscious" parts of our brain and we share these parts with other mammals - ie. breathing, heartbeat, temperature regulation and so forth.

I guess what I am asking is that for the purpose of this dialog, does the brain activity that occurs in the unconscious parts of our brain also constitute a "thought" or does the term "thought" refer only to conscious awareness of brain activity?

I think in yesterday's responses, I on a subtle level was considering unconscious ability to move things "thought" even though outside of awareness. Is this use of the concept "thought" misguided?

What a beautiful story!! :)
How is that observed? What is “brain” in DE? What is the actual experience of a “brain”? How would anything be known if it’s not experienced "consciously"? Thought says so? Isn’t that a belief then?
There seems to be thoughts that are useful in helping to negotiate the illusion of ‘a person in the world’. These thoughts in and of themselves are not a problem, however, when you don’t notice the difference between what thought says about reality, and how you find reality to actually be, that is when thoughts become tricky. Knowing ABOUT something is called knowledge (ie thought). Knowing what actually IS, is direct/actual…and this is what we are looking at in this exploration. Nothing is known as in knowledge – only thought says something is known because thought seemingly knows it. What is direct/actual is known because it is what IS. But in regards to knowledge, what IS, is unknown. We looked at the nature of thoughts and what you reported was that thoughts are just appearing on their own. Is there a place where thoughts come from? Can you see a secret door or something? Does the “world” exist when it’s not looked at? Where?

Thoughts are like a house of cards – it starts with basic concepts, then ideas, “verified” beliefs and so on – what we call conditioning. The descriptions are based on what is there. When we are little, we point to things and our parents tell us the labels. It all starts there. Ideas that we feel to be the truth create the foundation of our worldview.
BUT, are there two different realities – the world and DE? How is this observed? Is there one story ABOUT “the “world” that is valid for everyone? Is there one “world” that exists for everyone, or the “world” is just another story layered on top of what is? “World” is a pyramid of thought concepts which makes sense in the context of each other. We’ve assumed “things” our whole life, so LOOK, question everything you are certain about. Thoughts are always out of sync with reality, and they impose a filter on how things actually are. Reality is very simple.
Love
Rali

[tk12443]

What is “brain” in DE?

There is no brain in DE.

What is the actual experience of a “brain”?

There is no actual experience of a brain, only thoughts. Pain could be sensed directly.

How would anything be known if it’s not experienced "consciously"?

Nothing can be known, only sensed.

Thought says so? Isn’t that a belief then?

Yes.

Is there a place where thoughts come from? Can you see a secret door or something? Does the “world” exist when it’s not looked at? Where?

There is not a place where thoughts come from. There just is. No secret doors. The world only exists through our senses, everything else is thought.

BUT, are there two different realities – the world and DE? How is this observed?

There can only be one reality and it is experienced through DE. The world is a concept.

Is there one story ABOUT “the “world” that is valid for everyone?

No, the world is a concept each of us hold in our thoughts.

Is there one “world” that exists for everyone, or the “world” is just another story layered on top of what is?

No there is not one world that exists for everyone. The world is a concept, thoughts.

[poppyseed]

Hi TK
Very good!

There is no actual experience of a brain, only thoughts. Pain could be sensed directly.

Yes! Pain is a sensation labelled “pain”

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? How are "others" experienced in DE?
Is there a “you”?

Love
Rali

[tk12443]

I went into the woods 2 times today and was successful in experiencing prolonged awareness.

Is there anything that is separate from everything else?

There is nothing that is separate. There is only wholeness. There just is.

Is there a border that divides “me” and “my body” from everything else, or is it just a thought?

No border between my body and everything else. Boundaries are just thoughts.

Is that interdependent movement outside of you? Is there an “inside” and an “outside”?

There is no boundary between inside and outside. Interdependent movement just is. It has no location inside or outside.

Is there an owner of being?

No.

Are there others? Is there an “I” in others? How are "others" experienced in DE?

Just wholeness. There are no others. There is no one with an "I". Others is a label and cannot be experienced in DE. A thought about "other" can be experienced but only the senses can be experienced, the thought content is not real.

Is there a “you”?

No, "you" or "me" are labels.

[poppyseed]

Hi TK

I went into the woods 2 times today and was successful in experiencing prolonged awareness.

Were you unconscious the rest of the day? Is there an experience that is not an aware experience? How do you experience "prolonged awareness" in DE? How is this known? Is directly seeing (DE) a special mode of seeing (experiencing)? Are there Direct Experiences and Indirect Experiences? Or does Direct Experience refer to where to look at what's actually happening?

Are there others? Is there an “I” in others? How are "others" experienced in DE?

Just wholeness. There are no others. There is no one with an "I". Others is a label and cannot be experienced in DE. A thought about "other" can be experienced but only the senses can be experienced, the thought content is not real.

If you assume that because there is no “me”, there is no “others” then it is just an assumption (thought content) and not DE. That is why I asked you how “others” are experienced. “Others” actually is a label that points to seeing, hearing, smelling :), tasting :), and sensing. You see, the analogy with the icons on your computer desktop comes handy. They are used as a representation of what is actually a binary code – zeros and ones - so you can make use of them. Labels are useful in language, but they are empty. It still appears that there is a “me” and “other”, but it is known to be a useful concept, not the truth. Is that clear?
Love
Rali

[tk12443]

Were you unconscious the rest of the day?

I was not unconscious the rest of the day but there were moments of daydreams and problem solving.

Is there an experience that is not an aware experience?

There is no experience that is not aware experience.

How do you experience "prolonged awareness" in DE?

A sense of awareness appears that feels alive and present and is not bumped by thoughts about what is happening until it is.

How is this known? Is directly seeing (DE) a special mode of seeing (experiencing)?

It is not a special mode of seeing, it is just seeing/sensing.

Are there Direct Experiences and Indirect Experiences? Or does Direct Experience refer to where to look at what's actually happening?

There are not direct experiences or indirect experiences, there just is. Direct Experience is a label that refers to sensing.

It still appears that there is a “me” and “other”, but it is known to be a useful concept, not the truth. Is that clear?

Yes.

[poppyseed]

Hi TK

I was not unconscious the rest of the day but there were moments of daydreams and problem solving.

Thought content can be engaging or not. Noticing that story is 'in play' is the best way to stop the engagement. Noticing the story presents an opportunity for some patterns to be broken. With time (days, months or years :) ), the story changes - truth is realized and recognized. When the story is recognized to be just a story and not reality, the glue that holds it together starts dissolving. The story is no longer believed to be “the truth of how things are.” It is recognised as a description, an interpretation, or an entertaining thought. The noticing that there is something else going on besides the thought-story becomes easier; it becomes possible to notice peace underneath all thoughts.

So…Noticing of the senses happens, and noticing of thought content (the story) also happens. They are both THIS. There is no better or worse noticing. That would be better or worse for whom? What is the reference point that determines which one is better? What identifies with the noticing and qualifies it? Who/what is doing the noticing? Is there such a thing/an entity that does that or is only thought content that “layers” a judgement on top? LOOK!

A sense of awareness appears that feels alive and present and is not bumped by thoughts about what is happening until it is.

What is a “sense” of awareness? Does the sense of awareness have a location?
Does it have a shape or a size?
Does it say or communicate anything?
If the answer is yes, how does the sense do this exactly?
Does the sense of awareness have any characteristics or attributes?
What is the sense of awareness ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought? Is the sense of awareness similar in a way to the sense of self? How do they differ or not? LOOK!!!
What is found?
Remember, nothing in DE is “seems like” or “feels like” (or their close relative "sense of") – it’s either there or not and it can be described through the senses. Some of your descriptions sound like coming from a teaching and not from DE. Try to notice when this happens, because this comes back to expectations of what awakening should feel like, and potentially create more "sticky" stories.

There are not direct experiences or indirect experiences, there just is. Direct Experience is a label that refers to sensing.

Yes! If a story arises, it is seen as part of what is, within it. Not the driver, not the separate self—just a thought-story about what is happening. A sense of self can arise, no problem with that, but it’s also recognized as something that arises and passes away, like all phenomena. The “sense of self” is no longer seen as something solid, permanent, or existing in and of itself. “Sense of self” is seen as sensation, not the experiencer.

Love
Rali

[tk12443]

That would be better or worse for whom? What is the reference point that determines which one is better? What identifies with the noticing and qualifies it? Who/what is doing the noticing? Is there such a thing/an entity that does that or is only thought content that “layers” a judgement on top?

The ego - but "ego" is just a label and what the label refers to is just thoughts. The label and the thoughts are not real, just illusions and are seen through for what is. There just is. Nothing is doing or noticing. There is no real entity other than this.

What is a “sense” of awareness? Does the sense of awareness have a location?
Does it have a shape or a size?

Just a sense. No location, shape, or size.

Does it say or communicate anything?

No, just a sense. Thoughts appear along with or after a sense that create a story about what is happening or what has happened or what will happen. These are just thoughts that arise and fall and can also be sensed but there is no attachment to them as being fixed or real or true because they are just thought. Sometimes apparently convincing, sometimes apparently helpful or hurtful, sometimes creative, but never reality.

If the answer is yes, how does the sense do this exactly?

Senses are felt, thoughts appear and disappear. The content of the thoughts that appear is reflective illusion.

Does the sense of awareness have any characteristics or attributes?

Inherently no but sense and thoughts do arise and disappear on their own.

What is the sense of awareness ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought? Is the sense of awareness similar in a way to the sense of self? How do they differ or not? LOOK!!!
What is found?

Just a sense. Not made of anything. There is nothing to make it out of - there is only this. Sense of awareness and sense of self are just sense with labels. The labels try to differentiate but that is just thought - points to nothing. Nothing is found other than this. Thoughts and sensations arise and disappear.

[poppyseed]

Hi TK

The ego - but "ego" is just a label and what the label refers to is just thoughts. The label and the thoughts are not real, just illusions and are seen through for what is. There just is. Nothing is doing or noticing. There is no real entity other than this.

Well, the thoughts as thinking are very much a reality but what they talk about is another story.

Just a sense. No location, shape, or size.

I feel it is just the case of use of different labels, but let’s clear this up.
What is “just a sense” in DE terms? Is it a sensation? Or do you mean all the senses appearing? Some people use “sense” as “sensation”… What do you mean with “just a sense”? Here we work only with the DE labels – sound/hearing, colours/seeing, taste/tasting, smell/smelling, sensation/sensing, thoughts/thinking – generally the 5 senses + thoughts. So what is “just a sense” in terms of DE

But this is what makes me think it’s more than just labels:

Senses are felt, thoughts appear and disappear. The content of the thoughts that appear is reflective illusion.

Senses are felt by whom? This is where the use of subjects and objects strays from reality – there are only sensing (5 senses) and thinking (all verbs). The aware part is just an aspect of the experience not a separate part. Do you see a feel-er that feels the senses (experiencer)?

Just a sense. Not made of anything. There is nothing to make it out of - there is only this. Sense of awareness and sense of self are just sense with labels. The labels try to differentiate but that is just thought - points to nothing. Nothing is found other than this. Thoughts and sensations arise and disappear.

So would you say that "sense" is similar to “being” or “aliveness”? Otherwise, beautifully expressed!

How is life these days? Is there still seeking?
Love
Rali