The Gate

Hi Becca

Can now see that individual senses are empty of separate existence. It is all one experience.

Wonderful :)

DE is not a special mode. Struggling with the label ‘true’ after the last two videos haha. So would say DE is where we see what is and what is not. (Though what is not is not actually seen from DE but determined via thought from the absence of DE.)

Well you are right. "What is not" is a conclusion. At the same time it is seen not only its absence but what IS there in its place – the illusion of what was believed to be but it turned out to be something else. Have you seen a Kanitza triangle illusion?


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. Can seeing (seems like) choose? Can feeling (feels like) choose?

1. Hold a hand in front of you; palm turned down. Now turn the palm up. And down...and up and so on.

How is the movement controlled?
Does a thought control it?
Can a ‘controller’ or and entity that is choosing be located?
How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over.

2. Put two objects that you like in front of you (e.g. a cup of coffee and a glass of juice)

Step1. Look at drink A and at drink B. Think about their respective qualities, the things you like about them, compare and weigh the pros and cons of each. See if a preference is manifesting for one or the other.
Step2. Count to 5.
Step3. Choose one of the drinks. Pick it up and take a sip.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience an entity doing the ‘choosing’?

In step 3 where you made a choice, did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does it look like?


3. Please take me through a biggish decision that you made recently - not something very personal so you are able to share more details about your decision making...

How did it come to be? Consider all of the conditions that were necessary for it to happen. If any one of those conditions were different, would the outcome have been the same? How many of these conditions were outside of your influence? What was in your control (according to thought)?

Please take your time with each exercise! Repeat as many times as you need and then write the answers for all of them. Watch like a hawk. Don't go to thoughts, examine the actual experience. Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire with the questions.
Love
Rali

Hello,

Several aha thoughts doing the exercises today. Also thoughts about being wrong, disbelief etc.

Seeing phone, simply= colour (seeing)
Smelling mustiness, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling phone, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting sweet, simply = taste (tasting)
Hearing voice, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about phone, simply = thought (thinking)

Well you are right. "What is not" is a conclusion. At the same time it is seen not only its absence but what IS there in its place – the illusion of what was believed to be but it turned out to be something else. Have you seen a Kanitza triangle illusion?

No, hadn’t seen before. Aha, see your pointing.

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. Can seeing (seems like) choose? Can feeling (feels like) choose?

No. Seeing cannot choose. Feeling cannot choose.

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?

it isn’t controlled, there is seeing the words above and then seeing of label hand moving

Does a thought control it?

No. in fact, when there is a thought ‘turn over’ the hand doesn’t move, haha

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.

is automatic, uncontrolled, there is no decision point.

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?

the qualities appeared as thoughts. the preferences appeared as well. no chooser located

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’?

counting was automatic, no counter or chooser
the preference thought was present during the counting
no direct experience of a choosing entity

In step 3 where you made a choice, did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does it look like?

there was a freezing point after ‘5’ and another thought came of waiting. then a thought of going with the prior preference thought. then seeing the hand move. then tasting. no chooser.

Lots of thoughts that this can’t be right..

How did it come to be? Consider all of the conditions that were necessary for it to happen. If any one of those conditions were different, would the outcome have been the same? How many of these conditions were outside of your influence? What was in your control (according to thought)?

The decision to leave an organization recently after being an active part of it for many years.

Actual experience of how it came to be was all through thought: conversations with others (sounds appearing that triggered thoughts) and thoughts appearing. There was some DE of ‘emotions’ (heart racing, fatigue, anger) that are now recognized as being related to contents of thought.

If one condition was different the outcome would be the same. All would need to be different (not happen/not exist) for the outcome to be different. But being different isn’t possible since it was just experience of what is.

All of the conditions were outside of ‘my’ influence. Which is a thought. There is no one to influence.

According to thought what was in my control was to stay or leave. But now there is a thought that this was all just the experience. Nothing is ‘controlled/controllable’ and there is no ‘controller’

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.

Couldn’t think of another biggish decision to repeat the exercise without jumping immediately to the same conclusion. It is all irrelevant. There is no influencer or decision maker. Wait, is this all thought… ? Sensation of pressure in the head. Yawning. More pressure.

Becca

Hi Rali,

This inquiry is juicy.

Been continuing to practice on small decisions throughout the day. Noticing thoughts ‘this needs to get done’ or ‘I should do x’ and other thoughts ‘don’t do x’. When both are present there is the appearance of a decision to be made.

The thoughts are phrased using I. First person thoughts. Sometimes today there was a thought of that I thought being hollow and false.

These are micro moments. Sometimes after these ‘do’ and ‘don’t do’ thoughts there is a direct experience of movement/action and other times there is not. If movement arises then sometimes a thought will appear afterward “I did such and such.” If no movement arises then sometimes a thought will arise afterward, a repetition of the initial thought to act or the confirmation that action was not necessary. So yes, to revise the previous answer the content of a thought can arise that says ‘I am the chooser’ but no chooser is there. It is like a parrot repeating a phrase it does not understand over and over.

There is also the brand new thought to relax and enjoy the scenery in this one moment of direct experience. Since there isn’t anything to ‘do’ anyway.

Pressure in the head has been ongoing in DE today.

Becca.

Hi Becca
Wonderful looking!

If one condition was different the outcome would be the same. All would need to be different (not happen/not exist) for the outcome to be different. But being different isn’t possible since it was just experience of what is.

All of the conditions were outside of ‘my’ influence. Which is a thought. There is no one to influence.

According to thought what was in my control was to stay or leave. But now there is a thought that this was all just the experience. Nothing is ‘controlled/controllable’ and there is no ‘controller’

I just wanted an example of a decision that you would normally consider that you’ve made. The point was to look entirely in thought content where cause and effect “live” and see that even there there’s no “you” making a decision. It was just one event leading to another, leading to another, with “actions” based on previous conditioning. The thought “decision is made” is layered on top of other thoughts/beliefs/descriptions of what has happened before. Why does the wind blow? It just blows. Yes we can say it happens as a result of previous events but there’s no entity “wind” that does the blowing. There is no wind that decides to blow. It’s just language. What is “moving of the hands” in DE? We’ve seen that it’s just a sensation, labelled “hands moving” + colour/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?

So as promised, let’s look at time…
There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time, or an event that is moving forward on a linear line, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

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

Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

Lots of sensations labeled anger today. Also ‘irritable’, ‘argumentative’ which is not typical. There are thoughts of wanting to be alone, a rejection of whatever is in direct experience. Content of thoughts is ‘me’ vs ‘them’ oriented. At the same time there is seeing that in direct experience none of this except sensations with the label of anger is ‘real,’ the rest is a mirage.

Seeing blue, simply= colour (seeing)
Smelling fresh air, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling coolness, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting spice, simply = taste (tasting)
Hearing whoosh, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about a thought, simply = thought (thinking)

So, what makes the sensations to appear?

Nothing. Even in the description above it is a thought that links sensation in stomach with label ‘anger’ and another thought that this sensation appears as a result of this inquiry. In direct experience that sensation in stomach just is. Nothing/noone makes it appear.

What makes seeing to appear? LOOK!

Nothing. It just is.

Is there anything that causes anything to appear?

No.

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.

No. As described under first question.

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

No. The sensation in stomach does not need a label or an explanation. The description is convenient for the purpose of this inquiry but is not needed for the sensation to happen.

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

No experience, only memory (thought content) and imagination (thought content)

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

Got a little stuck here for a bit. There is the direct visual experience of movement but can see that the idea that an ‘object’ moving is related to time is a thought.

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

no. was stuck here again so tested this out with dropping a fork. the event ‘fork on the floor’ appeared to follow the event ‘dropping the fork’. but the position of the fork on the ground was different each time, sometimes upside down, and the sound experience was different each time as well. It was only thought that connected ‘cause’ and ‘effect.’ Thought could not predict what the DE would be.

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

There is no way to answer this without thought.

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

no

How long does the ‘now’ last?

another quantity question that can only begin to be answered through thought

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

The experience of ‘now’ just is. Any perceived boundaries are thoughts.

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

it never does. it is always the now

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

The contents of a thought which is not actual experience.

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

‘time’ only exists in thought

Continuing as from yesterday to question the content of ‘routine’ or habitual thoughts. There was a moment of getting upset about something said to ‘me’ and then the thought: who is here to get offended? Some looking. No-one. So with looking this was seen as a thought with the content of offended. By what? By direct experience of sound that was another thought.

Love,
Becca

Hi Becca

Lots of sensations labeled anger today. Also ‘irritable’, ‘argumentative’ which is not typical. There are thoughts of wanting to be alone, a rejection of whatever is in direct experience. Content of thoughts is ‘me’ vs ‘them’ oriented. At the same time there is seeing that in direct experience none of this except sensations with the label of anger is ‘real,’ the rest is a mirage.

When any emotions “appear” just look at them as in the “sadness” example. Just remember we are not pushing away sensations (not that we can) we are just looking at the story around them. Freedom and peace come from “allowing” everything.
Resistance to what IS, comes in all shapes and forms – irritation, anger, boredom. Distraction from DE is also a form of resistance – it serves to protect the status quo. Distractions often come as sudden impulses to do something else. Something comes up with a sense of urgency—a pull to engage in some other activity that moves you away from investigation. It is okay, of course, to follow that impulse and get distracted. It is also okay to notice it and keep focusing. Don’t take the distractions seriously, just note when they show up and see what is behind them. What is being protected?
Ultimately, fear and resistance are sensations that prevent us from going into another sensation. Sensations are not to be feared; they are here to be experienced. And even if they are uncomfortable, they add a richness and juiciness to life. Any time resistance “appears” it is a call to examine the story. Resistance itself is not meant to be resisted, otherwise it locks into self-strengthening, repeating loops. There is a path of least resistance, and when resistance melts, all that is left is surrender - saying yes to whatever feeling, emotion, or sensation shows up.

no. was stuck here again so tested this out with dropping a fork. the event ‘fork on the floor’ appeared to follow the event ‘dropping the fork’. but the position of the fork on the ground was different each time, sometimes upside down, and the sound experience was different each time as well. It was only thought that connected ‘cause’ and ‘effect.’ Thought could not predict what the DE would be.

To say there is a “fork” and “it’s been dropped” is a story that cannot be found in DE. In DE there is just seeing (colour), maybe feeling (e.g. sensations labelled “dropping the fork”, “touching the fork”). To say that even seeing is changing
is a story as there are no separate senses - just THIS/ what IS. Without the thought content/story/labelling is there anything that is changing? Are there objects that an action is been applied to so you can have an effect?

Next stop – “others”…

Love
Rali

Hello!

Seeing color, simply= colour (seeing)
Smelling wind, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling wind, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting salt, simply = taste (tasting)
Hearing wind, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about wind, simply = thought (thinking)

Resistance to what IS, comes in all shapes and forms – irritation, anger, boredom. Distraction from DE is also a form of resistance – it serves to protect the status quo. Distractions often come as sudden impulses to do something else.

Yes have noticed this with eating, far more than usual for the last week, continually returning to the kitchen to look for something to snack on.

Don’t take the distractions seriously, just note when they show up and see what is behind them. What is being protected?

Looking today, there is a direct experience of tension in the jaw. Heart racing. These are a lot of labels of course. Behind that, thought of thirst.

- just THIS/ what IS. Without the thought content/story/labelling is there anything that is changing?

No

Are there objects that an action is been applied to so you can have an effect?

Haha good question. Noticed this today with weeding the garden. There were plants labeled ‘good’ and others labeled ‘bad’. They were all visually the same, well not the same exactly, but all just growing, flowering. The action of pulling some out of the ground seemed ridiculous and arbitrary.

Next stop – “others”…

Yes!

There was a moment of looking last night. Since then movement has been slow, a lot more looking. Time outside. Many many moments today of one experience.
Interesting.

Love,
Becca

Hi Becca

Yes have noticed this with eating, far more than usual for the last week, continually returning to the kitchen to look for something to snack on.

If there is action you can take when a want comes up, then take it. If not, just watch, smile, take notes, and release.

Now “others’…
It’s not the same approach as the looking for the “I” when it comes to ”others” as you can’t really see that that they don’t have an “I” – it’s a deduction/thinking (i.e. I don’t have so they don’t have). How we approach it from DE is the same way we see there is no “apple” – that apple is a label. How are objects different from ‘others’? Why are objects easier? What about animals? If we have to repeat the same example but with a “person”:
Taste labelled ‘person’ is known
Colour labelled ‘person’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘person’ is known (when a person is touched)
Smell labelled ‘person’ is known
Thought about/of a ‘person’ is known
However, is a ‘person' actually known? (Or is it just a label?) Is there really an ‘person’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘person’? Can ‘a person’ be found in actual experience?

In DE there is only seeing/hearing/etc. and thinking provides the labels. It’s like a picture that everything is drawn in pencil on paper – the illusion of separation is created by different colours used – otherwise it’s all paper.


Different colours in seeing create the illusion of things but all that is there is seeing. So, is there space where these others exist? What is the difference between seeing an ‘stranger’, seeing an ’enemy’, and seeing a ‘friend’ in DE – they are all colour with different thought content, right? How is one colour different from another in DE if all there is to colour is seeing?

Different levels of sounds create the illusion of speech but all that is there is hearing and thinking (the interpretation of “speech”). Can you see that?

When you touch 'another', are there two sensations - one of 'you' and one of 'other' - or just one/just feeling? Are others outside of feeling? Where is the border that marks where feeling ends and "other" begin?

Some usually resist to "no others" by saying that it looks like solipsism, but to have solipsism means to have an experiencer – a sole experiencer of reality, where there is none. So, others in comparison to what? To have others there means also there is a reference point - one here. Is there an inside and an outside of the body? Is there a physical self-contained within/as other bodies? Go sit in a park or somewhere where there is a mixture of people and other living objects like birds, trees, also non-'living' rocks water moving, wind etc. Looking at if there was a self in that image/colours/movement (of rocks, wind), then what about plants/animals? Any difference? Then the human bodies moving around, talking? What͛s the difference apart from the ideas about that? Does that prove anything?

To believe others think and say certain things means to believe there is a thinker here as well. So look! Does the sense of self appears simultaneously with the resistance to what is? Use the interaction with others to notice how the interactions with different people triggers different responses. Notice that "you" are not the person who suffers but "you" arises simultaneously with the struggle/resistance that generates the suffering. Every interaction with "others" can be an opportunity to notice that.

At this point, it will be a good DE exercise to get out for an actual walk in nature and observe interconnectedness. See how ALL is moving interdependently, including thinking and the senses. Hold these questions in mind:
Is there anything that is separate from everything else?
Is there a border that divides “me” and “my body” from everything else, or is it just a thought? Is that interdependent movement outside of you? Is there an “inside” and an “outside”?
Is there an owner of being?
Are there others? Is there an “I” in others?
Is there a “you”?

Haha good question. Noticed this today with weeding the garden. There were plants labeled ‘good’ and others labeled ‘bad’. They were all visually the same, well not the same exactly, but all just growing, flowering. The action of pulling some out of the ground seemed ridiculous and arbitrary.

Well, things get done (by no one) and thought flies with that giving meaning. 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?
Of course, an analogy can go only to a point (before it turns into a belief). There is no one to make sense of reality, no one outside of life trying to understand it and fix it. There is just THIS. Thought is self-organised around the experience but at some point becomes organised around itself. Language is basically the relationship between concepts – how they are organised. That carries meaning on top of the meaning of the actual concepts. That is why different concepts mean different things to different people and in different situations. One very good example of how words and language are just pointers to but not the actual DE, and how meaning is formed, is AI. GPT (Generative pre-trained transformers) are large language models that are based on the semantic relationships between words in sentences (natural language processing). GPT models are trained on a large amount of text. The training consists in predicting the next token (a token being usually a word, sub-word, or punctuation). Throughout this training, GPT models accumulate knowledge about the world, and can then generate “human-like” text by repeatedly predicting the next token. But does AI have any direct experience of what it’s talking about?

I realise that this post became quite long, but these are all questions pointing to the same thing. Play with them – see from different angles. Take your time and answer when you are ready

Love
Rali

Hi!

It was a very rainy day.

Looked into the questions but will take the walk tomorrow and will send everything together.

Becca

Hi!

Seeing soup, simply= colour (seeing)
Smelling soup, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling warmth of soup, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting soup, simply = taste (tasting)
Hearing sound, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about soup, simply = thought (thinking)

How are objects different from ‘others’?

In actuality they aren’t different. But there are more memory thoughts that are associated with others.

Why are objects easier?

There is no thought of a perceived ‘consciousness’ in objects.

What about animals?

Animals fall somewhere in between objects and others. More memory thoughts and more projection of ‘aliveness’ thoughts.

However, is a ‘person' actually known? (Or is it just a label?)

Label. Thought is that there is predictability based on memory thoughts but all that is in direct experience is the label ‘person’ and other labels related to ‘person’

Is there really an ‘person’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘person’?

Color and thought only.

Can ‘a person’ be found in actual experience?

No.

Different colours in seeing create the illusion of things but all that is there is seeing. So, is there space where these others exist?

No, it is all oneness.

What is the difference between seeing an ‘stranger’, seeing an ’enemy’, and seeing a ‘friend’ in DE – they are all colour with different thought content, right?

Yes, this is like the example yesterday of weeds vs ‘good’ plants. All thought content.

How is one colour different from another in DE if all there is to colour is seeing?

Labels distinguish ‘color’ without labels it is only seeing what is

Different levels of sounds create the illusion of speech but all that is there is hearing and thinking (the interpretation of “speech”). Can you see that?

yes

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

Just feeling.

Are others outside of feeling?

No. That would be thought not direct experience.

Where is the border that marks where feeling ends and "other" begin?

There is none.

Some usually resist to "no others" by saying that it looks like solipsism, but to have solipsism means to have an experiencer – a sole experiencer of reality, where there is none. So, others in comparison to what?

Had to look up solipsism. See this now.

To have others there means also there is a reference point - one here. Is there an inside and an outside of the body?

No only sensations. Thoughts suggest ‘location’ or even ‘body’

Is there a physical self-contained within/as other bodies?

Cannot be determined in DE therefore DE says no. Only as per thought can these sensations in this label ‘body’ be projected onto another perceived label ‘other’ ‘body’

Go sit in a park or somewhere where there is a mixture of people and other living objects like birds, trees, also non-'living' rocks water moving, wind etc. Looking at if there was a self in that image/colours/movement (of rocks, wind), then what about plants/animals?

No self in any of this can be experienced.

Any difference?

No. It is all what is.

Then the human bodies moving around, talking? What͛s the difference apart from the ideas about that?

None. The ducks drinking water, pecking at the ground, the human bodies moving around, preparing food. No difference, just label of ‘duck’ or ‘human’ and some thoughts about it. Have noticed lately that talking is happening automatically, sometimes there is thought prior and at other times there is not a thought content to be found, just sound coming out. Looking being applied to perceived cause and effect there. Perception of ‘others’ ‘talking’ is also in DE only sound. What is. Then Thoughts.

Does that prove anything?

Does anything need to be proved? haha it just is.

To believe others think and say certain things means to believe there is a thinker here as well. So look! Does the sense of self appears simultaneously with the resistance to what is?

Haha, yes noticed a correlation today when ‘my’ 3 year old was having a temper tantrum in a parking lot. There was resistance. And noticed the thoughts to control and do something. Was able to get into the DE of ‘anger’ and notice the content of thoughts arising.

Use the interaction with others to notice how the interactions with different people triggers different responses. Notice that "you" are not the person who suffers but "you" arises simultaneously with the struggle/resistance that generates the suffering. Every interaction with "others" can be an opportunity to notice that.

Helpful explanation.

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?

no

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

just thought

Is that interdependent movement outside of you?

not clear on this question, if no border then no inside or outside to provide reference

Is there an “inside” and an “outside”?

no

Is there an owner of being?

no

Are there others?

no

Is there an “I” in others?

no

Is there a “you”?

no

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?

haha no.

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

No, none.

-Feels silly at the moment to sign off with a name label.

Hi!

Seeing soup, simply= colour (seeing)
Smelling soup, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling warmth of soup, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting soup, simply = taste (tasting)
Hearing sound, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about soup, simply = thought (thinking)

How are objects different from ‘others’?

In actuality they aren’t different. But there are more memory thoughts that are associated with others.

Why are objects easier?

There is no thought of a perceived ‘consciousness’ in objects.

What about animals?

Animals fall somewhere in between objects and others. More memory thoughts and more projection of ‘aliveness’ thoughts.

However, is a ‘person' actually known? (Or is it just a label?)

Label. Thought is that there is predictability based on memory thoughts but all that is in direct experience is the label ‘person’ and other labels related to ‘person’

Is there really an ‘person’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘person’?

Color and thought only.

Can ‘a person’ be found in actual experience?

No.

Different colours in seeing create the illusion of things but all that is there is seeing. So, is there space where these others exist?

No, it is all oneness.

What is the difference between seeing an ‘stranger’, seeing an ’enemy’, and seeing a ‘friend’ in DE – they are all colour with different thought content, right?

Yes, this is like the example yesterday of weeds vs ‘good’ plants. All thought content.

How is one colour different from another in DE if all there is to colour is seeing?

Labels distinguish ‘color’ without labels it is only seeing what is

Different levels of sounds create the illusion of speech but all that is there is hearing and thinking (the interpretation of “speech”). Can you see that?

yes

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

Just feeling.

Are others outside of feeling?

No. That would be thought not direct experience.

Where is the border that marks where feeling ends and "other" begin?

There is none.

Some usually resist to "no others" by saying that it looks like solipsism, but to have solipsism means to have an experiencer – a sole experiencer of reality, where there is none. So, others in comparison to what?

Had to look up solipsism. See this now.

To have others there means also there is a reference point - one here. Is there an inside and an outside of the body?

No only sensations. Thoughts suggest ‘location’ or even ‘body’

Is there a physical self-contained within/as other bodies?

Cannot be determined in DE therefore DE says no. Only as per thought can these sensations in this label ‘body’ be projected onto another perceived label ‘other’ ‘body’

Go sit in a park or somewhere where there is a mixture of people and other living objects like birds, trees, also non-'living' rocks water moving, wind etc. Looking at if there was a self in that image/colours/movement (of rocks, wind), then what about plants/animals?

No self in any of this can be experienced.

Any difference?

No. It is all what is.

Then the human bodies moving around, talking? What͛s the difference apart from the ideas about that?

None. The ducks drinking water, pecking at the ground, the human bodies moving around, preparing food. No difference, just label of ‘duck’ or ‘human’ and some thoughts about it. Have noticed lately that talking is happening automatically, sometimes there is thought prior and at other times there is not a thought content to be found, just sound coming out. Looking being applied to perceived cause and effect there. Perception of ‘others’ ‘talking’ is also in DE only sound. What is. Then Thoughts.

Does that prove anything?

Does anything need to be proved? haha it just is.

To believe others think and say certain things means to believe there is a thinker here as well. So look! Does the sense of self appears simultaneously with the resistance to what is?

Haha, yes noticed a correlation today when ‘my’ 3 year old was having a temper tantrum in a parking lot. There was resistance. And noticed the thoughts to control and do something. Was able to get into the DE of ‘anger’ and notice the content of thoughts arising.

Use the interaction with others to notice how the interactions with different people triggers different responses. Notice that "you" are not the person who suffers but "you" arises simultaneously with the struggle/resistance that generates the suffering. Every interaction with "others" can be an opportunity to notice that.

Helpful explanation.

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?

no

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

just thought

Is that interdependent movement outside of you?

not clear on this question, if no border then no inside or outside to provide reference

Is there an “inside” and an “outside”?

no

Is there an owner of being?

no

Are there others?

no

Is there an “I” in others?

no

Is there a “you”?

no

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?

haha no.

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

No, none.

-Feels silly at the moment to sign off with a name label.

Hi!

Seeing soup, simply= colour (seeing)
Smelling soup, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling warmth of soup, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting soup, simply = taste (tasting)
Hearing sound, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about soup, simply = thought (thinking)

How are objects different from ‘others’?

In actuality they aren’t different. But there are more memory thoughts that are associated with others.

Why are objects easier?

There is no thought of a perceived ‘consciousness’ in objects.

What about animals?

Animals fall somewhere in between objects and others. More memory thoughts and more projection of ‘aliveness’ thoughts.

However, is a ‘person' actually known? (Or is it just a label?)

Label. Thought is that there is predictability based on memory thoughts but all that is in direct experience is the label ‘person’ and other labels related to ‘person’

Is there really an ‘person’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘person’?

Color and thought only.

Can ‘a person’ be found in actual experience?

No.

Different colours in seeing create the illusion of things but all that is there is seeing. So, is there space where these others exist?

No, it is all oneness.

What is the difference between seeing an ‘stranger’, seeing an ’enemy’, and seeing a ‘friend’ in DE – they are all colour with different thought content, right?

Yes, this is like the example yesterday of weeds vs ‘good’ plants. All thought content.

How is one colour different from another in DE if all there is to colour is seeing?

Labels distinguish ‘color’ without labels it is only seeing what is

Different levels of sounds create the illusion of speech but all that is there is hearing and thinking (the interpretation of “speech”). Can you see that?

yes

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

Just feeling.

Are others outside of feeling?

No. That would be thought not direct experience.

Where is the border that marks where feeling ends and "other" begin?

There is none.

Some usually resist to "no others" by saying that it looks like solipsism, but to have solipsism means to have an experiencer – a sole experiencer of reality, where there is none. So, others in comparison to what?

Had to look up solipsism. See this now.

To have others there means also there is a reference point - one here. Is there an inside and an outside of the body?

No only sensations. Thoughts suggest ‘location’ or even ‘body’

Is there a physical self-contained within/as other bodies?

Cannot be determined in DE therefore DE says no. Only as per thought can these sensations in this label ‘body’ be projected onto another perceived label ‘other’ ‘body’

Go sit in a park or somewhere where there is a mixture of people and other living objects like birds, trees, also non-'living' rocks water moving, wind etc. Looking at if there was a self in that image/colours/movement (of rocks, wind), then what about plants/animals?

No self in any of this can be experienced.

Any difference?

No. It is all what is.

Then the human bodies moving around, talking? What͛s the difference apart from the ideas about that?

None. The ducks drinking water, pecking at the ground, the human bodies moving around, preparing food. No difference, just label of ‘duck’ or ‘human’ and some thoughts about it. Have noticed lately that talking is happening automatically, sometimes there is thought prior and at other times there is not a thought content to be found, just sound coming out. Looking being applied to perceived cause and effect there. Perception of ‘others’ ‘talking’ is also in DE only sound. What is. Then Thoughts.

Does that prove anything?

Does anything need to be proved? haha it just is.

To believe others think and say certain things means to believe there is a thinker here as well. So look! Does the sense of self appears simultaneously with the resistance to what is?

Haha, yes noticed a correlation today when ‘my’ 3 year old was having a temper tantrum in a parking lot. There was resistance. And noticed the thoughts to control and do something. Was able to get into the DE of ‘anger’ and notice the content of thoughts arising.

Use the interaction with others to notice how the interactions with different people triggers different responses. Notice that "you" are not the person who suffers but "you" arises simultaneously with the struggle/resistance that generates the suffering. Every interaction with "others" can be an opportunity to notice that.

Helpful explanation.

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?

no

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

just thought

Is that interdependent movement outside of you?

not clear on this question, if no border then no inside or outside to provide reference

Is there an “inside” and an “outside”?

no

Is there an owner of being?

no

Are there others?

no

Is there an “I” in others?

no

Is there a “you”?

no

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?

haha no.

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

No, none.

-Feels silly at the moment to sign off with a name label.

Sorry about all the repetitive posts. System was freezing up and kept hitting the submit button and well… all experience haha

Hi Becca

Sorry about all the repetitive posts. System was freezing up and kept hitting the submit button and well… all experience haha

No worries. It happens often :)

Wonderful observations with regards to others!
So let's review where we are at with the following questions.

What has changed and what hasn’t in normal everyday living. What changes? What stays the same?
What is the biggest difference from before starting this conversation?
Is seeking still going on?
Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?
Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?

Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

Seeing can of water, simply= colour (seeing)
Smelling orange, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling can of water, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting water, simply = taste (tasting)
Hearing can, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about water, simply = thought (thinking)

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

Everyday life is the same. Looking at it like a movie nothing would be noticeable except perhaps the tempo, there is a certain slowness now. Quality of experience is different… looking out the same window has a richness that is picked up on now. Looking at small things that were not fully absorbed before, like noticing a dragonfly today.

What is the biggest difference from before starting this conversation?

An ability to detangle direct experience of emotion from content of thought.

Is seeking still going on?

There is a definite shift from striving outside for answers from ‘others’ to looking at what is true. Though there still is some urgency to tidying up loose ends/thoughts so to speak.

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

So much to say here but also recognize that it isn’t necessary nor in the scope of this process. There are tools and a clear method to look further into things. One example would be death (which there is obviously no DE for so already know where that is going, just get to spend the time to get there and then let go of what arises as a result of that).

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

YES. It is clear, just would say still the illusion returns, and returns, and sometimes WHAT IS is seen again in a moment and at other times there is a period of looking required.

Love,
Becca