The Gate

Hi Rali,

Now, what is «radiance» in DE (think cup of coffee example)? It is a sensation (feeling) right?

When I think cup of coffee, a succession of images arises (thinking + seeing); a flavor (thinking + tasting); thinking + touching the cup; a desirefor coffee arises (thinking); thought after thought (thinking). None of the senses are there independent of thinking (not even sensation). If I say the word radiance then yes it’s comparable to « think cup of coffee ». A subtle sensation arises (thinking + sensing). Perhaps a subtle image arises based on that subtle sensation. However I’m not thinking the word « radiance ». There’s a difference. No thought after thought (thinking) happens. I can’t call it a sensation. Sensation implies too many characteristics. I can’t deny that there’s contact. I can drop the word radiance and call it something else.

This radiance could also be called aliveness, presence or I AM, but all of these are labels, are they not? Is there anything here that is not the senses?

Yes another word for words are labels. These are all labels.
Yes there’s no thing here that is not the senses.

Is there anything particularly special about this sensation, besides that is “always” there? What makes it “special”? What makes it different from “head”, or “cold”, or “anger”, or “love”, or "heartbeat", or "breathing"? (emotion = sensation + thought)

I don’t understand « always » and « special ». We can take any words you want. They will just lead you to more words.

Does THIS then have left or right if it is a reference point? Does THIS have a location? Is there a reference point at all?

No left or right.
No location.
No reference point.
None of those concepts make sense.

What do you mean by “a visual of "where" the sensation belongs on the that image”? Seeing labelled “body part”? Or mental image (aka thought)?

It says the labels « heart » and « head » are just labels. Location is an invention; it can’t be created unless images (seeing) arise. In pure sensation there’s no location. The visual is there to affix a « where. » You called it mapping below.
Holding iphone
Holding, simply= sensation (touching).
Seeing, simply =sight (seeing)
iPhone, simply = thought (thinking).
Love,
Robert

Hi Robert

I find the following answers a bit contradicting, so please clarify for me…

However I’m not thinking the word « radiance ». There’s a difference. No thought after thought (thinking) happens. I can’t call it a sensation. Sensation implies too many characteristics. I can’t deny that there’s contact. I can drop the word radiance and call it something else.

Yes there’s no thing here that is not the senses.

I don’t understand « always » and « special ». We can take any words you want. They will just lead you to more words.

So what is “radiance” in DE? What does the word point to? You say you can’t call it a sensation as sensations have “too many characteristics” (Yet the word "radiance" suggests certain characteristics - happiness, beauty, or good health, glowing light), but after that you say there is nothing else but the senses. So what is this invisible, indescribable “thing”? If it doesn’t have any characteristics then how is it experienced? I’m not trying to argue with you here, or insist on special words. But when you say that something is neither of the senses, I want to question it, because you may be reifying something that isn't there, or you may be mistaking a sensation (maybe a very subtle one) with something else. Energy, surge, aliveness, presence – these are labels for sensations. At the same time you are saying this “radiance” is not special, but you seem to place it in central position (pun intended), maybe even you assumed it as the self at some point (in the past i hope). So this is why I’m asking why this sensation is more important than others.
Are there even separate sensations without the labels or just feeling taking different values?
By the way, I want to clarify that sensing is the verb used for experiencing all senses, feeling is only the experience of sensations. It’s important that we agree on the labels for the clarity of conversation and for the sake of all people that read the forum.
Do you ever stop feeling (no matter how subtle the “values”)? Isn’t that what we call “being alive”? Do you ever stop seeing? You might be seeing “blackness” or “bright light” but it’s still seeing. Do you ever stop hearing? You might call it “silence” or “noisy street”. Same with extreme tastes and smells, and neutral ones.
Now… Are there even separate senses and thinking without the labels? Or just experiencing, just THIS/what IS?

Let’s investigate this a bit further as promised…

I experience seeing as seeing and hearing as hearing. Do they are separate. In other words I don’t experience seeing as hearing. I also experience seeing as just experiencing and hearing as just experiencing.

Let's clarify something before we start:

The visual is there to affix a « where. » You called it mapping below.

So there is a difference between a mental image (what I called “mapping invisible eyes on the body”) and seeing.
Imagine a table, see all the details - how the legs are attached to the body, the colour, the texture, the wood patterns…Keep the image in your head. Now think of a forest – imagine the trees, their bark, colour…
Where did the table go? The difference between seeing and mental images is that it does not disappear when you stop thinking about it. This is why I asked you to clarify what you mean by “visual”. Can you see your eyes (provided there is no mirror)? Yet somehow you assume that they are there – in your head – because you can “see” where they normally stay.

With that difference in mind let’s move to the exercise that I had in mind above

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?

Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

Thank you so much for your engagement! I’ve found this process fruitful! It occurs to me we’re having a crisis of communication (and possibly trust?). I’m honestly not sure how to proceed. I’ve been relentless in my looking, taking it on in every aspect of my waking hours. I don’t view many of your questions below as clear. So I provide feedback in the hopes we can understand each other better in the future. Some of what you wrote below is useful. At other points I’ve already seen through what you are pointing at. Still others I can’t follow the order of your thoughts.

On radiance is a painting of a sunset the same as ACTUALLY LOOKING at the sunset? Also, I heartily recommend you take a closer look at paradoxes. You seem to still believe in/cling to propositional truth. The more you look the more your old beliefs will drop away. The below questions just scratch the surface. Hopefully they will be a start to explore more deeply.

I find the following answers a bit contradicting, so please clarify for me…

What is « contradicting » in DE? Have you LOOKED at all the senses in DE and concluded there are no contradictory explanations and experiences? Have you really looked closely and exactly? Is « contradicting » a » special » thought for you? What makes it different than any other thought? Is there a subtle identity of a thinker there choosing between propositions. Does contradicting mean the two propositions exist simultaneously in your thought but not in your reality? What is happening there? What’s the order? Is there just a thought that connects two propositions and another thought that disconnects them and even another that thinks one is contradicting and another is not? Is there someone or something comparing the options of excluding or including the propositions? If not a thinker, would you call it logic? Isn’t logic just another thought? Where is logic located? Who controls it? Etc.

On radiance I used radiance to describe a shift away from center. I didn’t know how to describe the shift then. I don’t know how to described what I’m experiencing now. I never reified radiance or recentered it. Your obsession with radiance is adorable, though! ;) Your posturing that you cannot distinguish between word choice (thinking) and experiencing is tiresome, my friend.

I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

Are there even separate sensations without the labels or just feeling taking different values?

Labeling drives a wedge into sensation that is not otherwise there.

The following is almost nonsensical.

By the way, I want to clarify that sensing is the verb used for experiencing all senses, feeling is only the experience of sensations. It’s important that we agree on the labels for the clarity of conversation and for the sake of all people that read the forum.

Sensing is a present participle and can be used as a noun. Feeling is the same. Yet you oppose the two as if verb (sensing) to object of verb (feeling). You seem to be assimilating sensing as a subtle self and feeling as a subtle object of that self. Can you please LOOK closely and redefine your terms?

The following questions go no where for me.

Do you ever stop feeling (no matter how subtle the “values”)? Isn’t that what we call “being alive”? Do you ever stop seeing? You might be seeing “blackness” or “bright light” but it’s still seeing. Do you ever stop hearing? You might call it “silence” or “noisy street”. Same with extreme tastes and smells, and neutral ones.
Now… Are there even separate senses and thinking without the labels? Or just experiencing, just THIS/what IS?

There’s no hearer to turn hearing off or stop hearing. You can go deaf and you can destroy your eardrums. You can loose your capacity in each of the senses. I think you’re confusing capacity to hear with actually hearing an object (sound or silence) and thinking about the lack of sound after « one » sound ends. You’re labeling lack of that sound as a special type of hearing, but that label only makes sense in reference to a non-existent « prior » sound or in short thought. It’s only capacity to hear another sound. There’s no thing « sound » outside thoughts in as much as there’s no thing silence. Yes I stop seeing in deep sleep. There’s no discernible thinking. I’ve also slept through loud sounds that others heard. I don’t understand what you mean by separate senses. The senses only connect in thought. I do experience senses synesthetically (that is, seeing thoughts, smelling thoughts, seeing sounds, and right now I’m smelling the sounds of a street busker).

The following is difficult to follow:

The difference between seeing and mental images is that it does not disappear when you stop thinking about it.

What is it? I think you’re saying actually seeing something doesn’t disappear whereas a mental image disappears when I stop thinking about it. For me that’s not true I can stop seeing a movie or stop hearing a lecture if I’m actively doing something else.

Can you see your eyes (provided there is no mirror)?

Of course not.

Do sight and sensation appear simultaneously? Do they appear separately? Do they depend on each other? Is there a link between them?

They don’t appear simultaneously and they don’t depend on each other. There’s no way to describe an in-between or link other than in thought.

Thanks.

Love,
Robert

Hi Robert

I’m sorry that you feel this way as we were "progressing" nicely! Obviously, at some point I lost your trust as a guide, due to miscommunicating. I just want to clarify a few things, before we decide how to proceed

What is « contradicting » in DE? Have you LOOKED at all the senses in DE and concluded there are no contradictory explanations and experiences? Have you really looked closely and exactly? Is « contradicting » a » special » thought for you? What makes it different than any other thought? Is there a subtle identity of a thinker there choosing between propositions. Does contradicting mean the two propositions exist simultaneously in your thought but not in your reality? What is happening there? What’s the order? Is there just a thought that connects two propositions and another thought that disconnects them and even another that thinks one is contradicting and another is not? Is there someone or something comparing the options of excluding or including the propositions? If not a thinker, would you call it logic? Isn’t logic just another thought? Where is logic located? Who controls it? Etc.

All that “we” deal here is thought patterns, no thinkers. These thought patterns do not fall away automatically once their empty nature is seen, they have to be checked vs DE for that to happen. Thoughts are very much self-organising and they organise either around experience (description) or around themselves (stories about stories). What we are doing here, as there never was anyone to awaken, is changing patterns. One stream of thought patterns (“here”) “communicating” with another stream of thought patterns (“your side”).
All of this is obviously just another story. Technically, you are right. There is no meaning to contradict itself beyond thought content. Meaning resides only in thoughts. Suffering is only in thoughts. However thoughts can contradict each other which happens in the process of reorganising - old beliefs vs new. What we do in this forum is changing perceptions (thought patterns) with the thought “LOOK!”. That is why I ask you to keep giving me examples of daily activities. We apply the thought “look” to certain areas where the most important believes lie, and then it’s a never ending seeing of beliefs as they come. It will be by-passing to just say thoughts are empty and should be ignored (which technically is another thought), as thinking doesn't stop. The best part is that "reorganising" happens on its own :)

Your obsession with radiance is adorable, though! ;) Your posturing that you cannot distinguish between word choice (thinking) and experiencing is tiresome, my friend.

On radiance I used radiance to describe a shift away from center. I didn’t know how to describe the shift then.

All I wanted to see is that you are not creating “something” out of nothing. You could have just clarified that for me as you did with the second quoted answer, so thank you! People put different meaning to concepts, and people put different meaning to the same concept in different situations. Language is not universal, but conditioned. So "radiance" could be coming from a teaching (Dzogchen) or simply mean a shift :)

What I want to point out is that resistance (thoughts + sensations) comes when the status quo is threatened. Resistance actually could be very helpful as it shows that there are stories which need to be seen.

Sensing is a present participle and can be used as a noun. Feeling is the same. Yet you oppose the two as if verb (sensing) to object of verb (feeling). You seem to be assimilating sensing as a subtle self and feeling as a subtle object of that self. Can you please LOOK closely and redefine your terms?

I actually was referring to the actual meaning of the verbs not their form (e.g. present participle). Here feeling is not used as "emotion"/ a feeling, but as present participle of the verb "feel". As you can see from my name, English is not my first language (I’ve been using it actively for the last 26 years), so I make an effort to check definitions (google):

Sense (verb) – to perceive by a sense or senses
The verb means to experience all the senses not just sensations. That means colours, sounds, etc.
Feel (verb) - be aware of (something happening) through physical sensation.

We (the guides) define the DE labels in the beginning to avoid misunderstandings like this (I did that in my fourth post). We do that, first, to avoid not understanding what you are referring to, and second, to set a standard/vocabulary which everyone reading the forum can understand. If you insist on using sensing just for sensations (not as experiencing the senses in general), it’s fine by me as long as we both know what you are referring to, and not guessing.

There’s no hearer to turn hearing off or stop hearing. You can go deaf and you can destroy your eardrums. You can loose your capacity in each of the senses. I think you’re confusing capacity to hear with actually hearing an object (sound or silence) and thinking about the lack of sound after « one » sound ends. You’re labeling lack of that sound as a special type of hearing, but that label only makes sense in reference to a non-existent « prior » sound or in short thought. It’s only capacity to hear another sound. There’s no thing « sound » outside thoughts in as much as there’s no thing silence. Yes I stop seeing in deep sleep. There’s no discernible thinking. I’ve also slept through loud sounds that others heard. I don’t understand what you mean by separate senses. The senses only connect in thought. I do experience senses synesthetically (that is, seeing thoughts, smelling thoughts, seeing sounds, and right now I’m smelling the sounds of a street busker).

They don’t appear simultaneously and they don’t depend on each other. There’s no way to describe an in-between or link other than in thought.

I can see that on some level you are seeing what I’m pointing to: “There’s no thing « sound » outside thoughts in as much as there’s no thing silence.”, “I don’t understand what you mean by separate senses. The senses only connect in thought”. My pointing is aimed at challenging your current beliefs/descriptions as no beliefs are worth fighting for :). Labels could be so messy...
You keep swapping though between referring to thought/stories (e.g. “You can go deaf and you can destroy your eardrums.”, “I’ve also slept through loud sounds that others heard.”, deep sleep) and referring to DE (“ I don’t understand what you mean by separate senses.”). Obviously, no label describes DE accurately (not possible), so what we do here is introduce DE labels to replace all the other stories and then slowly try to remove (see as empty) the crutches (aka DE labels).

We don’t experience our senses individually. Rather, these are different aspects of experience. Thought tells us that our senses are separate streams of information. We see with our eyes, hear with our ears, feel with our skin, smell with our nose, taste with our tongue (I'm not talking about synesthesia but in general). In DE, though, it is seen as one experience/THIS, not depending on organs - there is no DE of ears hearing, but just hearing as we saw with eyes and seeing. Also you can's separate bird song from the bird - you can't separate sound from colour as these are just labels layered on top of experience.
Even on a relative level "senses" affect each other. Although speech is supposedly perceived through the ears, what we see can change what we hear. In this video, a man produces the same syllable over and over again. If you watch his mouth, you’ll hear the syllable “fah,” but if you look away, you’ll hear “bah.” Although your ears hear “bah,” your eyes see “fah”. This phenomenon is known as the McGurk effect. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k8fHR9jKVM )

Another example of sensory interaction is how both taste and smell are vital for savouring food (flavour). If smell is lost or impaired, for instance, the taste of food will also be impaired, even if taste receptors on the tongue are working fine.
Here is a fun video that demonstrates how a relationship between sight and touch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DphlhmtGRqI
Even though it might look as there are clearly defined senses, they do not exist inherently. So even the senses are dependently originated which makes them also empty of inherent existence. That is all that I was pointing to :)

With all of that said, I can offer two ways forward - we take it form here with no hurt feelings and move on (no problem on my side), or if you prefer, I can find out if another guide is willing to take over. We all have different styles of guiding even though we point to the same “thing”, so I will definitely not take it personally, if you decide to do that. We might be simpy not speaking the same "language". In either case I wish you the best. Let me know how you wish to move forward.

Love
Rali

Hi Rali, I glanced at your responses. There was a an improved invitation to deepen more authentically. (I can be hyper-sensitive to authenticity issues.) Please give me until at least tomorrow evening (Pacific Coast Time) to attempt to reply and assess. I fly out to see dad soon (arriving at 4 am tomorrow). There will be 9 hours between us for a while. I want to tend to his medical needs for at least a week. I will be able to use my brother's labtop once there, which is a huge relief. Using my iphone to navigate the website has been clumsy at best. For example, I have not re-read any of our posts even once. Love, Robert

Hi Robert

Sure, no rush here, life happens! I hope your dad feels better soon.

Love
Rali

Thanks, Rali. I'm back home with my new computer, satisfied that my father's health has improved and I just re-read our posts.
I like what you wrote in your last complete post and agree with it. I enjoyed the two YouTube linked videos and found that helpful. Did I overlook any questions from my last post that I should respond to? If so, would you mind restarting the conversation with refreshed questions or ones that I may have overlooked?

I think I identified one source of confusion for me. You wrote the following:

Are there even separate sensations without the labels or just feeling taking different values?

What are sensations here? Are you referring to sensing at the six sense bases (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking)?

Could you please explain why touching is not on the following list of DE from your apple post?

Direct or Actual Experience is:

Seeing
Hearing
Feeling (not emotion - emotion is sensation plus thoughts/labels)
Tasting
Smelling
Thoughts Arising (but not their content, what the thought is ABOUT)

Are you using feeling to refer to the touching sense (touching)? Can you explain why you don't use the term touching? I'm fine using both touching and feeling as synonyms. I'm also fine making a distinction between touching and feeling, because I verify with my eyes that I'm touching an object when contact can be subtle and refined. For example, I can experiment sitting on my partner's thin silk scarf. I'm touching it but without seeing it, I can't distinguish it from the feeling of the sofa. So, feeling refers to the touching sense without reference to contact with a certain perceived object. Feeling is present without a need to verify contact with an outside object, whereas as touching needs to be verified. I also agree with you that emotion is sensing plus thinking/labeling. Then you wrote:

Sense (verb) – to perceive by a sense or senses
The verb means to experience all the senses not just sensations. That means colours, sounds, etc.
Feel (verb) - be aware of (something happening) through physical sensation.

I'm fine with using sensing to include the streams of information coming from all sense bases (touching, hearing, seeing, etc.). However, if you re-read the first quote above, you used feeling to refer all sensations, whereas your definition of DE or AE used it as one of many? Can we use sensing to mean sensing generally in all senses? In other words, did you mean sensing taking different values? Just to be clear, when the value of sensing is zero, I would say sensing stops.
Thanks again and looking forward to restarting!
Love,
Robert

Sighing
Hearing sigh,

Hi Robert

I’m glad to hear from you!

What are sensations here? Are you referring to sensing at the six sense bases (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking)?

Are you using feeling to refer to the touching sense (touching)? Can you explain why you don't use the term touching? I'm fine using both touching and feeling as synonyms. I'm also fine making a distinction between touching and feeling, because I verify with my eyes that I'm touching an object when contact can be subtle and refined. For example, I can experiment sitting on my partner's thin silk scarf. I'm touching it but without seeing it, I can't distinguish it from the feeling of the sofa. So, feeling refers to the touching sense without reference to contact with a certain perceived object. Feeling is present without a need to verify contact with an outside object, whereas as touching needs to be verified. I also agree with you that emotion is sensing plus thinking/labeling.

Ok I see your confusion. Here we use “sensations” only as the “output” of feeling, similarly to colour (output of seeing), sound (output of hearing), etc. I think the separation is done for clarity of sense output.
We don’t use “touching” as it supposes “fingers” or “skin” (outside and inside), and when we look at DE we see that this relationship happens only in thoughts. If you remember we investigated this with a “cold object”. “Feeling” describes the experience of all sensations as similar (location-less), no matter their “source” – “rapid heartbeat” is similar to “cold can”, even though one is felt “through touch”/”externally” and the other “internally”. The difference comes from the story of “outside the skin” and “inside the skin”, creating the idea of the body as a vessel of a self, with limits, and at the same time reinforcing the idea of objects (contact), while all there is, is just seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling, tasting, and thinking (THIS). The idea behind DE labels is to cut the story to a minimum but at the same time trying to communicate what the experience is like. Just to illustrate this:
Touching a cold can of beer, simply = sensations (feeling)
Seeing the colourful can, simply = colour (seeing)
Hearing the pop when opening the can, simply = sound (hearing)
Smelling the hop, simply = smell (smelling)
Tasting the bitterness, simply = taste (tasting)

I hope all is clear now, but please let me know if there is still some unclarity, so we can understand each other :))! Maybe you can reread the last replies with that context in mind?

I'm fine with using sensing to include the streams of information coming from all sense bases (touching, hearing, seeing, etc.).

I prefer using “experiencing” as it removes all the confusion around these terms :))), but if you use it I will know what you are referring to (the streams of information coming from all sense bases).

Just to be clear, when the value of sensing is zero, I would say sensing stops.

That would be a bit pointless as it would mean that you are dead , isn’t it? Thought likes to work with theoretical “absolutes” – 0 sound. But I would say that would be quite difficult to experience, there is always some kind of sound – no matter how subtle. People spend a lot of money trying to come up with “noise cancelling” headphones and even then you hear “internal sounds”. We can talk about deaf people, but then again you haven’t experienced what being deaf really means, you can only assume. But I get it. I’m not claiming any extraordinary experience here – just pure everyday observations and descriptions. Sometimes the sound is so subtle that thought doesn’t bother labelling it (or lazily labels it as “silence”). And yet without labels there is just THIS, so let’s just drop this. It was just an attempt to show that no thing should be taken as "solid", and all concepts are empty (conditioned). That’s basically arguing what elephant is like - one touches the trunk and says it's like a snake, one touches the tusk and says it's like a pole, one touches the leg and says it's like a pillar and so on. Although focused on the same thing, no one is fully correct. Description is never the experience. Thoughts are always out of step with reality, and they obstruct the clear seeing of how things actually are. Reality is very simple. Once you can see this, you will stop endlessly frustrating yourself by trying to figure out how things are. Realizing the empty nature of all concepts frees the mind. Holding on to ideas creates limitation, boundaries, opinions, differences, and even wars. :)
Moving on…
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: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’, but remember we are not interested in “seems like” and “feels like” entities, but ones that could be described.

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

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

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?
Remember no “feels like” or “seems like” ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’.
Can feeling choose? Can seeing choose?

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

Hi Rali, I'm happy to see your post!

I hope all is clear now, but please let me know if there is still some unclarity, so we can understand each other :))! Maybe you can reread the last replies with that context in mind?

Yes, what you wrote is clear now. I re-read the last replies, too.

That would be a bit pointless as it would mean that you are dead, isn’t it?

I don't know about the absence of sensation as death. That is conceptual and empty. I can agree with what you wrote. For example, I'm hearing the hum of the refrigerator right now. If I listen closely, I hear an alternation of higher pitch and a lower pitch. In fact, there is always just simply sound (hearing). I can identify in thought a distinct ending of the higher pitch. I can construct through thought that a sudden absence of the higher pitch is followed by something else (silence or another sound). What I hear as silence is a thought constructing a sound that precedes it. In fact, the sound that "precedes" does not exist. Yes, that construction can disguise that hearing is still going on. Yes, it's just THIS, whether it's a sound or silence. I understand why you want to move on.

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?

The sensations are different when the palm is up and when the palm is down. Once it gets going, there's no perception that this movement is controlled. It's just happening.

Does a thought control it?

A thought doesn't control it. There's a thought to initiate it and a thought to stop turning the hands.

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

No, no choosing entity can 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.

I can track a thought, intention or wish to turn the hand over. I'm not sure it's related to the result. The hand then turns. Then there's a thought that connects the prior thought, intention or wish with the result.

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?

The qualities were clear in the mind, when I looked at them. However, I didn't choose them.

Or did they kind of appear by themselves?

They kind of appear by themselves.

If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

A preference definitely manifested. The sequence was interesting. A visceral preference popped in. Then there was a story I preferred one over the other due to a quality in Beverage A.
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?

I didn't choose the sequence of events.

Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting?

As I said, there was a visceral preference before the thoughts and stories of preferences arose and before drinking arose. I didn't shut down the preferences to do the counting.

Did you directly experience an entity doing the ‘choosing’?

No, I didn't 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?
Remember no “feels like” or “seems like” ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’.

There was a choice made based on a thought "I'm thirsty" and Beverage A arose as a thirst quenching preference. I did not do the choosing.

Can feeling choose? Can seeing choose?

Feeling can't choose. Seeing can't choose.

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?

I made a decision this morning not to eat dinner tonight. The thought arose because of an unusual and unpleasant sensation in my abdomen.

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?

Yes, if I hadn't labeled the sensation as unusual and unpleasant, the outcome would have been different.

How many of these conditions were outside of your influence?

All of them were outside my influence.

What was in your control (according to thought)?

According to thought, the decision to eat or not to eat was in my control.

Thanks again.
Love,
Robert

Hi Robert

A thought doesn't control it. There's a thought to initiate it and a thought to stop turning the hands.

There was a choice made based on a thought "I'm thirsty" and Beverage A arose as a thirst quenching preference. I did not do the choosing.

Can a thought choose or just describes what is happening? Can a thought feel, or see? You say thought initiates it, but if you think about it, the action started when you actually saw what was written (seeing), then you interpreted it (thinking/labelling), then further description of what is happening (the action)…

I made a decision this morning not to eat dinner tonight. The thought arose because of an unusual and unpleasant sensation in my abdomen.
Yes, if I hadn't labeled the sensation as unusual and unpleasant, the outcome would have been different.
All of them were outside my influence.
According to thought, the decision to eat or not to eat was in my control.

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?

Here is a video that you might find interesting:
https://vimeo.com/90101368?fbclid=IwAR3
Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

Can a thought choose or just describes what is happening? Can a thought feel, or see? You say thought initiates it, but if you think about it, the action started when you actually saw what was written (seeing), then you interpreted it (thinking/labelling), then further description of what is happening (the action)…

You have a belief (you wrote, "if you think about it") that the action started at a specific point, namely, in the seeing. Reading the exercise (seeing) depends on prior bodily conditions. You are constructing an absolute beginning for the start of the action. This is theoretical. If you look, you can't pinpoint it an absolute beginning. You can always see a prior condition. A thought can reflect what is happening. I wouldn't say thought describes what is happening. It can deny, alter, obscure what is happening.

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.

Good koan. 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”.

Once the hands begin moving in DE, you will only know sensation and labels. It's just sensation + labels. You've defined a parameter in thought. Let's try to alter the experiment. First, hold both hands up without flipping the palms. Without thinking thought to begin flipping the palms initiates the flipping, what happens? Without that thought, the flipping never occurs. If you modify the exercise again to just hold the hands out in front of you and wait for a thought to arise to flip the hands, you may get bored and start flipping your hands or you may not get bored and just watch your hands. Try it! Your experiment is skewed.

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?

Cause and effect exist inside thought content. I can't conclude they don't exist outside of thought content.

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

No, a process that includes a thought to initiate the action is necessary.

Love,
Robert

Hi Robert

You have a belief (you wrote, "if you think about it") that the action started at a specific point, namely, in the seeing. Reading the exercise (seeing) depends on prior bodily conditions. You are constructing an absolute beginning for the start of the action. This is theoretical. If you look, you can't pinpoint it an absolute beginning. You can always see a prior condition. A thought can reflect what is happening. I wouldn't say thought describes what is happening. It can deny, alter, obscure what is happening.

I was just making a point that not the thought initiates the “action” ;). Obviously, if you start looking for a beginning you might reach the Big Bang or something :))). BUT NOW, how exactly does the thought “deny, alter, obscure what is happening”? It just IS. Is there an observer who is “fooled” by thought/makes the comparison? What is outside of thoughts and believes them or not? What is doing the looking? What is outside of THIS and observes it?

Once the hands begin moving in DE, you will only know sensation and labels. It's just sensation + labels. You've defined a parameter in thought. Let's try to alter the experiment. First, hold both hands up without flipping the palms. Without thinking thought to begin flipping the palms initiates the flipping, what happens? Without that thought, the flipping never occurs. If you modify the exercise again to just hold the hands out in front of you and wait for a thought to arise to flip the hands, you may get bored and start flipping your hands or you may not get bored and just watch your hands. Try it! Your experiment is skewed.

No, a process that includes a thought to initiate the action is necessary.

Hehe. That could also be seen as a thought that just describes what is happening – in this case the hand flipping (sensation is happening) or not. (I hope you watched the video). If what you are saying was true, it would lead to the question then if sensations understand thoughts (know what they mean, speak their language), so they get the cue to appear/"initiate the action". Also are "intentions" special thoughts that have powers? If I say I want rain now, would it start raining? Are they in charge only of special "sensations" - "internal" vs "external"?
We can argue if it is the chicken or the egg first. However, you are not getting what I’m actually pointing to here – without labels nothing is happening, it just IS. Concepts are not objects or subjects themselves. Even the concept of “sensations” or “thoughts” are not a “thing” on their own – they are only words that point to THIS, seamless whole. For there to be a relationship outside of thought content, i.e. cause and effect, there need to be intrinsically existing things. Language creates objects and subjects out of thin air, literally. The story of cause and effect exists only within the definitions/isolation of “things” (patterns) out of the whole and “observing” relationships between them. Do you agree?
We can also look at "time" if you want, which is necessary for cause and effect to take place
Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

I was just making a point that not the thought initiates the “action” ;).

I was making the point that you were replacing one belief about a beginning with another. I agree that neither the thought nor the seeing initiates the action. So we can move on.

BUT NOW, how exactly does the thought “deny, alter, obscure what is happening”? It just IS. Is there an observer who is “fooled” by thought/makes the comparison? What is outside of thoughts and believes them or not? What is doing the looking? What is outside of THIS and observes it?

I was just making the point that thoughts don't describe, which you still seem to believe. You can see a red light and describe it as green. It's clear to me that thoughts just ARE. I think you're essentializing all this a bit too much. That's a common conceptual trap.

Hehe. That could also be seen as a thought that just describes what is happening – in this case the hand flipping (sensation is happening) or not. (I hope you watched the video). If what you are saying was true, it would lead to the question then if sensations understand thoughts (know what they mean, speak their language), so they get the cue to appear/"initiate the action". Also are "intentions" special thoughts that have powers? If I say I want rain now, would it start raining? Are they in charge only of special "sensations" - "internal" vs "external"?

Your comments and questions are getting more and more ridiculous for me. Specifically, glancing through your remaining comments and tone, you raise a few red flags. I'm happy to accept your offer to wait for another guide.
Thank you very much for waiting for me during the stressful time of my father's illness. I truly appreciate your energy, commitment, interest in liberation, engagement, wisdom, etc.
Love,
Robert

Hi Robert

Your comments and questions are getting more and more ridiculous for me. Specifically, glancing through your remaining comments and tone, you raise a few red flags. I'm happy to accept your offer to wait for another guide.

I will pass the message and hopefully someone would be free and willing to take you
I wish you all the best n your inquiry!
Love
Rali