The Gate

You've already seen all of this in experience, hence my emphasis on clarification.

As such, this clip may help to shed further light on choice, decision making and responsibility, though it's all obviously there to see for yourself by simply looking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aNMJ2M69RI

What is this "I" that makes a decision or sets an intention?

Hmm very interesting question and I did watch the clip and found it useful and clarifying. So the thought that you have to set an intention or make a choice or decision (as Rupert Spiro says) is where the separate self is created because the decision or choice has already been made, with the original thought. This makes sense and as you say it is obviously there to see for myself if I keep looking - I also sense that more looking needs to occur - I'll let you know.

Have you found an "I" that can be responsible?
Where is it?
How does this responsibility work?

My sense is this is the same as the question above - maybe responsibility has already occurred with the first thought. I haven't found an "I" that can be responsible in my Direct Experience, and a question still is there - how do I know to be responsible, to act ethically?

KM

a question still is there - how do I know to be responsible, to act ethically?

Is an act something known or something done?

What is it that needs to "know" how to be responsible, and on who's behalf?

Hi Dava

Is an act something known or something done?

An act is something done

What is it that needs to "know" how to be responsible, and on who's behalf?

There is no one who needs to 'know' how to be responsible - The decision to respond will be made with the 'first thought' and I will either act from that or not. Anything else is a commentary about the initial thought. It is just secondary experience when thinking about being responsible and to whom occurs - and of separation happens - "a me and a them".

I have also been looking at Direct Experience around choices and decision since I got up this morning, and they are happening all the time, it is so cool seeing that "I" do not make the decision.

Kusalamani

The decision to respond will be made with the 'first thought' and I will either act from that or not.

What do you find when you look for a "thinker" that might be behind such a "first thought"?

Is the "first thought" necessary in order for an action to occur?

What role is the "first thought" playing? (you can check this by repeating the arm lifting exercise if you like)

What do you find when you look for a "thinker" that might be behind such a "first thought"?

I cannot find a'thinker' only thinking

Is the "first thought" necessary in order for an action to occur?

I'm not sure how an action would occur if there is no 'thinking'? Though as I say this I can think of lots of actions that appear to happen all by themselves without the 'first thought' e.g. driving a car, smiling at someone, giving someone a hug, walking, etc.... (all of these and many more appear to be automatic part of the flow of experience. What I am confused about is if say there is a choice, I'm not sure if a choice to act or not could be made without the 'first thought'

What role is the "first thought" playing? (you can check this by repeating the arm lifting exercise if you like)

When I repeat the arm lifting exercise if there is a thought "I don't want to life my arm", I won't, so it seems that this thought does play a role.
I am feeling frustrated and foggy, different from the visceral sensations that arise when in my looking seeing really occurs.

KM

I may have muddied the waters a little in offering the clip, with its (arbitrary) reference to the "first thought".

No matter, it's actually super simple.

Since an action occurs in either case, what is the difference between an act preceded by a thought and an act which is not preceded by a thought?

What is it that divides actions up into "things that just happen" and "things that happen after a thought"?

What is it that insists a thought is necessary for some actions to occur?

Since an action occurs in either case, what is the difference between an act preceded by a thought and an act which is not preceded by a thought?

I cannot find a difference between these two - I have gone back to our previous discussions about choice and decision making and how "we have looked at choice/decision making and found no entity whatsoever in charge of choosing or deciding - and when I look again this is true - I'm not sure why I have been making this so complicated.

Since an action occurs in either case, what is the difference between an act preceded by a thought and an act which is not preceded by a thought?

Of course there is no difference e.g. - whether the arm lifts without a thought or whether the arm does not lift with a thought, it is just lifting or not lifting in the flow of experience.

What is it that divides actions up into "things that just happen" and "things that happen after a thought"

If I come back to my direct experience of what is arising in the 6 senses, whether a thought arises before something happens or not, it makes no difference to the action happening - it still happens. So when I have an interpretation/commentary about there being a difference this is faulty and secondary experience.

What is it that insists a thought is necessary for some actions to occur?

Hmmm - I have been subjecting myself to a faulty interpretation, and somehow have got bogged down with it - hence the frustration.

I have been looking all day and seeing more clearly that when division happens, separation from the flow of experience also happens, which of course means that unknowingly I have been subjecting myself to faulty interpretations - makes one wonder about the many layers to this there must be.

KM

That's crystal clear, thanks Kusalamani.

I have no more questions for you, but I need to ask some other guides to have a look over our dialogue to see if they have any further questions or clarifications to follow up on. This is normal procedure.

I'll get back to you either way.

Thanks for your wholehearted participation thus far.

Best wishes,

Dave

A question from one of the guides;

"How I see it now, is when I look at my Direct Experience I see no separate self."

What 'I' ever looked at their own Direct Experience?

Can an 'I' that examines experience be found?


Best wishes,

Dave

Hi Dava

Thank you for taking me this far in the process, which is not over yet, but feels this part of it maybe coming to an end.
i feel so grateful for your guidance, your patience and your wisdom. Hopefully we can have discussion about where to from here.

What 'I' ever looked at their own Direct Experience?

There is no "I" that ever looked at their own Direct Experience, because there is "no separate self"- using the word "I" is a habit, one that now feels strange, and was used as a way of referring to experience.

Can an 'I' that examines experience be found?

No it cannot be found - as "I" look at what knows what is being experienced, it is more of a capacity of reflecting, noticing.

Warm wishes
Kusalamani

That's great, thanks Kusalamani.

Something from another guide, part of which you've already alluded to, but it's okay to repeat yourself.

When you say;

'What I am responsible for is knowing the causes and conditions that create karma and therefore the shape of my life'.

What is it that knows?

and

In Direct Experience, is karma found?
Are conditions found?
Does something shape a "my life"?


Best wishes,
Dave

What is it that knows?

What knows is not a separate self directing thing, but a looking and seeing Direct Experience as an ongoing flow of causes and conditions

n Direct Experience, is karma found?
Are conditions found?
Does something shape a "my life"?

In Direct Experience karma is not found, it is not a thing, it is just a name given to causes and conditions that arise
Again conditions are not found they are not a thing but part of the flow of experience
I see now that "something" cannot shape a "my life" because there is nothing to shape it. If this seems to occur it is only an interpretation or commentary and faulty.

Kusalamani

I see now that "something" cannot shape a "my life" because there is nothing to shape it.

Is there any "thing" that could be shaped?

Is there any "thing" that could be shaped?

Trying to stay with Direct Experience here - as everything occurs in the flow of experience, my sense is that there is no 'thing' that could be shaped. If there was manipulation or control occurring, it wouldn't be in direct experience, it would be secondary experience and again a faulty interpretation

KM