Living without a centre

[poppyseed]

Hi Ken
No problem. Enjoy the festivities!
Love
Rali

[ZenKen]

Hi Rali, thank you. Hope you enjoying too. I have freed up tomorrow so will get back to you then..🙏

[ZenKen]

Hello Rali, thank you for this. Things have calmed down here thankfully. It was such a pleasure to get back to some quiet time.

I thought I would give you a general update.
Most of the inquiry/investigations are done during a just sitting time in the mornings before my wife arises and the day gets going. I will often stop during the day too and inquire when active too. Mainly around intention and doer-ship.

After your guidance on intention. That theme keeps popping up. Looking at the ‘doer”, the “me” which seems to have intention. It's fascinating how there isn’t a minuscule amount of intention which I can find. A thought can pop up and say well now I am going to move the right leg (just to prove there is intention) the right leg doesn’t move but also it is seen that the thought wasn’t intended either. It just arose.

Since the time of your question - What does the “Seer” look like? something has changed. I feel on the edge of something. A thin veil has been lifted and seeing is a little clearer. There is an intuition about the truth of no-self. I seem to be sniffing around at the gate, but there is something that is reluctant as I mention below.

I think that is all I can say at present.

Thank you so much Rali, love to you…🙏

How would that be known if it is always the present? Where does one event ends and another start without the memory/ thought? What is an event in DE?

Goodness, anything that’s not ‘just this’ seems to be an idea/thought/image

How does that make you feel?

Rather stunned…. I noticed the thought/sense Freedom Now?…and there was a slight contraction in the chest like a “part’ of me wanted to withdraw.

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, my initial response was colour goes into colour. There wasn’t even space as that is a concept. The “space" was actually colour. However, thought so quickly wants to label everything.

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

I can almost see/experience the dividing thought.

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

In DE there is no inside, outside. Edges or borders are imagined.

Is there an owner of being?

Great question! Well I cannot find one and I have looked and looked. Being seems to have different flavours such as seeing, hearing etc. But there isn’t anything which does or owns being.

Are there others? Is there an “I” in others?

This was a bit trickier. I see “Bodies,’ but I don’t see a self. It feels like there are other when there is even the slightest reactivity.

Is there a “you”?

Please see me initial response.

[poppyseed]

Hi Ken

Since the time of your question - What does the “Seer” look like? something has changed. I feel on the edge of something. A thin veil has been lifted and seeing is a little clearer. There is an intuition about the truth of no-self. I seem to be sniffing around at the gate, but there is something that is reluctant as I mention below.

OK…
Resistance/reluctance = sensation +thought, right?
Inquire into the sensation and ask if the sensation itself knows anything about ‘reluctance”. Can you find anyone/anything IN the sensation itself, or BEHIND the sensation that is reluctant? Now look at the thought that comes with it. Can you find anyone/anything in the WORD ‘reluctant’ that is reluctant?
Divested of the story that is attached to that sensation labelled ‘ruluctant’, what is the sensation itself?
Explore the sensation. Notice it, observe what it does. It’s like the sensation is continually changing. It moves around, it becomes more intense, it becomes less intense; always changing its shape. Go deeply into that sensation (i.e. the vibration). If you had to describe this sensation, how would you describe it? Is it describable?
It’s morphing, it’s changing, it’s vibrating, but the vibrating is itself a sensation.

Just leave your thoughts in the background, turn the volume down and refer directly to the sensation.
If you don’t think about it, do you know that this sensation is something called ‘reluctance’? Is there any inherent reluctance in the sensation itself?
Go to the sensation at the soles of the feet. Would you label that sensation ‘reluctance’? Or is it just a neutral, undefined tingling sensation?
Now compare the sensation of the soles of the feet – which is just neutral sensation – and the sensation in your chest (labelled ‘something reluctant’/ “a part of me that wants to withdraw”)…what is the difference between them? A little bit more intense, but apart from that – any difference?

Once you are at just raw sensation without the thoughts, allow the sensation all the space it needs without pushing it aside or judging it. Sensations come and then go. But, while you are “there” look at what the thought is trying to protect. Is there anything that needs protecting? Report back on what you found when doing this exercise.

Resistance is a very good tool for discovering false beliefs, but there is no such thing as resistance as a "thing" in general. Sensations come in all “shapes and sizes” , however the thought is usually quite similar every time – that there is something wrong with THIS that needs fixing. Every time a should or should not appear – how reality should be different – it is an invitation for a close inspection. Resistance does not mean that there is a self that is fighting for its existence. Resistance is just a mechanism in a self-organising system (of thoughts). It is trying to protect the status quo as changes take a lot of energy (i.e. looking). There has never been a self in that system to get rid of, thus no self to be protected. It may look like there is a self, but there is no such entity when seen from up close. It’s only a mirage, an illusion – like the Kanitza Triangle that I showed you:


Is there anything else but the senses and thinking? For “something reluctant” to exist it has to be separate from the senses. So can this “something” be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, and/or felt? It's good to remember that we can only experience see, hear, feel, taste, smell and thought. Anything not in the first five is thought, right?

This was a bit trickier. I see “Bodies,’ but I don’t see a self. It feels like there are other when there is even the slightest reactivity.

We’ll come back to this…
Love
Rali

[ZenKen]

Hello Rali, thank you. i have started exploring this today but let me get back to you tomorrow, love to you, Ken🙏

[ZenKen]

Hello Rali, j=hope all is good with you. Please see my responses below .Love to you, Ken

OK…
Resistance/reluctance = sensation +thought, right?
Inquire into the sensation and ask if the sensation itself knows anything about ‘reluctance”. 

Can you find anyone/anything IN the sensation itself, or BEHIND the sensation that is reluctant?

No, all I find are sensations, which have been labelled reluctance. The sensation doesn’t nothing about anything. This was quite amusing, does the sensation know anything!!!

Now look at the thought that comes with it. Can you find anyone/anything in the WORD ‘reluctant’ that is reluctant?

No, when looked at closely it just hangs there, suspended in space. It’s just a sound which sounds like RELUCTANT

Divested of the story that is attached to that sensation labelled ‘reluctant’, what is the sensation itself?

It’s actually difficult to say...without the story its just sensation/feeling. "I" can relax into and around the sensation when the story is not activating resistance.

Explore the sensation. Notice it, observe what it does. It’s like the sensation is continually changing. It moves around, it becomes more intense, it becomes less intense; always changing its shape. Go deeply into that sensation (i.e. the vibration). If you had to describe this sensation, how would you describe it? Is it describable?

In a way it’s not easily describable as it is now very faint. I can sense the remains of a faint tightness. The tightness is not there all the time however as it fluctuates. It also moves from "chest", to "throat" and I noticed that when in DE it is even quite un-locatable.

It’s morphing, it’s changing, it’s vibrating, but the vibrating is itself a sensation.

Yes

Just leave your thoughts in the background, turn the volume down and refer directly to the sensation.

If you don’t think about it, do you know that this sensation is something called ‘reluctance’?

No, thought is needed to "know" that it is, what thought has labelled it as.

Is there any inherent reluctance in the sensation itself?
Go to the sensation at the soles of the feet. Would you label that sensation ‘reluctance’? Or is it just a neutral, undefined tingling sensation?

Got it…just a neutral sensation in the feet. When sensing the feet, the knees etc then the sensation I can see that thought has slapped a label onto it. Thought hasn't slapped a label onto feet, apart from "feet".

Now compare the sensation of the soles of the feet – which is just neutral sensation – and the sensation in your chest (labelled ‘something reluctant’/ “a part of me that wants to withdraw”)…what is the difference between them? A little bit more intense, but apart from that – any difference?

The "reluctant" sensation now has almost gone so I went to the area behind the eyes which is labelled "me." Around the eyes there is a familiarity of sensation. In the sensations themselves there is actually no difference apart from intensity. There is not any inherent difference. Attention is more attracted to dwell around the eyes but that doesn't mean anything regarding the sensations themselves.

Once you are at just raw sensation without the thoughts, allow the sensation all the space it needs without pushing it aside or judging it. Sensations come and then go. But, while you are “there” look at what the thought is trying to protect. Is there anything that needs protecting? Report back on what you found when doing this exercise.

The "reluctance' is not detectable right now. However, "doubt" is. Doubt about a communication issue with a friend. So I looked directly at that.
Thought is trying to distract attention away from the sensation labelled "doubt". I can see it is trying to protect a certain unease, a certain vulnerability. Thought would rather try and work it out but i am putting the attention "behind" thought to the sensation of doubt and vulnerability appears to be just underneath that. However, vulnerability and though respected and held gently is just another sensation with nothing holding it up. I have not seen this before.

Resistance is a very good tool for discovering false beliefs, but there is no such thing as resistance as a "thing" in general. Sensations come in all “shapes and sizes” , however the thought is usually quite similar every time – that there is something wrong with THIS that needs fixing. Every time a should or should not appear – how reality should be different – it is an invitation for a close inspection. Resistance does not mean that there is a self that is fighting for its existence. Resistance is just a mechanism in a self-organising system (of thoughts). It is trying to protect the status quo as changes take a lot of energy (i.e. looking). There has never been a self in that system to get rid of, thus no self to be protected. It may look like there is a self, but there is no such entity when seen from up close. It’s only a mirage, an illusion – like the Kanitza Triangle that I showed you:

Yes, wonderful!


I

Is there anything else but the senses and thinking? 

Got it! No

For “something reluctant” to exist it has to be separate from the senses. So can this “something” be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, and/or felt? It's good to remember that we can only experience see, hear, feel, taste, smell and thought. Anything not in the first five is thought, right?

Yes. I have checked (earlier), can this “Something Reluctant” be seen, heard etc, and the answer is no it cannot. There is just a label slapped onto a sensation.

I so appreciate your time and effort Rali...🙏

[poppyseed]

Hi Ken
Wonderful seeing!

In a way it’s not easily describable as it is now very faint. I can sense the remains of a faint tightness. The tightness is not there all the time however as it fluctuates. It also moves from "chest", to "throat" and I noticed that when in DE it is even quite un-locatable.

“Tightness” is another general label for sensations. But is there anything squeezing anything else? It’s just a sensation. Even “un-locatable” in “chest” and “throat” is a sensation…

Thought is trying to distract attention away from the sensation labelled "doubt". I can see it is trying to protect a certain unease, a certain vulnerability. Thought would rather try and work it out but i am putting the attention "behind" thought to the sensation of doubt and vulnerability appears to be just underneath that. However, vulnerability and though respected and held gently is just another sensation with nothing holding it up. I have not seen this before.

Yes! What is the sensation of “doubt”? Can you pinpoint it among other sensations? Or the sensation of “vulnerability”? “Doubt” exists only in thoughts. It is the resistance of old ideas to new ones. “Vulnerability” is another story about the protection of an illusionary self from other illusionary selves. There is a belief here in separate selves, selves that are separate from the whole / life / existence, and each fragmented and isolated selves are living their lives in a world, which these assumed selves (like bubbles) are separate from. But in reality, there is only existence, whatever is happening right now which is whole. There are no parts, no fragments.

Which lead us to the question that we postponed looking at…

This was a bit trickier. I see “Bodies,’ but I don’t see a self. It feels like there are other when there is even the slightest reactivity.

So how are “others” experienced in DE? There are colours, sounds, smells, tastes :), sensations and labels but are there entities of any kind that are outside of seeing, hearing…?

When you touch 'another', are there two sensations one of 'you' and one of 'other' or just one/just feeling (sensations)? Are others outside of sensing? Where is the border that marks where sensing ends and "other" begin?
Also, is there space where these others exist? What is the difference between “here” and “there” without thought content?

Can the “I” of “others” be directly experienced? Can you directly experience "others"?
Are others somehow outside of seeing? What is the difference between seeing a ‘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? Apply this now to hearing. What is the difference between hearing a ‘stranger’, hearing an ’enemy’, and hearing a ‘friend’ in DE without the thought content?

How is “others’ speech” experienced in DE? There are sounds and thoughts (interpretation of the sounds), right? So what makes some thoughts yours and other not yours (e.g. the interpretation of speech)? Where does the interpretation happen? Is there “outside” and “inside” thoughts? Where is “outside” and “inside” exactly? What if there is no interpretation of the sounds (e.g. foreign language)?

If you actually follow all of these pointers you will see that the supposed “vulnerability” from “others” boils down to the same resisting mechanism of the core of beliefs to any other beliefs that don’t fit with it. Do you agree? Is there anything that is vulnerable and needs protection in DE? Existence (the senses) just happens, it just is…Do you need to do anything in order to be? Do you need to maintain being?
One thing that is protected here is the old existing view :). Another thing, that fear and resistance “do” is avoidance of certain sensations. 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.
Love
Rali

[ZenKen]

Hi Rali, some great pointers/questions here. Let me spend some time with these and I will get back to you tomorrow. Love to you, Ken..🙏

[ZenKen]

Hello Rali, that was a journey!!! Thank you so very much. please see my responses below. Love to you, Ken

“Tightness” is another general label for sensations. But is there anything squeezing anything else?

Great point, no there isn’t.

It’s just a sensation. Even “un-locatable” in “chest” and “throat” is a sensation…

Ah yes, got that.

What is the sensation of “doubt”?

It’s just a sensation…the label/story makes it into “doubt”

Can you pinpoint it among other sensations? Or the sensation of “vulnerability”?

No, not without the label. Without thought there are just sensations.  Sensations differ in intensity but "doubt" and "vulnerbility" exist only in the story/thought

“Doubt” exists only in thoughts. It is the resistance of old ideas to new ones. “Vulnerability” is another story about the protection of an illusionary self from other illusionary selves. There is a belief here in separate selves, selves that are separate from the whole / life / existence, and each fragmented and isolated selves are living their lives in a world, which these assumed selves (like bubbles) are separate from. But in reality, there is only existence, whatever is happening right now which is whole. There are no parts, no fragments.

Which lead us to the question that we postponed looking at…

So how are “others” experienced in DE? There are colours, sounds, smells, tastes :), sensations and labels but are there entities of any kind that are outside of seeing, hearing…?

Goodness, outside of thought/labels there is just experiencing of seeing hearing etc…

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

No there is just one sensation. I actually did this with my dog. Thoughts wants to insert an image of “hand” touching “dog” but in DE there is just one sensation.

Are others outside of sensing?

Impossible.

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

There isn’t one, at least I cannot find one, it’s imagined, like everything else!!!

Also, is there space where these others exist?

This was a bit trickier. In DE, space is a concept. There is seeing happening…

What is the difference between “here” and “there” without thought content?

Amazing, without thought there isn’t a here and there…the whole lot are bunch of concepts/ideas.

Can the “I” of “others” be directly experienced? Can you directly experience “others”?

The question arose What it Other? …colour/image etc
Definitely not. I would not even know what another “I” would be. There is only sensing, seeing, hearing etc.

Are others somehow outside of seeing?

Impossible.

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

Yes. Seeing my wife and my dog. Seeing colour/image, thought content is different…

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

I found this one tricky…exploring the next one was easier to see. 
However, without thought there doesn’t appear to be any difference. But that sounds a bit crazy -says thought!

Apply this now to hearing. What is the difference between hearing a ‘stranger’, hearing an ’enemy’, and hearing a ‘friend’ in DE without the thought content?

There is just sound…hearing… prior to any thought labelling.

How is “others’ speech” experienced in DE?

There are sounds and thoughts (interpretation of the sounds), right?
Got that.

So what makes some thoughts yours and other not yours (e.g. the interpretation of speech)?

Don’t quite understand this point.

Where does the interpretation happen? Is there “outside” and “inside” thoughts? Where is “outside” and “inside” exactly?

I can see this. Inside/outside only appear in thought. In DE there isn’t an inside/ outside, there is just what is happening.

What if there is no interpretation of the sounds (e.g. foreign language)?

Well if all the “internal” dialogue turned to Chinese (a language I don’t understand) there would be no interpretation. There would be just “internal” sounds happening. Would I know they were even sounds???


I

f you actually follow all of these pointers you will see that the supposed “vulnerability” from “others” boils down to the same resisting mechanism of the core of beliefs to any other beliefs that don’t fit with it. 

Do you agree?
Not quite got this one yet…trying to feeling into it

Is there anything that is vulnerable and needs protection in DE? Existence (the senses) just happens, it just is…

NO. In DE there is just the experiencing of sensations. Without the story how can there be any vulnerability!!! In fact without the story how can there be anything else but experiencing!!!

Do you need to do anything in order to be?

No, in fact if “I” try not to be…impossible.

Do you need to maintain being?

Absolutely not. Cannot turn the volume up on being up, down or anything at all.

One thing that is protected here is the old existing view :). Another thing, that fear and resistance “do” is avoidance of certain sensations. 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.

Nicely put Rali, This is what is happening. Again and again there is a willingness to experience what I would not have wanted to experience. I actually find myself at times looking for anything uncomfortable to be with.

Much appreciated...🙏

[poppyseed]

Hi Ken

I can see things are getting a bit more cheerful here – I can feel a shift :)

Also, is there space where these others exist?

This was a bit trickier. In DE, space is a concept. There is seeing happening…

Remember the picture with the two trees (p.2)? “Space” is just a different/contrasting colour, but still seeing. (look at the pointers on page 2)

So what makes some thoughts yours and other not yours (e.g. the interpretation of speech)?

Don’t quite understand this point.

So basically “others” are just different thought patterns, otherwise there is just seeing, hearing, smelling :),…Do you agree? So what makes their “speech” (in DE sound and the interpretation of sound) theirs and your thoughts about “their speech” yours? What makes others able to ‘speak’? What makes you able to ‘speak’? Also what makes the sound of “others” theirs and the sound of “you” yours? Do you see my point? Where is seeing, hearing, … (no matter the label - you, others) happening? Sit outside and listen to sounds (of ‘others”, or anything else) and see if they are actually coming from a distance, or are they closer than that? Do the same with the view you are seeing. Are things at a distance or are they closer than close?

If you actually follow all of these pointers you will see that the supposed “vulnerability” from “others” boils down to the same resisting mechanism of the core of beliefs to any other beliefs that don’t fit with it.
Do you agree?

Not quite got this one yet…trying to feeling into it

Yes. Seeing my wife and my dog. Seeing colour/image, thought content is different…

If “others” are just different thought patterns (their speech labelled “not yours”) then the ‘problem’ with “others” is just the clashing of thought patterns – ‘yours’ vs ‘theirs’. So if “vulnerability” is fear of “others” then it boils down to ‘outside’ thought patterns being considered a threat (resistance). Do you agree?
Love
Rali

[ZenKen]

Thank you Rali, lots going here for a day or two. I will report back tomorrow...love to you, Ken🙏

[ZenKen]

Hi Rali, please give me another day. Still lots of comings and goings here...love to you, Ken

[ZenKen]

Hello Rali, yes there has been a subtle shift. I hadn’t actually realised but the looking back I realise a change took place. It began with the question - What does the seer look like? And then again when exploring intention. The shift is to do with thoughts. There is a lightness around thought which as I say now has been around for several weeks.

Thoughts are not hijacking the attention like they were and the struggle has diminished. Thank you so much Rali…not sure how I missed it. Love to you.

Please see my responses below.

So basically “others” are just different thought patterns, otherwise there is just seeing, hearing, smelling :),…Do you agree?
Oh yes, beginning to see that now.

So what makes their “speech” (in DE sound and the interpretation of sound) theirs and your thoughts about “their speech” yours?

Sorry Rali, having difficulty getting an understanding of this question.
Actually its just thought!!! it's all interpretation. Thought divides it up. Is it this simple and direct or am I missing something here? Everything is just happening, there is no division anywhere.

What makes others able to ‘speak’?

I don't know

What makes you able to ‘speak’?

I don't know

Also what makes the sound of “others” theirs and the sound of “you” yours?

Thought. Without thought there is just hearing

Do you see my point?

Ah beginning to, but still struggling with some of the “other” stuff. Like what makes me able to speak?
Where is seeing, hearing, … (no matter the label - you, others) happening?
"Here"…or it's just happening

Sit outside and listen to sounds (of ‘others”, or anything else) and see if they are actually coming from a distance, or are they closer than that?

There is just hearing (sounds) “distance" is added by thought

Do the same with the view you are seeing.

A bit trickier than sounds. But in DE there is just seeing (colours). I cannot separate out colours/images from seeing itself. Its all one.

Are things at a distance or are they closer than close?

In DE there is just what is appearing. No distance, close and far are ideas.

If “others” are just different thought patterns (their speech labelled “not yours”) then the ‘problem’ with “others” is just the clashing of thought patterns – ‘yours’ vs ‘theirs’. So if “vulnerability” is fear of “others” then it boils down to ‘outside’ thought patterns being considered a threat (resistance). Do you agree?

Ah beginning to see this now. It’s all thought!!! “Others” are created by thought. The whole struggle is just thoughts responding to thoughts!
Love
Rali

[poppyseed]

Hi Ken

yes there has been a subtle shift. I hadn’t actually realised but the looking back I realise a change took place. It began with the question - What does the seer look like? And then again when exploring intention. The shift is to do with thoughts. There is a lightness around thought which as I say now has been around for several weeks.
Thoughts are not hijacking the attention like they were and the struggle has diminished.

That is wonderful!!!

So what makes their “speech” (in DE sound and the interpretation of sound) theirs and your thoughts about “their speech” yours?

Sorry Rali, having difficulty getting an understanding of this question.
Actually its just thought!!! it's all interpretation. Thought divides it up. Is it this simple and direct or am I missing something here? Everything is just happening, there is no division anywhere.

Yes! Exactly! “Others” is just a label added to seeing, hearing (“what “others” are saying”), …There are not many beings there is just being (verb), whatever is happening.

What makes others able to ‘speak’?

I don't know

Are there “others” to speak, or just hearing labelled “others speaking”? I’m sorry if I confused you

What makes you able to ‘speak’?

I don't know

Is there an “I” to speak or just hearing and feeling labelled “I speak”? Answering where hearing is coming would be an assumption so “I don’t know” answers that part well :)

Ah beginning to see this now. It’s all thought!!! “Others” are created by thought. The whole struggle is just thoughts responding to thoughts!

Yes!!! Wonderful!

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

[ZenKen]

Hello Rali, thank you so much for that. Let me get back to you tomorrow..🙏