Seeking the end of seeking

[ablitofself]

Hi Rali,

Can thoughts understand? Can sensations understand? Is there anything that understands or understanding is just words put together in a certain way that somehow 'makes sense'?

No, thoughts and sensations don't understand. Understanding happens when thoughts somehow make sense.

So I just want to make sure … is there an entity “I” that is able to choose anything whatsoever? If yes, what exactly?

Not that can be seen in DE

The “I” is just a pronoun , a word a not an actual person or character or an agency of any kind. Clear?

Yes

OK, yes it is an experience, but what makes this experience inherently “doubtful”?

It isn't inherently doubtful

So in actual DE how does ‘doubt’ exist? Does it exist at all without the content? There is thinking but is there such a thing as doubtful thinking as an experience? Can you describe its features without going into what the doubt is about?

The doubt doesn't exist without thought content, so no, I can't describe it without the content

What make certain sensations more important than others? Intensity? Is intensity an inherent thing/characteristic? How exactly is it measured in DE? What makes one sensation more intense than other without the label of “subtle” vs “strong”?

Comparing sensations in DE, there is no significant difference in intensity. They are distinguishable, but nothing is apparent that makes one more intense or significant than the other in DE. Sometimes one is more apparent than another but it isn't consistently the 'doubtful' ones. When walking, the sensation in the feet is more apparent, for example.

So I suppose when you say “energy” and “feels like” you are referring to a sensation, right?

Yes, a sensation.

You are admitting that the negative/neutral is added by thought but what about the “restlessness”?

Ah, the tendency to interpret the sensation in a way that seems like 'I' have to do something with it is pretty automatic

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

No

Is there any inherent restlessness in the sensation itself?

No

Go to the sensation at the soles of the feet. Would you label that sensation ‘restlessness’? Or is it just a neutral, undefined tingling sensation?

No, it's not restlessness; it's neutral

Now compare the sensation of the soles of the feet – which is just neutral sensation – and the sensation in your chest (labelled ‘fear’)…what is the difference between them?

They are distinguishable, but the differences that were assumed to be there... just aren't. Even 'intensity' doesn't offer a meaningful comparison. As mentioned above, the sensations in the feet are more salient when walking than any of the 'emotion' sensations.

Also, how does, what you define as “restlessness”, differ from “being”, “presence”, “am-ness”, “aliveness”? Don’t they all point without the label to just feeling (sensation) fluctuating?

Yes, it's a bit like the repeating-the-word/phrase exercise. After moving from sensation to sensation without thinking about them, the ones that were assumed to be meaningful lose their meaning in DE.

Best,
Brian

[poppyseed]

Hi Brian

They are distinguishable, but the differences that were assumed to be there... just aren't. Even 'intensity' doesn't offer a meaningful comparison. As mentioned above, the sensations in the feet are more salient when walking than any of the 'emotion' sensations.

Just to clarify here… Are the sensations actually in the feet (location)? Also, is there walking that is causing sensations in the feet, or are there sensations happening on their own and thinking overlaying the experience with the label “feet walking”? Spot the illusion…
Can you feel all “body” sensations all the time or do they appear when they appear with thought labelling the experience – particular “part of the body”? Could it be that some sensations are more “salient” just because it is what is happening at the moment? Remember, thoughts describe the experience they do not “cause” /”create” it
Love
Rali

[ablitofself]

Hi Rali,

Are the sensations actually in the feet (location)? Also, is there walking that is causing sensations in the feet, or are there sensations happening on their own and thinking overlaying the experience with the label “feet walking”? Spot the illusion…

This isn't clearly seen. The sensations are felt and somehow known to be associated with 'walking,' which is a concept. There's a tendency to 'look for' an experience of the sensation separate from the thought or immediately before the thought. Eventually the 'looking for' relaxes but the connection between the concept of walking and the sensations in the feet is still experienced.

Can you feel all “body” sensations all the time or do they appear when they appear with thought labelling the experience – particular “part of the body”?

The sensations arise and are associated with a part of the body

Could it be that some sensations are more “salient” just because it is what is happening at the moment?

Does this mean they are more salient because they are associated with foot contacting ground, which is what's happening now? Or that they are more salient just because they are more salient at the moment, with no cause? Experience shows the former is the case sometimes, but after a while, feet contacting ground fades into the background and thoughts are more salient. And sometimes the feet-contacting-ground sensation is taken for granted even after sitting for a while and not experienced saliently at all. So it's possible that the latter is the case, as well.

Best,
Brian

[poppyseed]

Hi Brian
I wrote this a few days ago but only now I noticed that it wasn't sent. Please accept my appology for the delay!

Are the sensations actually in the feet (location)? Also, is there walking that is causing sensations in the feet, or are there sensations happening on their own and thinking overlaying the experience with the label “feet walking”? Spot the illusion…

This isn't clearly seen. The sensations are felt and somehow known to be associated with 'walking,' which is a concept. There's a tendency to 'look for' an experience of the sensation separate from the thought or immediately before the thought. Eventually the 'looking for' relaxes but the connection between the concept of walking and the sensations in the feet is still experienced.

Well sensations happen and thought appears with them describing them? What is “walking” in DE if not label for sensations? Is there an actual walking – moving through space - or just colours and sensations? You can go back to the exercise with the mirror…
The “world” is built of words (language) like “feet”, “ground”, “here”, “there”, “space”. You have concepts and then concepts built over these concepts like “forward” and “moving” (from here to there), or standing (feet over ground), or walking (feet ground here and there) - and endless pyramid, where all there is just seeing, feeling and thinking. Where exactly are "feet", "here" or "there"? What is the reference point exactly? To give a description you have to use other concepts - dependently existing, but not on their own. Do you see that? The labelling system would not drop ( an arrow that’s been fired already) but its emptiness could be seen.

Does this mean they are more salient because they are associated with foot contacting ground, which is what's happening now? Or that they are more salient just because they are more salient at the moment, with no cause? Experience shows the former is the case sometimes, but after a while, feet contacting ground fades into the background and thoughts are more salient. And sometimes the feet-contacting-ground sensation is taken for granted even after sitting for a while and not experienced saliently at all. So it's possible that the latter is the case, as well.

Is there such a thing as latent sensations (taken for granted/ignored/not experienced/experienced in the past)? Is there an alternative experience to the one that is happening (beyond thought content) sitting in the background waiting to be picked? Or all there is what is happening right now? Is it possible that “salient” is a label for what is experienced right now no matter the “cause”? Is there cause and effect outside of thought? Again do you see any actual arrows pointing from thought to sensations? Thinking, seeing and feeling appear together is all that can be experienced, right? But does that mean they are dependent on each other or that is an assumption? Is it possible that “the cause” is layered on top of the experience (or as the experience) as a thought?
Thought content isolates “feet” and “ground” where all there is seeing. Thought content creates a time line (past leading to present to future) where all there is NOW. Where is the border that separates NOW! from the past without thought content? What does it look like this border? Is there a border between thinking and feeling, or feeling and seeing, OR they are all happening in the same location-less place inseparable of each other (experiencing)? Thought content tells us we have 5 senses and then you can find relationships among them but all that is (t)here is THIS - whatever is happening. Do you see that?
Love
Rali

[ablitofself]

Hi Rali,

I wrote this a few days ago but only now I noticed that it wasn't sent. Please accept my appology for the delay!

No problem!

Well sensations happen and thought appears with them describing them? What is “walking” in DE if not label for sensations? Is there an actual walking – moving through space - or just colours and sensations?

In DE there are colors and sensations

Where exactly are "feet", "here" or "there"? What is the reference point exactly?

There is no location because there is no reference point in DE

To give a description you have to use other concepts - dependently existing, but not on their own. Do you see that?

Yes

Is there such a thing as latent sensations (taken for granted/ignored/not experienced/experienced in the past)? Is there an alternative experience to the one that is happening (beyond thought content) sitting in the background waiting to be picked? Or all there is what is happening right now?

In DE there are no latent sensations. Just what's happening now.

Is it possible that “salient” is a label for what is experienced right now no matter the “cause”?

Yes

Again do you see any actual arrows pointing from thought to sensations? Thinking, seeing and feeling appear together is all that can be experienced, right? But does that mean they are dependent on each other or that is an assumption? Is it possible that “the cause” is layered on top of the experience (or as the experience) as a thought?

The fact that 'the cause' is a thought is seen. Obviously there are no arrows. Moreover, it is seen that the experience of the sensation does not require the thought of a foot, the ground, or contact that would 'cause' the sensation. But what does it mean exactly that 'the cause' is an 'assumption'? Despite seeing that the thought about cause and effect are not necessary for the experience, it is not obvious that cause and effect aren't 'real'.

Where is the border that separates NOW! from the past without thought content? What does it look like this border? Is there a border between thinking and feeling, or feeling and seeing, OR they are all happening in the same location-less place inseparable of each other (experiencing)?

There is no border between now and past. There are no borders experienced between thinking and sensations. Hmm, despite not seeing a clear border, there is a sense of 'attention' moving 'from' one sense 'to' another (hearing to thinking to feeling). Looking more at this...

Thought content tells us we have 5 senses and then you can find relationships among them but all that is (t)here is THIS - whatever is happening. Do you see that?

Yes, in DE I can see that whatever is happening is happening

Best,
Brian

[poppyseed]

Hi Brian

Despite seeing that the thought about cause and effect are not necessary for the experience, it is not obvious that cause and effect aren't 'real'.

They are as real as an “apple” is real. The second “apple” is believed to be a separate thing, there is a story (cause and effect) about an apple. There are likes and dislikes about an apple. My apple vs everybody else’s apples. My apple is like this because of previous conditions etc. But is there really an “apple” in experience? All that can be experienced is colour, sensation, taste, and smell. Does colour really need previous conditions in order to appear? What makes the rain to appear? You can say conditions like atmospheric pressure, humidity… but is there an entity called “rain”? Do you agree now?
Love
Rali

[ablitofself]

Hi Rali,

But is there really an “apple” in experience?

In DE, "apple" is a concept added on to the the experience of color, smell, feeling, etc.

Does colour really need previous conditions in order to appear?

Unknown. In DE, color appears. "Previous conditions" can't be directly experienced because they are 'the past.'

In DE, a 'cold sensation' in 'the hand' occurs when touching a 'glass of water.' Those labels for the sensations aren't necessary for the experience. The story can be ignored, but it's not clear that because the story can be ignored, certain happenings do not depend on other happenings.

What makes the rain to appear? You can say conditions like atmospheric pressure, humidity… but is there an entity called “rain”? Do you agree now?

"Rain" is a label for an experience. 'Atmospheric pressure', 'humidity', are also labels. This is seen. It's not known if the conditions with those labels point to happenings that lead to the happening of what the label 'rain' points to.

Best,
Brian

[poppyseed]

Hi Brian
I don’t think you are looking where I’m pointing. You’re still trying to “solve” it with thinking.

"Rain" is a label for an experience. 'Atmospheric pressure', 'humidity', are also labels. This is seen. It's not known if the conditions with those labels point to happenings that lead to the happening of what the label 'rain' points to.

That is still assuming that “conditions” exist on their own (inherently).
That would be correct if THIS could have been separated into different parts. THIS is indivisible without the story. THIS is all and one at the same time. “What’s happening” does not have different happenings – this is all language. "What is happening" is a pointer to THIS, NOT to the story of what is happening. Also, there is no time where one happening could unfold without the story. It’s an always fresh NOW. Do you see one NOW leaving and been replaced with a new NOW (without the story)? Where/when does one NOW finish? Do you see a border between the NOW’s? Do you see an old NOW and a new NOW interacting without the story?

Does colour really need previous conditions in order to appear?

Unknown. In DE, color appears. "Previous conditions" can't be directly experienced because they are 'the past.'

What about seeing? Does seeing disappear and appear? Does seeing exist on its own inherently? Remember the McGurk effect? What separates seeing from hearing? Do you see a border? Do you see seeing interacting with hearing (without thought)? So how come one cause the other if there are indivisible?

You see the labels are quite a rough approximation if you observe carefully. Just because certain “features” of THIS appear together, they are taken for solid things and based on this other things are taken for solid things. Like for example certain combination of presumed separate “seeing”, “hearing”, “smelling”… are labelled to be “objects”. Then these “objects” are taken as separately existing “things” and then relationship among these things are “observed”.

Remember even maths (a perfect example of cause and effect) is valid only within the parameters set. If you take two integers and use the standard addition law, then, yes, one plus one equals two. But there are many other things those numbers could stand for and many other addition laws, and depending on your definition, one plus one might be two or one or five or really anything at all. 1+1 isn’t always equal to two. The point is that two plus two (cause and effect) is a symbolic representation for the properties of elements of a group (set). And the result depends on what the 1s refer to and how the mathematical operation “+” is defined. Strictly speaking, without those definitions 1+1 can be pretty much anything :). Like for example 1 drop of water + 1 drop of water = 1 drop of water (a huge one) :)
Mathematics is an absolute tautology: the conclusions are already present in the premises (axioms). Similarly, in language a label is taken to be a “unit” and then grouped in mind sets and laws of logic ("right" or "wrong") applied to it. Thus, there is no absolute "cause and effect", it's relative to the unit od labelling and to laws of interaction (conditioning). But besides the language, without the artificial separation, these interactions cannot be directly observed as there no separate things/phenomena. Does that make more sense?

Love
Rali

[ablitofself]

Hi Rali,

Do you see one NOW leaving and been replaced with a new NOW (without the story)? Where/when does one NOW finish? Do you see a border between the NOW’s? Do you see an old NOW and a new NOW interacting without the story?

No, I don’t see a border between nows. It’s continuous.

What about seeing? Does seeing disappear and appear? Does seeing exist on its own inherently? Remember the McGurk effect? What separates seeing from hearing? Do you see a border? Do you see seeing interacting with hearing (without thought)?

Seeing doesn’t appear and disappear. And there is no border between seeing and hearing. I don’t see seeing interacting with hearing.

So how come one cause the other if there are indivisible?

Seeing and hearing happen in the same experience. One doesn’t cause the other. It’s not seen how this clarifies whether conditions must exist for color to be experienced.

Thus, there is no absolute "cause and effect", it's relative to the unit od labelling and to laws of interaction (conditioning). But besides the language, without the artificial separation, these interactions cannot be directly observed as there no separate things/phenomena. Does that make more sense?

It makes sense that cause and effect couldn’t exist without separation. It’s not obvious that the exercises looking in immediate experience and not finding separation between senses can be extrapolated to say there is absolutely no separation at all anywhere and thus no cause and effect.

This likely sounds like ‘just more thinking’ and ‘solving’ but it’s not clear how else to answer the questions being asked.

Best,
Brian

[poppyseed]

Hi Brian

No, I don’t see a border between nows. It’s continuous.

That sounds like an oxymoron. How can NOW be continuous? It is happening always NOW! . The continuum is only in memories (thought)

It makes sense that cause and effect couldn’t exist without separation. It’s not obvious that the exercises looking in immediate experience and not finding separation between senses can be extrapolated to say there is absolutely no separation at all anywhere and thus no cause and effect.

OK… where exactly is this "separation in immediate experience" ? Please give examples. Otherwise sounds like a empty statement (pun intended :)). Is there any separation outside of thought content? What is separate from what in DE?

I showed that even senses - the most basic concept, coming as close as possible to DE - could not be separated. Isn’t everything else, which is not the senses, thought? What else is there but the senses and thought? Wouldn't that be an assumption (that there is more than the senses and thought) - AKA more thought?
Love
Rali

[ablitofself]

Hi Rali,

That sounds like an oxymoron. How can NOW be continuous? It is happening always NOW! . The continuum is only in memories (thought)

"It is happening always NOW" is more like what was meant

The continuum is only in memories (thought)

What isn't clear is how it can be known that because a continuum/cause/effect can't be directly experienced that they certainly don't exist at all.

It makes sense that cause and effect couldn’t exist without separation. It’s not obvious that the exercises looking in immediate experience and not finding separation between senses can be extrapolated to say there is absolutely no separation at all anywhere and thus no cause and effect.

OK… where exactly is this "separation in immediate experience" ? Please give examples. Otherwise sounds like a empty statement (pun intended :)). Is there any separation outside of thought content? What is separate from what in DE?

It is possible to differentiate between thought content and senses. Or at least the thought content creates the illusion of differentiation/separation. But if that's the case, isn't thought content creating an illusion a cause (thought content) and effect (illusion)?

Isn’t everything else, which is not the senses, thought? What else is there but the senses and thought? Wouldn't that be an assumption (that there is more than the senses and thought) - AKA more thought?

In direct experience everything but sensations is thought, yes. Wouldn't it also be an assumption that nothing exists that is not in direct experience?

Best,
Brian

[poppyseed]

Hi Brian

I feel that this is turning into a philosophical discussion, which is not the aim of this inquiry. To remind you, the aim is to see what is really here and mostly what is not (self, I, me). Truth or reality is not an idea or a belief, that could be debated and passed on. It cannot be grasped by thoughts. It does not need to be understood by the intellect. Actually, it is impossible to understand through thoughts. It is inconceivable, ungraspable. And yet, it can be directly seen.

Wouldn't it also be an assumption that nothing exists that is not in direct experience?

What is here is here, what is not here is not – that is what direct experience is. Is there an indirect experience? How is it experienced then? Is DE a special mode of experiencing or is it what is actually experienced? Can you drink water from a mirage of an oasis in the dessert? Is the water in that mirage existing somehow?

The continuum is only in memories (thought)

What isn't clear is how it can be known that because a continuum/cause/effect can't be directly experienced that they certainly don't exist at all.

There is so much resistance here…What is here/now in DE? Can the past be directly experienced? Can you experience 30 sec ago? Can you experience directly 1s ago?

If we focus on concepts and think that they express a solid reality, we get lost in the theory. Being lost “in the head” can be fun, but most often it is not (otherwise you wouldn't have been here in the first place). Realizing the empty nature of all concepts frees the mind. Holding on to ideas creates limitation, boundaries, opinions, differences, and even wars.

It is possible to differentiate between thought content and senses. Or at least the thought content creates the illusion of differentiation/separation. But if that's the case, isn't thought content creating an illusion a cause (thought content) and effect (illusion)?

Yes. Thought content creates the illusion of separation and cause and effect. If something is believed to be a thing on its own (independently existing) then its behaviour can be observed, but ultimately nothing exists independently and that is the illusion… If a thing is an illusion, then its behaviour is an illusion too.

Is there anything else that you want to explore directly? Is the illusion of existence of a self clear?

Love
Rali

[ablitofself]

Hi Rali,

I feel that this is turning into a philosophical discussion...

Yes it is, but that's not intended. See below for an example of how some pointers are experienced as hard to follow.

What is here is here, what is not here is not – that is what direct experience is.

Clear

Is there an indirect experience? How is it experienced then?

No, experiences are direct. Indirect experiences are thought

Is DE a special mode of experiencing or is it what is actually experienced?

What is actually experienced

Can you drink water from a mirage of an oasis in the dessert? Is the water in that mirage existing somehow?

This is an example of a pointer that's unclear how to follow. Obviously one can't drink water from a mirage. But why point to such an extreme case? It seems a more pertinent question is: Can one drink a glass of water directly in front of them? If we're talking about DE, then the answer is still 'no,' right? Reality is that the water is not being drunk NOW. "Drinking the glass of water" is just a thought about the future.

There is so much resistance here…

This could be true. There is frustration with some of these pointers. The story here, though, is it's an attempt to look at the pointers being offered carefully because there is resistance to the 'expected' answer: "No, there is no cause and effect." I am continuing to look in DE, but when I return to the question, it's not clear that cause and effect don't exist.

What is here/now in DE?

Sensations, thinking

Can the past be directly experienced? Can you experience 30 sec ago? Can you experience directly 1s ago?

No to all

Is there anything else that you want to explore directly? Is the illusion of existence of a self clear?

The illusion of a self is understood to some extent. Hard to say if it's fully clear since there is no way to put it to the test :)
The exercises pointing to DE are still proving useful. If you feel we've reached a point of diminishing returns in this exchange, it's totally fine with me to stop here. Not sure what 'resistance' is part of the process vs. what is counterproductive.

Best,
Brian

[poppyseed]

Hi Brian

This is an example of a pointer that's unclear how to follow. Obviously one can't drink water from a mirage. But why point to such an extreme case? It seems a more pertinent question is: Can one drink a glass of water directly in front of them? If we're talking about DE, then the answer is still 'no,' right? Reality is that the water is not being drunk NOW. "Drinking the glass of water" is just a thought about the future.

Yes, this is the illusion – it looks like something else but when looked closer it is seen that it’s not what it was thought to be. But that doesn’t mean that it will stop to look like the illusion. The mirage does not disappear when it is seen as such. And it end of the day does it matter, once it is known that it is empty?

What really happens in your example (DE) is thinking about drinking water, sensations and seeing (aka THIS). THIS may look like a hand reaching for a cup of water and drinking or not (the illusion). “Drinking” or not there is still experience – it’s not nothing. As long as it is known that there is really no such thing as a “hand” and a “cup” and these labels are taken as the Icons on your desktop, it’s fine (You know that there is no mailbox with letters in it, but you still receive the information). Cause and effect exist as the user interface on your desktop. Does that make more sense with this analogy?

Here is a video that might be helpful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYqaWmc ... 4&index=41

The illusion of a self is understood to some extent. Hard to say if it's fully clear since there is no way to put it to the test :)

Of course you can! You can just look and see if there is an entity called “self” existing in any possible way, right? So have you seen one? Do you expect to see one in the future (thinking)?

What is underneath the thought I’m not there yet?

The exercises pointing to DE are still proving useful. If you feel we've reached a point of diminishing returns in this exchange, it's totally fine with me to stop here. Not sure what 'resistance' is part of the process vs. what is counterproductive.

Of course not, not at all! Is this your resistance? Is resisting your responsibility? Are you in control somehow of it? What happens is that thoughts eventually give up trying to solve it (alleluia!) and what’s left is just surrendering to what is with a simple navigation tool on the side (thinking as a wonderful servant but not a horrible master) :). I’m quite happy to stay with you until this happens

Love
Rali

[ablitofself]

Hi Rali,

And it end of the day does it matter, once it is known that it is empty?

No. Knowing that it's a mirage is sufficient

Does that make more sense with this analogy?

Yes

The illusion of a self is understood to some extent. Hard to say if it's fully clear since there is no way to put it to the test :)

Of course you can! You can just look and see if there is an entity called “self” existing in any possible way, right?

Yes, that makes sense

So have you seen one? Do you expect to see one in the future (thinking)?

No -- see below for my 'explanation'

What is underneath the thought I’m not there yet?

Can you elaborate on how to do this? Repeating the thought and seeing what happens? When that is done, only 'frustration' arises. The frustration is interpreted as more evidence that 'I'm not getting it.' The 'I' is looked for and is not directly seen, but it still feels like 'I'm not doing it right,' nonetheless. It's understood conceptually that these are just thoughts and sensations, but the interpretation is apparently happening too fast or subtly for me to see it clearly because no end has been found to the recursion of "I'm not getting it" -> "Who is the 'I' that's not getting it?" -> "I'm not getting it" -> "Who is the 'I'...".

Is this your resistance? Is resisting your responsibility? Are you in control somehow of it?

No. This reminder that the resistance is happening by itself is helpful.

What happens is that thoughts eventually give up trying to solve it (alleluia!)

This is looked forward to, even though it's understood that it won't happen in 'the future' :)

Best,
Brian