In need of a nudge (or two)

[poppyseed]

Hi Ian

As for the mountains and rivers becoming mountains and rivers again, this is interpreted as meaning that what is seen looks as it always did (ie not the altered version), but is now realised to be an appearance rather than the real thing.

Awesome!!

On reflection, perhaps it is the process of dampening down of sensations which allows for thoughts to build in strength and then populate the conscious space. Could you comment on this please Rali?

Also, could you comment on whether it is possible to give complete attention to all senses at one time or is it possible to only focus on one sense (eg sounds) at a time thereby muting the others?

Well, try imagining eating a chocolate – imagine the richness and sweetness, how it is melting in your mouth. Now eat a real piece of chocolate. Experience it all. Compare both experiences. Does the imaginary piece of chocolate come even close to the richness of the raw experience? So I can get how the raw experience can be a bit overwhelming especially if you previously have spent most of the time in thought.

When it comes to the different senses, though, without labels, are there 5 senses and thinking, or one indivisible seeing_tasting_hearing_sensing_smelling_thinking (THIS)? Can the senses be isolated without thought content? Close your eyes and allow a thought or a series of thoughts to appear. Continue to pay attention to thoughts as they appear for a few more seconds. With your eyes still closed, listen to whatever sound is present for several moments. Now, go back and forth between thoughts and the sound.
Does the sound appear in a different “place” to thoughts?
Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides the thoughts and the sound? Or is the line a mental construct?
Now open your eyes and notice colours.
Do the colours appear in a different “place” to thoughts and sounds?
Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides thoughts, sounds and colours, or is that division a mental construct?

When you say “it is the process of dampening down of sensations which allows for thoughts to build in strength and then populate the conscious space” what do you refer to? Where is this “conscious space”? Please describe this space. Is it limited? Are thoughts floating around and occupying space? Is “consciousness” some kind of container for thoughts? The problem with abstractions is that their abstract meaning creeps into reality and at some point might be taken for truth. Check, is there space/border between the knowing of thoughts and thoughts? Can there be thoughts without the knowing/awareness of them? Can there be consciousness (space) without objects (e.g. thoughts)? Can there be consciuosness/knowing of thought without the thoughts? Is consciousness/conscious space ever actually experienced or is it just an idea, an abstraction?

Comment: Again, no sense of ‘I’/‘me’ appeared during this process. But ‘I’/‘me’ starts to re-emerge as thoughts start to flow again.

So can it be said then the “I” exists only in thoughts? We’ll explore thoughts a bit more later…

There was no see-er or witness present when the daily activities above were being carried out ….. Just noticing that your questions are getting harder to focus on now - just sitting here drawing a blank. Seems like this concept of see-er has been disrupted somehow by the exercise and it’s not clear what it means at the moment/ if it makes any sense. Yes, I guess I have to think about ‘I’/‘’me’ or ‘see-er’ for those terms to mean something. Or maybe I’m just getting tired.

Well try hard then! Look hard and see if any seer appears…Please provide their description!

I have no idea what that graphic at the bottom is about.

The graphic was depicting the two way of "seeing" reality – the first is the view that there is a subject and object interacting, the second shows the two agents separately (interaction is depicted with the curve), the last one shows just the interaction. So the question was whether there are two agents interacting or there is just the "interaction". This is the context of seer, seeing, seen (or any of the other senses). Does it make more sense now?

Hit a bit of a wall just now when trying to answer your questions this afternoon. Not sure why. This morning after the exercise was fine. Some of my answers above may not make sense but I’ll send them on anyway.

That’s quite normal. Conditioning was not built in a day so it won’t disappear in a day either :)
Love
Rali

[winkwink]

Hi Rali,

****************************************************
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the shower, simply= image/colour (seeing)
Feeling the water tap, simply = sensation (feeling)
Feeling the warm water, simply = sensation (feeling)
Hearing the water, simply = sound (hearing)
Feeling the shampoo container, simply = sensation (feeling)
Smelling the shampoo, simply = smell (smelling)
Thought about the shower, simply = thought (thinking)
****************************************************
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the chilli, simply= image/colour (seeing)
Feeling the chilli, simply = sensation (feeling)
Hearing the chilli being cut, simply = sound (hearing)
Smelling the chilli, simply = smell (smelling)
Tasting the chlli, simply = sensation (feeling)
Thought about the chilli, simply = thought (thinking)
****************************************************

Does the imaginary piece of chocolate come even close to the richness of the raw experience?

Not at all. Point taken.

So I can get how the raw experience can be a bit overwhelming especially if you previously have spent most of the time in thought.

I appreciate that your sentence is not a throwaway line, thanks for adding it in here. It elucidates the way life has typically been experienced till now - in thought! The recognition as of yesterday is that thought instantaneously flows in to the vacuum which is created whenever the direct experience from the 5 senses diminishes.

When it comes to the different senses, though, without labels, are there 5 senses and thinking, or one indivisible seeing_tasting_hearing_sensing_smelling_thinking (THIS)?

Have been waiting to ask this question, hoping it might become clear by itself but it hasn’t … Why is thought bundled into the set with the ‘5 senses’ - thinking doesn’t belong to the same category as the 5 senses does it?
Also, not sure exactly why you added (THIS) at the end of the question. Is it because ‘THIS’ is referring to the senses as a totality/unity rather than them as being separate individual elements?
In regards your question, and despite not yet understanding why thinking is included in the set of 5 senses, the answer is one indivisible seeing_tasting_hearing_sensing_smelling_thinking because no sense of separation can be found between the senses.

Can the senses be isolated without thought content?

This is very clear - thinking is what facilitates separating out the different sense qualities.

…. Continue to pay attention to thoughts as they appear for a few more seconds…..

Just want to note something about thoughts. Thoughts can be “noticed” but not “watched” (as in watched for a period of time). As soon as a thought is noticed it gets zapped (like one a those mosquito killing gadgets which vapourise them when they enter the light trap). The word ‘Watching’ implies a witness watching a thought as it unfolds - that’s not possible in my experience. A thought can be ‘followed’ if it has captured attention but then there is no awareness that it is a thought.

Does the sound appear in a different “place” to thoughts?

Seems that when a thought arises, sound dims a bit but is still there in the background. But not the other way around. When attention is on sound, no thought arises. But there is no sense that either is occuring in a different ‘place’.

Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides the thoughts and the sound? Or is the line a mental construct?

There is no line/boundary. What would that even look like? Don’t actually comprehend this idea of a line. Do some people actually describe there is a separating line or boundary? This is not my experience.

Now open your eyes and notice colours.
Do the colours appear in a different “place” to thoughts and sounds?
Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides thoughts, sounds and colours, or is that division a mental construct?

As above, there is no division. Again, I can see colours and hear sounds equally at the same time but no thoughts are there. When a thought arises the sound and colour get dimmed and there is only a slight awareness of them. Thought seems to overpower everything else. But maybe this is not what you are probing with your questions? Maybe you are asking where these different senses are located? Well, there is no “place”, the 5 senses are ‘everywhere’ and ’nowhere’ - same with thought.

When you say “it is the process of dampening down of sensations which allows for thoughts to build in strength and then populate the conscious space” what do you refer to? Where is this “conscious space”? Please describe this space. Is it limited? Are thoughts floating around and occupying space? Is “consciousness” some kind of container for thoughts?

The word ‘space’ was just a placeholder word for something that is difficult to describe. It’s not experienced as a ‘place’ or ‘location’. Thoughts don’t float around. They just pop in to existence and then pop back out of existence. They don’t fade in and out. Thoughts are just there or just not there. Noticing a thought ‘pops’ it out of existence. The notion of thoughts being in some kind of container doesn’t land with me either - not sure what that even means. The ‘dampening down of sensation’ that you quoted is what I expressed a couple of paragraphs up above - sensations remain but are dimmed down (like when lights get dimmed) when a thought appears. The reverse is not true. When seeing-hearing-tasting etc are being experienced, thoughts are not. This is the reason for the question asked previously about why thought is put in the same category as the 5 senses - it seems that it has a different quality. Thought is not a ‘sense’ is it? Don’t understand this.

Check, is there space/border between the knowing of thoughts and thoughts?

So, once again you have asked about ’space/border’ so it has to be really important. Just not feeling any ’space’ or ‘border’ thing happening - just can’t conceptualise or feel what this might be that you are referring to. When you say ‘knowing of thoughts’ what do you mean? Noticing thoughts or Watching thoughts? As explained above, it’s not possible to watch thoughts, only notice them and when they are noticed they instantly pop out of existence.

Can there be thoughts without the knowing/awareness of them?

In my experience that would be a ‘No’ but I’ve read that something happens in the subconscious that is referred to as ‘thought’. Can’t speak for that as it’s not my experience. Question for you Rali - What are ‘memories’? Are they thoughts?

Can there be consciousness (space) without objects (e.g. thoughts)?

Yes. For example, in meditation there is awareness/consciousness without thought or other objects.

Can there be consciuosness/knowing of thought without the thoughts?

No. There can’t be knowing of thought without the existence of thought.

Is consciousness/conscious space ever actually experienced or is it just an idea, an abstraction?

Great question. Don’t know. There’s a preference that it’s an idea/abstraction (that probably wouldn’t go down well with a lot of people (eg vedanta types)). Wild guess here - consciousness/conscious space/awareness may ‘exist’ (not the best word but don’t know how to express it) but by its nature cannot be experienced because for something to be experienced requires there to be an experiencer experiencing an experience.

So can it be said then the “I” exists only in thoughts?

Yes it seems that “I” is just a thought that only appears when thoughts appear.

Does it make more sense now?

Still can’t relate the graphic to the explanation but the explanation of two agents interacting V just the "interaction" is clear.

Very challenging again today!!

Thanks Rali,
Ian

[poppyseed]

Hi Ian

Very challenging again today!!

It gets better little by little :)

Have been waiting to ask this question, hoping it might become clear by itself but it hasn’t … Why is thought bundled into the set with the ‘5 senses’ - thinking doesn’t belong to the same category as the 5 senses does it?
Also, not sure exactly why you added (THIS) at the end of the question. Is it because ‘THIS’ is referring to the senses as a totality/unity rather than them as being separate individual elements?

Well, what defines what a sense is – just because we have a sense organ, which we’ve seen is a story in DE. Senses are one inseparable experience. Thinking is also there. They are all “variations” of direct experience. I call “experience” just “THIS” as it is more like a pointing word to what is happening, as far as possible from the labelling that we are used to. “Experience” is still a loaded word as it presupposes an experiencer. How is thinking different from the senses (without thought content)? You saw it's happening in the same "placeless place". Just because it has been a more prominent part of experience, does that mean that it can be separated (cut out) from experience? When you say it "dims" the other aspects of experience, isn't that an experience too? You can think of experience in mathematical terms where the experience is composed of different values of these aspects (the senses and thinking). Make sense?

Yes. For example, in meditation there is awareness/consciousness without thought or other objects

So when you meditate, there is no aliveness, breathing, heartbeat?? Even though these are subtle sensations does that mean there is nothing there there?

Great question. Don’t know. There’s a preference that it’s an idea/abstraction (that probably wouldn’t go down well with a lot of people (eg vedanta types)). Wild guess here - consciousness/conscious space/awareness may ‘exist’ (not the best word but don’t know how to express it) but by its nature cannot be experienced because for something to be experienced requires there to be an experiencer experiencing an experience

“awareness” is usually used as a stepping stone, but sooner or later all crutches should be seen for what they are :)

You can approach this the same way we approached the seer. Is there anything else in seeing other than “what is seen”? So is there anything else in being aware of other then the object of awareness? Are there awareness aware-ing and aware-ed in DE? How is that observed?

When you say ‘knowing of thoughts’ what do you mean? Noticing thoughts or Watching thoughts?

I meant being aware of thinking (content or just arising)

Question for you Rali - What are ‘memories’? Are they thoughts?

OK… I think it’s time we explore the nature of thoughts

For the next exercise I want you to sit somewhere quiet and observe thoughts.
A thought appears.
In that moment is there anyone or anything which recognises the thought or is being aware of it?
Can you see anything that is separate from the thought and does the thinking?
Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear? Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead? Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?
Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?
Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

Is there anything that is responsible for the thoughts like a traffic cop saying which one to go and which one to stay? Can the flow of thoughts be changed?
Where do thoughts appear from? Where are they coming from and going to? Do they appear randomly or in a structured way? Watch like a hawk.

Write down a sequence of 5 thoughts in the order that they appear. Now check:
Could you predict the order of their appearance?
Did you know which will be the second or the fourth?
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle? How long does that last? Test it for the fun of exploration.
It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence. Or is it just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that "one thought follows another thought"?

Are thoughts 100% true?
What are you, when you don't think about what you are?

We’ll explore memories as the next exercise…
Love
Rali

[winkwink]

Hi Rali,

****************************************************
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the car, simply= image/colour (seeing)
Seeing the steering wheel, simply= image/colour (seeing)
Feeling the steering wheel, simply = sensation (feeling)
Smelling the steering wheel, simply = sensation (feeling)
Hearing hands touching the steering wheel, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about the steering wheel, simply = thought (thinking)
****************************************************
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the rice, simply= image/colour (seeing)
Seeing the pot, simply= image/colour (seeing)
Hearing the rice pouring into the pot, simply = sound (hearing)
Smelling the rice, simply = smell (smelling)
Seeing the water pouring in to the rice, simply= image/colour (seeing)
Hearing the water pouring in to the rice, simply= image/colour (seeing)
Thought about the rice in the water, simply = thought (thinking)
****************************************************

Well, what defines what a sense is …. How is thinking different from the senses (without thought content)? … Make sense?

Total sense. Get it now. Thankyou. Liked the mathematical analogy. Had to read through what you wrote slowly and carefully a few times but finally everything fell in to place. Like you said - ‘little by little’. There’s no hurry.

So when you meditate, there is no aliveness, breathing, heartbeat?? Even though these are subtle sensations does that mean there is nothing there there?

Oh ok, point taken. My answer was reflecting the ideas picked up along the way about meditation and emptiness. So if “No” is then the answer to the question “Can there be consciousness (space) without objects (e.g. thoughts)?”, this begs the question “If there are no objects (eg thoughts), then what exists if there is no consciousness (space)”? …. Brain freeze at this point. Can you give a little nudge to help with thinking this through please Rali?

“awareness” is usually used as a stepping stone, but sooner or later all crutches should be seen for what they are :)

This is also not a throwaway line. Thanks for this heads up.

You can approach this the same way we approached the seer. Is there anything else in seeing other than “what is seen”? So is there anything else in being aware of other then the object of awareness? Are there awareness aware-ing and aware-ed in DE? How is that observed?

For awareness to be observed would require thought. Otherwise, awareness would need to be aware of itself (which is something I’ve heard non-duality teachers say). So would it be correct to say that in this respect DE is at odds with non-duality teachings? This self-reflective quality of awareness (‘I am that I am’) has been presented as a cornerstone non-dual concept so if it is at odds with DE it would be good to get clear on this right now.

For the next exercise I want you to sit somewhere quiet and observe thoughts.
A thought appears.

Q: In that moment is there anyone or anything which recognises the thought or is being aware of it?
A: No, there is not anyone or anything recognising or being aware of the thought as it appears. It seems that the thought is recognised as a thought only afterwards by another thought thinking that a thought had just taken place. As a matter of fact it’s not even clear if the thought unwinds in time or it appears in one chunk because it is only seen to be a thought afterwards which, because it is identified after the fact, is in a chunk of thought stuff.
Q: Can you see anything that is separate from the thought and does the thinking?
A: Nope. No thinker can be found.
Q: Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?
A: Nope. Thoughts arose by themselves.
Q: Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?
A: Nope.
Q: Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?
A: Nope. If that was possible only pleasant thoughts would be chosen.
Q: Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?
A: Nope. It doesn’t make sense to choose to have negative thoughts but they still appear at times.
Q: Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?
A: Nope. There is no control over what kind of thought arises.
Q: Is there anything that is responsible for the thoughts like a traffic cop saying which one to go and which one to stay?
A: Nope. Would love to know why some thoughts arise when they do. It’s a mystery to me. Sometimes thoughts seem to be prompted by the environment but often they seemingly appear at random (not sure if they are random).
Q: Can the flow of thoughts be changed?
A: Nope, in my experience no control is possible.
Q: Where do thoughts appear from?
A: Have absolutely no idea.
Q: Where are they coming from and going to?
A: Do they come from somewhere and go somewhere? It appears that they pop in to and out of existence.
Q: Do they appear randomly or in a structured way?
A: Sometimes randomly sometimes structured. It is often quite a surprise when a thought arises completely out of context with other experiences at a particular time.

Write down a sequence of 5 thoughts in the order that they appear. Now check:

Little girl’s voice out on the street.
When I’m waiting for thoughts they don’t come quickly.
Glad my daughter messaged me before.
The dishwasher is beeping, better check it out.
Why is that icon in the the menu bar flashing?

Q: Could you predict the order of their appearance?
A: No. Impossible.
Q: Did you know which will be the second or the fourth?
A: No. Impossible.
Q: Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?
A: No.
Q: Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?
A: Do thoughts have a middle? Not sure that they are linear and progressive actually after today’s exercise. Do they come in chunks? Anyway, answer to the question is No, not possible for me.
Q: How long does that last? Test it for the fun of exploration.
A: Need to experiment more with this in order to find out if thoughts can be stopped in the middle.
Q: It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence. Or is it just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that "one thought follows another thought"?
A: Hmm, disagree that thought has (or at least always has) a logical ordered sequence. My thought sequence just now (up above) shows no relation between the parts. Just discrete thoughts. 3 of the 5 thoughts were prompted by the environment, the other 2 came at random. Why did the random thoughts come at all? Would love to know.
Q: Are thoughts 100% true?
A: This is a can-o-worms question. What is ‘truth’? A lot of thought content is concocted/ made up on the fly/ guesswork it seems.
Q: What are you, when you don't think about what you are?
A: A body that senses and responds to its environment.

A thought just arose that wants you to know that thinking about thoughts is painful.
But also enjoyable.
Thanks Rali, all the best.

[poppyseed]

Hi Ian

Seeing the car, simply= image/colour (seeing)
Seeing the steering wheel, simply= image/colour (seeing)
Feeling the steering wheel, simply = sensation (feeling)

Thank you for your diligence! Good looking! Keep it on :)

: No, there is not anyone or anything recognising or being aware of the thought as it appears. It seems that the thought is recognised as a thought only afterwards by another thought thinking that a thought had just taken place. As a matter of fact it’s not even clear if the thought unwinds in time or it appears in one chunk because it is only seen to be a thought afterwards which, because it is identified after the fact, is in a chunk of thought stuff.

Amazing stuff!

Sometimes thoughts seem to be prompted by the environment but often they seemingly appear at random (not sure if they are random).

Very good observation!

Nope. Would love to know why some thoughts arise when they do. It’s a mystery to me. Sometimes thoughts seem to be prompted by the environment but often they seemingly appear at random (not sure if they are random)…
Why did the random thoughts come at all? Would love to know.

You can say thoughts are self-organised but that would require time beyond NOW and would be a story :)

Ok as promised let’s look at memories…
What is memory exactly? What is the memory ‘made of’?
Is there any difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
WHEN does the memory actually appear? How is it known that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?
WHEN does the future thought appear?
Is there a difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about the past and a thought about the future.
What is the difference between the thoughts about past and future in actual experience? If there is a difference, how is that difference known exactly?
Can a past or future be known? Or all that is known are the AE of thoughts labelled as ‘memory’ that are appearing now?

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

But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?
How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?
Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?
How long does the ‘now’ last?
Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?
When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?
What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?
So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?
Where is last week?
Where is yesterday?
Where is last night?
Where is this morning?
Where is five minutes ago?
Where is one minute ago?
Where is a second ago?
Where is tomorrow morning?
Where is next week?
Where is next month?
Can you find any of these? Or only ‘memory’ or ‘future’ thoughts about these appearing now?

A: A body that senses and responds to its environment.

We'll come back to this...

I realised I missed a couple of your questions…

Oh ok, point taken. My answer was reflecting the ideas picked up along the way about meditation and emptiness. So if “No” is then the answer to the question “Can there be consciousness (space) without objects (e.g. thoughts)?”, this begs the question “If there are no objects (eg thoughts), then what exists if there is no consciousness (space)”? …. Brain freeze at this point. Can you give a little nudge to help with thinking this through please Rali?

What IS/ THIS? In Buddhism the term "thusness" or "suchness" is used, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction. Indescribable but experienceable.
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 see this, you will stop endlessly frustrating yourself by trying to figure out how things are.
Truth or reality is not an idea or a belief. 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. Emptiness does not mean nothingness - it just mean no-thing-ness. It simply means empty of self-nature. Things exist only in the context of other things (concepts built on concepts, built on concepts)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYqaWmc ... 4&index=41

For awareness to be observed would require thought. Otherwise, awareness would need to be aware of itself (which is something I’ve heard non-duality teachers say). So would it be correct to say that in this respect DE is at odds with non-duality teachings? This self-reflective quality of awareness (‘I am that I am’) has been presented as a cornerstone non-dual concept so if it is at odds with DE it would be good to get clear on this right now.

Can awareness split itself into non awareness and awareness to look at itself? So at this moment it has to split into subject and object to look at itself… Can you see the paradox?
Here is a video that might bring a bit of clarity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lm3G0_ ... ex=17&t=8s

Please don’t get wrapped up in this…it will become clearer as we move through this exploration. We can always come back later if there is still unclarity.

Love
Rali

[winkwink]

Hi Rali,

****************************************************
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the cereal bowl, simply = image/colour (seeing)
Seeing the cereal, simply= image/colour (seeing)
Smelling the cereal, simply = smell (smelling)
Tasting the cereal, simply = taste (tasting)
Feeling cereal in the mouth, simply = sensation (feeling)
Hearing the spoon on the bowl, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about the cereal, simply = thought (thinking)
****************************************************
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the waste bin, simply = image/colour (seeing)
Feeling the waste bin, simply = sensation (feeling)
Smelling the waste bin, simply = smell (smelling)
Hearing the waste bin dragged along the driveway, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about the waste bin, simply = thought (thinking)
****************************************************

Ok as promised let’s look at memories…

It’s going to be hard to answer your questions today without thought (in your intro you asked me to answer by “not relying on thought, imagination or memory - just reporting your direct experience”) but I’ll give it a go …

Q: What is memory exactly? What is the memory ‘made of’?
A: My take on memory based on the direct experience of sensations happening right now as this is being written … events in the environment are being sensed by the sense organs and the body somehow recognises (or not) that input as a sensation. This seems to produce a physical response (eg increase in heart rate) and seemingly simultaneously a feeling in the body that is a result of that change in body state. At the time the feeling response starts a thought is generated (don’t know if this is instantaneous or if there is a gap beween feeling and thought) which seems to be a way for the body to understand the sensation so that it can take action (or not) in response to the sensation (don’t know why it can’t take action automatically, but there it is) ….. This is just a description of what is happening in this body but doesn’t address your two questions. No idea what a memory is or what it is ‘made of’ except to guess (this is me relying on thought now to reason this out) that it is a patterned thought that has developed over time from repeated exposures to similar environmental events.
Q: Is there any difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
A: What an interesting question! Never considered that before. If thought is always (and not sure that it is) a response to a stimulus then maybe all thoughts are ‘memory’ thoughts? Perhaps all thoughts have a stimulus even if the thinker isn’t aware of the stimulus. This is moving in to speculation rather than DE so will stop here.
Q: WHEN does the memory actually appear?
A: At the moment it is recognised as a similar instance of a previous event.
Q: How is it known that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?
A: No idea - this can’t be known by direct experience can it?

Then, look at a thought about the future.

Q: What is the future thought ‘made of’?
A: Guesses/speculation based on past experiences.
Q: WHEN does the future thought appear?
A: Same as for a memory thought - it’s a response to a current environmental event. The same matching process probably occurs but this time there is a projection of a recognition forwards rather than simply a recognition backwards.
Q: Is there a difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
A: As per memory thoughts - probably the same.
Q: How is it known that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?
A: No idea - an answer would just be speculation.

Then let’s compare a thought about the past and a thought about the future.

Q: What is the difference between the thoughts about past and future in actual experience? If there is a difference, how is that difference known exactly?
A: Just speculation but they are essentially the same with the exception that one is simply a matching (recognition) of past events (“facts”) whereas the other is a projection of recognition forwards (guessing/speculation).
Q: Can a past or future be known? Or all that is known are the AE of thoughts labelled as ‘memory’ that are appearing now?
A: No, all that can be known are thoughts which are a representation of the past or a speculation/guess about the future.

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

But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time? No
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next? No
Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another? No
How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving? No movement detected.
Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began? No.
How long does the ‘now’ last? It doesnt have a length of time.
Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end? There is no start or end.
When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'? Can’t answer this.
What is the ‘past’ in actual experience? Thoughts.
So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’? Thoughts about time.
Where is last week? In memory thought.
Where is yesterday? In memory thought.
Where is last night? In memory thought.
Where is this morning? In memory thought.
Where is five minutes ago? In memory thought.
Where is one minute ago? In memory thought.
Where is a second ago? In memory thought.
Where is tomorrow morning? In future thought.
Where is next week? In future thought.
Where is next month? In future thought.
Can you find any of these? Or only ‘memory’ or ‘future’ thoughts about these appearing now? These can’t be found because they are only ‘memory’ or ‘future’ thoughts appearing now.

Reality is very simple. Once you see this, you will stop endlessly frustrating yourself by trying to figure out how things are.

Hurray!

Truth or reality is not an idea or a belief. It cannot be grasped by thoughts. It does not need to be understood by the intellect. Actually, it is impossible to understand through thoughts.

Thank you. This is information I treasure.

Can awareness split itself into non awareness and awareness to look at itself? So at this moment it has to split into subject and object to look at itself… Can you see the paradox?

Is the paradox that awareness (which by definition is aware) cannot be unaware of part of itself? Is this the veil they talk about in some parts of non-dualism world? I’ve heard it described as something like “awareness forgetting itself”. Not convincing. Has always seemed to be a snag in the teaching.

Please don’t get wrapped up in this…it will become clearer as we move through this exploration. We can always come back later if there is still unclarity.

There is no overwhelming desire to have an answer to this here and now - there is a recognition though of the value in being exposed to a wide variety of ideas which experience has shown seem to coalesce in a way over time. The videos in those links you sent are a case in point. Have really enjoyed watching those. Had no idea there were two versions of non-duality. Well, there you go! Very helpful. Thanks for introducing me to that.

Really appreciate your time and help,
My best,
Ian

[poppyseed]

Hi Ian

… there is a recognition though of the value in being exposed to a wide variety of ideas which experience has shown seem to coalesce in a way over time.

Are you looking for confirmation? The best confirmation is what you can directly experience or not :)

My take on memory based on the direct experience of sensations happening right now as this is being written … events in the environment are being sensed by the sense organs and the body somehow recognises (or not) that input as a sensation. This seems to produce a physical response (eg increase in heart rate) and seemingly simultaneously a feeling in the body that is a result of that change in body state. At the time the feeling response starts a thought is generated (don’t know if this is instantaneous or if there is a gap beween feeling and thought) which seems to be a way for the body to understand the sensation so that it can take action (or not) in response to the sensation (don’t know why it can’t take action automatically, but there it is) ….. This is just a description of what is happening in this body but doesn’t address your two questions. No idea what a memory is or what it is ‘made of’ except to guess (this is me relying on thought now to reason this out) that it is a patterned thought that has developed over time from repeated exposures to similar environmental events.

Wow! What a big story (scientific or fictional)?! :)
First of all, previously you reported that there are thoughts that describe the experience and there are random thoughts (not all reflecting the current experience)
Second, there is a contradiction with your answers about “time”. Where could possibly cause and effect (“This seems to produce a physical response (eg increase in heart rate)”) happen if it is always NOW? In thoughts? Things are happening and thought/labelling is appearing together with this (NOW)
Let’s make this simple …
Think of what you ate for breakfast this morning. Now think of what socks you are wearing now (look at them). Now think of what you will have for dinner. Where/when did the first thought appear? NOW? Where/when did the second thought appear? NOW? Where/when did the third thought appear? NOW? How do they differ if you disregard what they talk about (their content)? Are they not just thoughts arising in DE right now right here?

The “body” idea is becoming a necessity to explore at this point. Let’s examine these ideas of yours:

and the body somehow recognises (or not) that input as a sensation.

A body that senses and responds to its environment.

Exercises:
1. Take something cold from the fridge – like a can of cooldrink. When you touch the can, what does more accurately describe your experience:
a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”? With eyes closed, where does the cold appear? Observe the order in which the details appear
2. Sit comfortably on a chair. Close your eyes and relax. Pay attention only to the feeling of your body. Just notice the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images. Keep your eyes closed and look:
Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair? At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation?
Is it "my" body, or is it just a body?
Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?
What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
Can the 'body' do things?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, walking, lying down, etc) before replying.

Love
Rali

[winkwink]

Hi Rali,

****************************************************
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the cheese, simply = image/colour (seeing)
Seeing the cheese grater, simply= image/colour (seeing)
Feeling the cheese, simply = sensation (feeling)
Smelling the cheese, simply = smell (smelling)
Hearing the cheese being grated = simply sound (hearing)
Thought about the cheese, simply = thought (thinking)
****************************************************
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the water bottle, simply = image/colour (seeing)
Feeling the water bottle, simply = sensation (feeling)
Hearing the water being poured, simply = sound (hearing)
Tasting the water, simply = taste (tasting)
Feeling the water down the throat, simply = sensation (feeling)
Thought about the water, simply = thought (thinking)
****************************************************

Are you looking for confirmation? The best confirmation is what you can directly experience or not :)

Your point is well made.

Wow! What a big story (scientific or fictional)?! :)

Yeah, you’re right. Just a made up story. Starting to realise that any description is just made up on the fly.

Where could possibly cause and effect (“This seems to produce a physical response (eg increase in heart rate)”) happen if it is always NOW? In thoughts?

Point taken. Yes, if there is no past or future then cause and effect doesn’t make sense really.

Where/when did the first thought appear? NOW? Where/when did the second thought appear? NOW? Where/when did the third thought appear? NOW?

Yep, NOW.

How do they differ if you disregard what they talk about (their content)?

No difference.

Are they not just thoughts arising in DE right now right here?

Right here right now. Can only be that.

Exercises:
1. Take something cold from the fridge – like a can of cooldrink. When you touch the can, what does more accurately describe your experience:
a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”? With eyes closed, where does the cold appear? Observe the order in which the details appear

The sensation labelled ‘cold’. The sensation doesn’t appear in a place/space. There is just a sensation. Don’t understand the sentence “Observe the order in which details appear”. There is just coldness. Thought tried to name hand/fingers and locate the sensation at one point - that thappened in a flash then disappeared as the sensation labelled ‘cold’ grew stronger.

2. Sit comfortably on a chair. Close your eyes and relax. Pay attention only to the feeling of your body. Just notice the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images. Keep your eyes closed and look:

Can it be known how tall the body is? No.
Does the body have a weight or volume? No.
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form? No.
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair? No, just a sensation called ‘pressure’.
At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation? Quite clearly just one sensation (called ‘pressure’).
Is it "my" body, or is it just a body? There are just sensations. No awareness of a body.
Is there an inside or an outside? There is no awareness of a body so ‘inside’ ‘outside’ are irrelevant. Without seeing, thought is required to provide the concepts ‘inside’ and ‘outside’. Without thought, in DE, these concepts don’t exist.
If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly? No inside can be directly experienced and without seeing there is also no direct experience of the outside of a ‘body’.
What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body? With eyes closed, there is no awareness of a ‘body’ during the exercise, just several sensations which can be labelled ‘feeling’. If thought arises it labels the sensations as ‘heart beat’, ‘breathing’ etc, not ‘body breathing’. The word/label ‘body’ is a shorthand way of referring to the collection of all these sensations …. wait, how can it be possible to differentiate sensations associated ‘within’ the ‘body’ from sensations (eg sounds) ‘outside’ the ‘body’ if there are just only sensations? …… Huh? With eyes closed there is ACTUALLY no ‘body’???
Can the 'body' do things? There are only sensations (hearing, tasting etc) in the non-moving/non-doing state and even when the body is moving/doing this is also experienced as sensation in direct experience. During this moving/doing there is no awareness of a doer as in ‘I am washing the bowl’ or even a thought instigating this action (‘I will wash the bowl’) let alone remaining as the aware doer during the course of any action. It appears as if the body can do things/ move things etc but as to how this happens without a doer I have no idea.

Thanks Rali,
Ian

[poppyseed]

Hi Ian

How do they differ if you disregard what they talk about (their content)?

No difference.

Great! :)

The sensation labelled ‘cold’. The sensation doesn’t appear in a place/space. There is just a sensation. Don’t understand the sentence “Observe the order in which details appear”. There is just coldness. Thought tried to name hand/fingers and locate the sensation at one point - that thappened in a flash then disappeared as the sensation labelled ‘cold’ grew stronger.

Very good observation!

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

With eyes closed, there is no awareness of a ‘body’ during the exercise, just several sensations which can be labelled ‘feeling’. If thought arises it labels the sensations as ‘heart beat’, ‘breathing’ etc, not ‘body breathing’. The word/label ‘body’ is a shorthand way of referring to the collection of all these sensations …. wait, how can it be possible to differentiate sensations associated ‘within’ the ‘body’ from sensations (eg sounds) ‘outside’ the ‘body’ if there are just only sensations? …… Huh? With eyes closed there is ACTUALLY no ‘body’???

First, I want to make clear that the label “sensation” here is used as in just feeling, not as the product of the senses. For the rest we have colour (seeing), taste (tasting), smell (smelling), sound (hearing) and thought (thinking), which together with sensation (feeling) form direct experience (DE). Language (concepts) is agreed upon meaning that we assign to experience (as we saw with “apple”), so it’s important to agree upon the meaning of the labels that we are using here (the DE labels).
Your use of the word "sensations", the way I understood it, more likely refers to "experiences" (experiencing). Just to reiterate, sensations is just the experience of feeling and sound is the experience of hearing. Clear? This separation is artificial as we’ll see in this inquiry but the differentiation is needed for the sake of clarity in communication.

So…, the actual experience of the body is thought. Thought points to sensations (all are refered to as "body" even though they have other names), certain colours, smells :), and tastes :), and generally labels them a ‘body’, but a body cannot be found as actual experience - only thoughts about a body. Agreed?

Here is an even deeper investigation of the body. Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen. Repeat the exercise several times.

Stand in front of a bigger mirror.
1. First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.

2. Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations. Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror? Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

3. While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

4. Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or only thoughts suggest it?

5. Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror. Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’? Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all? Or are there only colours and shapes?

6. Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen. Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

7. Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts). Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

8. Start to walk slowly.
Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

9. Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?
Love
Rali

[winkwink]

Hi Rali,

****************************************************
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the lime, simply = image/colour (seeing)
Feeling the lime, simply = sensation (feeling)
Smelling the lime, simply = smell (smelling)
Hearing the lime being cut, simply = sound (hearing)
Tasting the lime, simply = taste (tasting)
Thought about the lime, simply = thought (thinking)
****************************************************
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the garden weed, simply = image/colour (seeing)
Feeling the weed, simply = sensation (feeling)
Hearing the weed being pulled out, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about the weed, simply = thought (thinking)
****************************************************

Just to reiterate, sensations is just the experience of feeling and sound is the experience of hearing. Clear?

Got it. Thank you for pointing that out. Semantics is important at this stage.

So…, the actual experience of the body is thought. Thought points to sensations (all are refered to as "body" even though they have other names), certain colours, smells :), and tastes :), and generally labels them a ‘body’, but a body cannot be found as actual experience - only thoughts about a body. Agreed?

All good.

2. Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror? Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?
No connection was felt between sensations and the image in the mirror which was actually lust part the patchwork of colours in the experience of seeing. On a couple of occasions thought attempted to label the ‘body’ but when thought was noticed the overall patchwork of colours (which included the ‘room’ etc) seemed to automatically just be there.

3. While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?
No connection whatsoever.

4. Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or only thoughts suggest it?
Mostly no connnection felt except for a couple of times when thought tried to locate the sensation of muscles moving in the hand with the image of the hand. Once this thought was noticed the separation of sensation and image returned.

5. Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror. Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’? Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all? Or are there only colours and shapes?
When viewing the mirror at this point the image was a patchwork of colours only. There was no thought of ‘I’ or ‘my body’, in fact, only occasionally did a ‘body’ appear (which was the thought of a body arising of course).

6. Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen. Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?
Didn’t go looking for ‘legs’ as the thought did not arise due to ‘legs’ not appearing in the patchwork of colours.

7. Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts). Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?
No body whatsover when there are no thoughts, just sensations are experienced.

8. Start to walk slowly.
Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Only sensations, except there were a couple of thoughts which noticed and reported that there were a the large number of sensations being felt in doing this exercise. But there was no sense of a ‘body walking’.
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
There was no experience of ‘walking’ but there was experience of a lot of sensations which afterwards on reflection were recognised as muscles being engaged to maintain balance.
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
No THOUGHTS ABOUT walking, just sometimes thoughts about the sensations arising while walking.
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
No ‘body’ was recognised while walking or even thoughts THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’.
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?
‘Walking’ could not be found. Interestingly, no thought to start or stop walking was noticed either.

9. Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?
There was an image of a patchwork of colours that constantly changed as the sensations associated with movement were changing, but this image was only labelled ‘room’ after the exercise was completed.

This exercise today was very interesting and helpful,
Thanks Rali.

[poppyseed]

Hi Ian

Wonderful looking! I really appreciate your diligence and perseverance!

Let’s have a look at the idea of control, choice and decisions. Please explore the exercises below and report your findings! Remember that we’re looking for some kind of entity, a something, an ‘I’ which is doing the ‘choosing’. Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’, but remember we are not interested in “seems like” and “feels like” entities, but ones that could be described.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[winkwink]

Hi Rali,

Apologies from me, today's tasks will require a bit more time to complete properly so will post my responses tomorrow. This set of tasks are obviously very important so it's better to give them the time and effort they deserve.

All the best,
Ian

[poppyseed]

No worries! Thanks for letting me know!
Love
Rali

[winkwink]

Hi Rali,

****************************************************
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the dirty clothes basket, simply = image/colour (seeing)
Seeing the dirty clothes, simply = image/colour (seeing)
Smelling the dirty clothes, simply = smell (smelling)
Seeing the washing machine, simply = image/colour (seeing)
Feeling the dirty clothes being placed in the washing machine, simply = sensation (feeling)
Hearing the dirty clothes being placed in the washing machine, simply = sound (hearing)
Hearing the washing machine, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about the dirty clothes and the washing machine, simply = thought (thinking)
****************************************************
Daily activity exercise ….

Seeing the green leaf vegetable, simply = image/colour (seeing)
Feeling the vegetable, simply = sensation (feeling)
Hearing the vegetable leaf being broken off the plant, simply = sound (hearing)
Smelling the leaf, simply = smell (smelling)
Thought about the leaf, simply = thought (thinking)
****************************************************

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?
There seems to be two ways that the palm turns over … 1) A thought says ‘when ‘3’ is reached on the count ‘1,2,3’ turn the palm’ and the palm turns over, and 2) It literally just turns over without any awareness of a thought/direction.
Does a thought control it?
In method 1 a thought seems to set off the action of turning but then the action completes itself automatically once the command is received. In method 2 no thought is noticed at all.
Can a ‘controller’ or an entity that is choosing be located?
No ‘controller’ or ‘instigator’ of the action can be found. However, in method 1 a thought is noticed, but no thought is noticed in method 2.
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.
In method 1 the thought to make the decision of when to turn the hand over just arises - but what made that particular thought arise? The thought made the decision point ‘count to 3 and when 3 is reached’. In method 2 there was no decision point noticed and it is unclear why the hand turned over because no thought was noticed that would make it do that.

Comment: Need to clarify a couple of things about this exercise Rali….
Firstly, it was very clear that the hand was turning over in method 2 without thought being noticed just prior to or during that action. It only became evident that the hand was turning over during the act of turning - it was seen to be turning. Was thought the reason that the turning of the hand was being noticed during the action even though no awareness of any thoughts? (ie thoughts were occuring but weren’t noticed).
Secondly, it was also clear that the hand turning over only ever happened just after the instructions were read and for a short time after that - the hand never turned over at any time other than for a time shortly after the thought about doing the task.
Can’t seem to resolve these questions so would appreciate your help to understand them.

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?
The drinks were plain water and carbonated water (so, similar except for the bubbles). Shortly after looking at each glass of water individually, the key characteristics just appeared. Firstly, visually (‘clearness’ or ‘bubbles’) and then thoughts about taste and sensation (none or fizziness/tanginess). A preference for the fizzy water manifested by itself - there was no ‘choice’ made.

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’?
Before counting to 5 a clear preference had already manifested so when the counting started the preference for fizz just faded in to the background. While the counting happened it was not noticed that there was a choice made to count or to shut down the preferences. There was no experience of an entity doing any ‘choosing’ either.

In step 3 where you made a choice, did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does it look like?
No, there was no entity experienced that made the choice, that decided to pick up the drink or that decided to sip the drink. Before this sequence of events happened, however, there was an original thought that a sequence was required to be enacted in the coming seconds which would involve choosing, picking up a glass and sipping, but after that thought there was no awareness of what happened next except that the hand was moving towards a glass, picking it up and sipping the water. There was no announcement, ‘I am the chooser’.

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...

The first example that popped into mind was the decision to purchase new LED downlights for the kitchen this week.

How did it come to be?
The decision to purchase 3 new LED downlights was prompted by one of the four lights in the kitchen failing. A flurry of thoughts followed this event …. ‘I only replaced another one of those lights last week’, ‘These lights have a 5 year warranty, they shouldn’t be failing so quickly one after another’, ‘Perhaps there is a failure in the electrical wiring in the kitchen that needs to be fixed ?’ etc

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?
Last week, one new light was purchased to replace a light which had failed. There was a thought that the light shouldn’t have failed because it wasn’t old, but oh well, just get a replacement. The decision to buy 3 new lights this week, not just one to replace the second light to fail within a week, was prompted by a thought that if there is a wiring system failure then perhaps other lights may fail as well. So, an extra 2 lights were purchased to cover that possibility in the short term. A longer term, more expensive, solution may be to have the electrician check the wiring. To answer the question as to whether the outcome (purchasing 3 lights rather than one) would have been the same or different, the answer is obviously that it would have been different because the previous week only one replacment light was purchased rather than 3 - that was before extra information was considered (eg the possibility of a problem with the wiring system potentially causing the failures).

How many of these conditions were outside of your influence? What was in your control (according to thought)?
The 2 lights failing at the time that they did was out of my control. The fact that lights fail at all is out of my control. What could potentially have been in my control (according to thought) is whether an electrician should have been engaged after the first light failure but that was a possible solution that was not acted on.

Comment: Rali, don’t think that Q3 has been answered correctly and feeling a bit confused now.
Just saying this because most of the above is just thought and you stipulated “Don't go to thoughts, examine the actual experience.” It doesn’t seem to be possible to describe what took place above without going to thoughts. It’s nearly all thoughts … thoughts that have arisen to serve the function of communicating an actual experience to you. Could you comment on this please?
If the goal of the exercise was to identify “some kind of entity, a something, an ‘I’ which is doing the ‘choosing’” then clearly there was no “I” or controller experienced. Even when considering if an electrician should be engaged, that was a thought but there was no awareness of an “I” thinking it “I should engage an electrian’, rather it was ‘maybe an electrician should be engaged’.

This bunch of exercises were very challenging. Looking forward very much to your feedback.
Thanks Rali. Really appreciating your guidance.

[poppyseed]

Hi Ian

There seems to be two ways that the palm turns over … 1) A thought says ‘when ‘3’ is reached on the count ‘1,2,3’ turn the palm’ and the palm turns over, and 2) It literally just turns over without any awareness of a thought/direction.

Are there really two ways of how this “unrolls” in DE? Or there are two ways of describing what is happening – the old way and a new way (DE)?

In method 1 a thought seems to set off the action of turning but then the action completes itself automatically once the command is received. In method 2 no thought is noticed at all.

Can a thought do anything? Can a thought communicate, plan, urge, decide, lift hands? OR it just appears with a description of what is already happening (or not) plus “I made a decision”? Can sensations (lifting hands) think? Can they understand thoughts (speak English)? Is there doing/action at all or just feeling and thinking?

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

The 2 lights failing at the time that they did was out of my control. The fact that lights fail at all is out of my control. What could potentially have been in my control (according to thought) is whether an electrician should have been engaged after the first light failure but that was a possible solution that was not acted on.

Comment: Rali, don’t think that Q3 has been answered correctly and feeling a bit confused now.

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 (e.g. electricians and what they are capable of, problems solved on your own in the past, etc. dating back to being “born”). 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?


Love
Rali