The Gate

Hi, Peter,

Good work!

Here's another exercise for you:

(1) Thoughts with words “Here is cup”
(2) Visual mental images of a ‘cup’

Think of a cup. Get a very clear picture in your mind. See clearly the size, shape, color and volume of the cup. Notice whether it is decorated or plain. Notice whether it has a handle. Notice whether it is heavy or fragile. Do you have a clear picture in mind?

Can you physically grasp that image of a cup?
Can you pour tea into it?
Can you drink from it?

Is there a ‘real’ cup or just an image of a cup?
Is there an appearing mental image?
Is the content of the mental image (the cup) ‘real’?

The thoughts and mental images are real only as arising thoughts and mental images; their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However their contents are just fantasies. Can you see this?

Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising thought or mental image, check whether its content (what it’s about) is really happening, or the content is just pure imagination. Let me know how it goes.

Sending love,

Robyn

Do you have a clear picture in mind?

Yes

Can you physically grasp that image of a cup?
Can you pour tea into it?
Can you drink from it?

No, sure wish I had that ability ;)
No.
No.

Is there a ‘real’ cup or just an image of a cup?
Is there an appearing mental image?
Is the content of the mental image (the cup) ‘real’?

Just an image of a cup.
Yes there is an appearing mental image.
The content of the mental image is not real.

The thoughts and mental images are real only as arising thoughts and mental images; their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However their contents are just fantasies. Can you see this?

Yes.

Okay, I'll try to pay attention to this the next couple days and report back.

Beautiful!

I look forward to your report after spending a couple of days with it.

Sending love,

Robyn

Hey Robyn,

After a few days of observing thoughts. Like the imaginary cup, the contents of thought are just a story. A version of what "I" think had happened. It spontaneous arises and has nothing to do with direct experience.

At times, old memories would surface which I recognize as old mental thought patterns or habits that loops. And another thought would occur, "oh, there's that old tape again, playing itself", and quickly as fast as the original thought arose, it passes and is dispelled. Seeing that it has nothing to do with right now.

Other times, thoughts would arise as part of an experience, and then the thought would follow, "like the imaginary cup, the contents of this thought are not tangible."

The cup analogy has been a wonderful exercise. =D

Hi, Peter,

Good to hear from you.

After a few days of observing thoughts. Like the imaginary cup, the contents of thought are just a story. A version of what "I" think had happened. It spontaneous arises and has nothing to do with direct experience.

That's great! I'm glad there is more clarity about the nature of thought.

The tone of your message sounds much calmer than in the past. Is there a shift in how life seems since seeing the nature of the content of thoughts?

Sending love,

Robyn

Is there a shift in how life seems since seeing the nature of the content of thoughts?

There's not a major shift, life still continues as-is. Only noticeable difference now is the after-thought that occurs. Where after a train of thought occurs, another thought appears "this is just content, just story, like the imaginary cup" I watch it and let it bypass not giving it much value. That is all.

Hi, Peter,

You're doing great.

There's not a major shift, life still continues as-is. Only noticeable difference now is the after-thought that occurs. Where after a train of thought occurs, another thought appears "this is just content, just story, like the imaginary cup" I

Good.

I watch it and let it bypass not giving it much value.

So, thought "I" is still seen as real "I?"

Here's another exercise for you, Peter.

The following link is a 7 minute clip of a soccer game. If you prefer another sport…please feel free to find an alternate clip for this exercise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5pL-myDzw

1. Watch one minute with the sound turned OFF, watching ‘people’ messing about with a round thing on a field, up and down, up and down. Let it sink in, the whole experience.

2. Once the first minute is completed, now watch another whole minute with the commentary turned ON.

Notice the differences. Notice how the commentator (thought) offers lots of know-how, even advice. It seems to feel as though they can influence, somehow, what is going on, as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome. The commentary may seem to heighten any supporter feelings which are there, and call for an identification with one team or other, and with the importance of the game itself.

3. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary, the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Again notice all the differences in what is appearing as experience.

4. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know thought is talking about, and just notice it as sound.

What did you find when doing this exercise?
Is the commentary on the soccer game a necessity for the play to happen?
And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

Enjoy!

Sending love,

Robyn

What did you find when doing this exercise?

Without sound, there's just movement. Emotions I can relate to on people's faces. And it's more boring/dull. Just images on the screen.

With sound, there's more excitement and emotion that arises. There's a story that I get sucked into it.

Is the commentary on the soccer game a necessity for the play to happen?

No it's not necessary. It happens regardless. What's seen on the screen is direct experience. The sound of the commentary is also just direct experience. The content is secondary interpretation. If I were to hear the commentary in a language I did not understand, that too would just be sound.

And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

No it's not necessary. It's just content that arises on it's own. The commentator that comes and goes.

"Your thoughts about individuality are really not your own thoughts.
they are all collective thoughts. You think that you are the one who has the thoughts.
In fact, thoughts arise in consciousness." -Nisargadatta Maharaj

Hey, Peter,

Got busy! Will get back to you tomorrow.

Sending love,

Robyn

Hi, Peter,

Whenever 'I' use personal pronouns in messages here, they are meant to be in quotes. A little cumbersome to execute every single time.

Emotions I can relate to on people's faces.

How is it known that faces have emotions?
How is it known that they are faces?

Here's a new exercise for you:

I would like for you to point where others see your face.
What do you see? You are now looking inwards – turning the direction of your attention round 180˚ from the 'objects out there' to 'you' the subject, to the place 'you' are seemingly looking out of. Do you see your face? Do you see anything at all there - any color or shape, any movement?

With sound, there's more excitement and emotion that arises. There's a story that I get sucked into it.

Where exactly is this "I" that gets "sucked" into the story? Describe this "I" to me in precise detail including where it is located.

If there is no commentary to ‘suck you in’, then everything is neutral. It is only the commentary that overlays what is appearing that seemingly gives meaning to what is happening and draws ‘you’ into the story of being a separate self.
Did you notice that the commentary is usually about what has happened? Or what should or might happen (in the future), and what should or should not have happened, or did happen in the past.
So this is how it goes with the story about a character called ‘Peter!'

And it's more boring/dull.

Without thought, how is it known that "it's more boring/dull"?
What is the actual/direct experience of "boring/dull"?

No it's not necessary. It happens regardless

Right. Good. Peter, that's all there is.

What's seen on the screen is direct experience.

Direct experience is not something separate. Direct experience is always happening. It's easier to focus on direct experience without the sound.

The content is secondary interpretation.

This is report of thought content. What the heck is 'secondary interpretation?' All interpretation is simply thought content, right?

Peter, if 'you' will just stick to only the answers to the questions and stop before adding thought content, this will get clear.

Sending love!

Robyn

How is it known that faces have emotions?

It's built into human nature. Basic animal instinct? First form of communication amongst animals.

How is it known that they are faces?

By instinct.

I would like for you to point where others see your face. What do you see?

A finger pointing to my face.

You are now looking inwards – turning the direction of your attention round 180˚ from the 'objects out there' to 'you' the subject, to the place 'you' are seemingly looking out of. Do you see your face? Do you see anything at all there - any color or shape, any movement?

I don't quite follow. Are you asking me to see myself, my face, from an imagined perspective? Outside in?

I don't see how this is possible via direct experience. But to use imagination of someone else's perspective looking at me, I would see a face.

Where exactly is this "I" that gets "sucked" into the story? Describe this "I" to me in precise detail including where it is located.

I was just speaking conveniently. There's no "I". There's just more excitement with sound. And hearing a story is more entertaining to follow.

If there is no commentary to ‘suck you in’, then everything is neutral. It is only the commentary that overlays what is appearing that seemingly gives meaning to what is happening and draws ‘you’ into the story of being a separate self.

Agreed, this is what I was trying to convey.

Did you notice that the commentary is usually about what has happened? Or what should or might happen (in the future), and what should or should not have happened, or did happen in the past.
So this is how it goes with the story about a character called ‘Peter!'

Haha, yes!

Without thought, how is it known that "it's more boring/dull"?

Good point. It's more of a feeling, not so much a thought. The thought only further emphasizes the feeling.

What is the actual/direct experience of "boring/dull"?

Stumped here. It cannot be directly experienced. I guess it's considered content of feeling.

This is report of thought content. What the heck is 'secondary interpretation?' All interpretation is simply thought content, right?

Yes secondary interpretation = content. Same, different choice of words.

Hi, Peter,

Sorry for the delay. I should have let you know I would be unavailable to write much today.

I"ll get back to you tomorrow.

Sending love,

Robyn

Hi, Peter,

I'll come back to your question about the exercise later.

But to start...

It's built into human nature. Basic animal instinct? First form of communication amongst animals.

Peter, all questions here are meant to be answered in terms of direct experience (DE).
In DE, how is it known that faces have emotions? What is it that calls images faces? What is it that says faces having emotions?
The label "basic animal instinct" exists where? Does it exist in DE?
Where did this answer "first form of communication amongst animals" come from? Is this direct experience or learned information?
Is learned information direct experience or thought content?

By instinct.

is this learned information/theory (= thought content) or DE?

There's just more excitement with sound. And hearing a story is more entertaining to follow.

Peter, what is being described here? "more excitement with sound" is a report of what? Can "just more excitement with sound" be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt or is it content of thought?
What is saying "hearing a story is more entertaining to follow?"

Sending love,

Robyn

In DE, how is it known that faces have emotions? What is it that calls images faces? What is it that says faces having emotions?

It is just known, not through direct experience. What calls the images faces and says it has emotions after the fact would be thought. But thought is not required upon initial impression of the image.

The label "basic animal instinct" exists where? Does it exist in DE?

Instinct and intuition do not come from direct experience. However, there's a sense of knowing that seems to be more feeling based and is beyond thought.

Where did this answer "first form of communication amongst animals" come from? Is this direct experience or learned information? Is learned information direct experience or thought content?

Learned, it is just thought content. But what I was trying to convey was mentioned above regarding instinct and intuition. Some things are just known as a result of direct experience. Seeing someone smile or seeing someone frown, doesn't require thought to know whether they are happy or sad. Verbal communication nor thought is required to know. It is felt.

is this learned information/theory (= thought content) or DE?

I'm not sure how to define instinct or intuition. It's seems to be an experience that's cognized and understood without thought. Not sure how to categorize this since it's neither thought, seeing, hearing, etc, but a result of it.

Peter, what is being described here? "more excitement with sound" is a report of what? Can "just more excitement with sound" be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt or is it content of thought?

Without thought, an increase in excitement is felt through emotion when sound goes on and a decrease in excitement felt through emotion when sound goes off. There's no thought verbalization of this process required. So what's being described here is emotion. Direct experience of excitement would be increased heart rate, tenseness in muscles, shortness of breath, etc..

What is saying "hearing a story is more entertaining to follow?"

Thought. This was only to communicate the degrees of excitement experience to you.

Hi, Peter,

It is just known, not through direct experience. What calls the images faces and says it has emotions after the fact would be thought. But thought is not required upon initial impression of the image.

Really? This whole exploration is ABOUT actual experience and yet you persist in going into stories.

Without thought, how could it possibly be known what the “initial impression of the image” is?

What is the actual experience of facial emotions?

Does color know anything about facial emotions?
Does taste know anything about facial emotions?
Does smell know anything g about facial emotions?
Does sensation know anything about facial emotions?
Does sound know anything about facial emotions?
Does thought know anything about facial emotions?

Does a new-born baby know anything about what a face is?

However, there's a sense of knowing that seems to be more feeling based and is beyond thought.

Can you see that the word "however" is the beginning of a story and all stories are thought content. The only place where 'knowing' happens is in thought. Are you referring to some other sensing like smelling or tasting? The phrase, "there's a sense of knowing," is itself nothing more than thought content. "Beyond thought" is theory - thought content.

What exactly is it that has a “sense of knowing”?
Sometimes we describe this sense of knowing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ is sensing something. But the question is, can a feeling ‘sense’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘sense’?

Some things are just known as a result of direct experience.

Direct Experience happens in the moment. There are no conclusions drawn. Direct experience is just direct experience. "Things just known" is a story - thought content.

Seeing someone smile or seeing someone frown, doesn't require thought to know whether they are happy or sad. Verbal communication nor thought is required to know. It is felt.

Where exactly is this “felt”?
Is this “feeling” and actual sensation or is it just a thought/idea that says “it feels like it is known”? Can a feeling ‘feel or know anything? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘know or feel anything’?

Direct experience of excitement would be increased heart rate, tenseness in muscles, shortness of breath, etc..

Let’s break down ‘excitement into direct experience

The label ‘excitement’ is the DE of thought and not the DE of excitement
The sensation labelled ‘excitement’ is the DE of sensation and not the DE of excitement
The image labelled ‘me/body/I’ is the DE of colour and not the DE of a person excited.
The thoughts about what excitement is and what is excited (content of thought) is AE of thought and not the AE of a person or of excitement.

So what is actually appearing as DE is label + sensation + colour + thoughts about excitement. But in DE is excitement actually known? Or does thought point to the sensation and label it ‘excitement’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is ‘excited/excitement’?

Now have a look at “increased heart rate”, “tenseness in muscles”, “shortness of breath” and tell me what they are in DE.

Information that cannot be experienced directly is content of thought. Do you see this?

From the previous exercise,

Where exactly is this "I" that gets "sucked" into the story? Describe this "I" to me in precise detail including where it is located.

I was just speaking conveniently. There's no "I". There's just more excitement with sound. And hearing a story is more entertaining to follow

.

Have you actually seen there is no “I” or are you just saying it because this answer doesn’t correspond with any or your other answers that all point to an “I” called Peter?

Here's a brief exercise:
When an actual feeling is felt, for example, fear, can you describe that feeling in precise detail to me? I don’t want to know what fear is, I want you to describe the sensation labelled as ‘fear’.


Sending love,

Robyn