The Gate

Posted: **Fri Oct 11, 2024 11:08 am**

It's got to do with belief. It's believed that there is a me here. And it's not being clearly seen that it's not true.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2024 9:11 am**

It's got to do with belief. It's believed that there is a me here. And it's not being clearly seen that it's not true.

Are belief and toughts differents?
If so, what are those differente in Direct Experience?

Can there be thought without a belief?
Can there be belief without a thought?

Who is the one, who believe or don't believe?

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2024 1:41 pm**

Are belief and thoughts differents?

Beliefs are a form of thoughts.

If so, what are those differences in Direct Experience?

I don't see any differences in direct experience. While thoughts can be about many things beliefs have a sense of being mine.

Can there be thought without a belief?
Can there be belief without a thought?

No. A belief is a thought. If something was true in direct experience if wouldn't be believed. Beliefs are statements of facts without evidence.

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2024 5:24 pm**

Who is the one, who believe or don't believe?

In direct experience I can't find a belief or non belief. But there is still the felt suggestion of an I/me.

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2024 10:50 am**

In direct experience I can't find a belief or non belief. But there is still the felt suggestion of an I/me.

Ok. Well thought is suggesting many thinks all the time.
Can you write again this sentence without using the world: felt.
Because I am not clear about what you mean by this concept.
thank's

Previously your wrote:
It's got to do with belief. It's believed that there is a me here. And it's not being clearly seen that it's not true.
Are you seeing clearly now?

Posted: **Fri Oct 18, 2024 7:06 pm**

Can you write again this sentence without using the world: felt.

In direct experience I can't find a belief or non belief and it's clear that they are conceptual. However there is the impression that there is a me here and life goes on as if it's true. I'm mentally struggling trying to see that this me self isn't actually there other than as thought.

Are you seeing clearly now?

No.

Posted: **Tue Oct 22, 2024 5:57 am**

In direct experience I can't find a belief or non belief and it's clear that they are conceptual. However there is the impression that there is a me here and life goes on as if it's true. I'm mentally struggling trying to see that this me self isn't actually there other than as thought.

Tell me more about this "impression".
In what dimension does this "impression" appear into? (in thoughts, sensations, sight, etc...)
What does it feel/look like?

There is no need to "mentally struggle" if I ask you to look and see the wall in front of you.
Do you need to "mentally struggle" to look at it?
In fact, is there a need of struggle to be aware of your experience at this very moment?
Do you have to make an effort to know and experience that Santa claus is not real?

Posted: **Wed Oct 23, 2024 12:18 am**

In what dimension does this "impression" appear into? (in thoughts, sensations, sight, etc...)
Definitely not sight, hearing etc. I'm not really seeing that it's happening in the realm of imagination even though it must be.
What does it feel/look like?
I can only see what other things look and feel like. I can't see what is doing the looking and feeling. But it's imagined that something is.
Thought complicates seeing that me is an illusion. It makes it into some kind of puzzle that it has to work out. At least that's what seems to be happening here.

Posted: **Wed Oct 23, 2024 12:47 pm**

There is only what is happening right now and I'm not doing it (even if thought says that I am and I'm not doing that either). There is awareness of what's happening right now and it has seemed that I am doing/being that. I as a me. But obviously I don't know how to do or be aware. I don't know how to think. Thought says that there is a problem here that needs to be solved. And I believed it. Or believing it happened. And probably still is happening. But direct experience isn't a thought and doesn't need to be solved.
I can't say that this is clear because there still seems to be a me here . Looking to find out what this me is doesn't make it clear because it just seems that a looker wouldn't be able to look at itself, a seer wouldn't be able to be seen. And thought says that me is the seer. And then I'm back in what seems to be a puzzle. It seems like there is a me that is trying to find out that there isn't.
Direct experience of just what's happening, what is already happening, cuts out involvement with this me puzzle stuff.

Posted: **Fri Oct 25, 2024 8:22 am**

I can't say that this is clear because there still seems to be a me here . Looking to find out what this me is doesn't make it clear because it just seems that a looker wouldn't be able to look at itself, a seer wouldn't be able to be seen. And thought says that me is the seer. And then I'm back in what seems to be a puzzle. It seems like there is a me that is trying to find out that there isn't.

It depends on what you are pointing to when you use the word "me".

I can't say that this is clear because there still seems to be a me here .

"Seems" is a very the most important word in this sentence!
It SEEMS to be me here.
It SEEMS that the sun rises in to morning.
It SEEMS that it is the moon that illuminates the night.
It SEEMS that paper (money) has a lot of value.
It SEEMS that the sky is blue.
It SEEMS that mirrors are windows tan other rooms.

So yes many things can SEEM to be.
BUT is that so?

Looking to find out what this me is doesn't make it clear because it just seems that a looker wouldn't be able to look at itself, a seer wouldn't be able to be seen.

Now that it is clear to you that the seer can't be seen.
Turn to 180, what are the objects of the seen?
Is there a separation between the seen and the seen itself?

And thought says that me is the seer. And then I'm back in what seems to be a puzzle.
Thought says many things.
Can you rely on thought to answer those questions?

You need to realize the nature deceptive of the activity of thinking.
Is like asking questions to blind man about colors and feeling confused by the answer.
And then trying to solve this confusion by asking more question about colors to the same blind man.
When will you understand that you can rely on THOUGHT to explain anything?

It seems like there is a me that is trying to find out that there isn't.
When you write: "It seems like there is a me"
What are you referring to in your direct experience?

Posted: **Fri Oct 25, 2024 12:15 pm**

Now that it is clear to you that the seer can't be seen.
Turn to 180, what are the objects of the seen?
Is there a separation between the seen and the seen itself?

Did you mean, is there separation between the seeing and the seen itself? If that is what you meant ....there is no separation between the seeing and the seen. I can't find any seeing, just what is seen. There is seeing though because something is seen, so there must be.

So yes many things can SEEM to be.
BUT is that so?

'Seems like' is the meaning that we give to things.

Can you rely on thought to answer those questions?

Thought hasn't been able to answer the question which would end seeking. It hasn't been able to solve what seems to be a problem here. Thought just leads to more thoughts.

When you write: "It seems like there is a me"
What are you referring to in your direct experience?

A sense of location. Objects are located a certain distance away from here. Closer or further away. But everything is included in seeing.

Posted: **Fri Oct 25, 2024 1:37 pm**

Is there a separation between the seen and the seen itself?

If you meant between the seer and the seen there is a very strong assumption that there is a seer. I know that this is about looking to see if that is true. It's easier to see with the other senses that there isn't anything separate. I can't find a hearer or hearing, only sound.

Posted: **Mon Oct 28, 2024 8:33 am**

When you write: "It seems like there is a me"
What are you referring to in your direct experience?
A sense of location. Objects are located a certain distance away from here. Closer or further away. But everything is included in seeing.

If you put virtual reality glasses on your eyes. And suddenly you see a forest "from the inside". Or stated differently, you are in a forest looking around.
Does that mean that there is a forest, in the sense of a forest existing "out there in space" ?

Does that mean that you are located inside a forest?

Is there "me" inside a forest, or is more accurate to say: I am having a light/color experience that thought interpreted as "a forest"?

With those glasses, your "sense of location" has changed. Nevertheless, the SEEING always happens in and as your experience.
can you find a "me" in the forest?
Can you find a "me" in the light or colors?

Did you mean, is there separation between the seeing and the seen itself? If that is what you meant ....there is no separation between the seeing and the seen. I can't find any seeing, just what is seen. There is seeing though because something is seen, so there must be.

Yes this is what I meant.
Can you see that/who is seeing?
In other words: that which is aware can be an object seen?

The eyes cannot see itself.

The experience of seeing is actual. The "eyes" is a thought.

Seeing happens, the "me" is a thought.

A simple thought that says: there must be one

Posted: **Mon Oct 28, 2024 12:31 pm**

The virtual reality points confuse me. With the glasses on I think that I would feel that I was inside a forest even though it wasn't true. People walk into walls and smash things when they are wearing them and I think that I would too. I would be scared of falling if I walked a plank in space with a headset on. I would probably need to take the glasses off to see that the scene wasn't real

can you find a "me" in the forest?

I would be viewing the scene and imagining that I was in it.

Can you find a "me" in the light or colors?

No, I would be viewing the lights and colours.

Can you see that/who is seeing?

Definitely not but I imagine that it is me.

that which is aware can be an object seen?

There must be 'that which is aware' but all I know is what there is awareness of.

Posted: **Tue Oct 29, 2024 11:06 am**

There must be 'that which is aware' but all I know is what there is awareness of.

This sentence explains all the non-duality exploration.
Thought say "there must be that which is aware, but never this "that" is found.
This is the paradox nature of WHAT IS.

See for yourself:
Is that which is aware of this moment a thought, a sensation or a perception?

"That" which is aware is a separate entity or a "me"?

The Gate

I would like seeking to stop

Re: I would like seeking to stop

Re: I would like seeking to stop

Re: I would like seeking to stop

Re: I would like seeking to stop

Re: I would like seeking to stop

Re: I would like seeking to stop

Re: I would like seeking to stop

Re: I would like seeking to stop

Re: I would like seeking to stop

Re: I would like seeking to stop

Re: I would like seeking to stop

Re: I would like seeking to stop

Re: I would like seeking to stop

Re: I would like seeking to stop

Re: I would like seeking to stop