Ready!

[Jadzia]

Sometimes one already has one or even two feet in the Gate but isn't quite through yet, almost but not fully. This is ok.

I have seen that choice just happens, by very close inspection of small 'choices' - not really choices, just movement from no intention to intention. The so-called other option doesn't ever exist, just thoughts. I still most of the time fall into feeling like 'I am choosing/ planning / controlling this'.

What about intention? What exactly is intention? Play around with it.
Is there anybody needed for intention?

What falls into a feeling? What exactly is this feeling? Is it a feeling, like in sensation?

Right body, mind are labels, in body for a bunch of sensations?
No outside, is there an inside?
If you close the eyes and take a deep breath and sigh out.
Now look:
Is there an inside or an outside?

You are welcome, it is a pleasure to accompany someone through this process.

Love,
Jadzia

[Jadzia]

In terms of gating, here are some thoughts that have come up...
- what do we mean by gating / how will I know? (your description of your understanding of difference between seeking and curiosity is helpful here)
- lots of uncertainty here - in my story uncertainty = therefore I can't be there, also in my story there is need for validation still from you (i.e. do you think I've gated), but I think that if I had, 100%, then I would know - this seems like a needy / looking outside story. Although maybe 'it will be obvious' is a story/expectation too!

You will know! You are the only one who can.

[YGirl]

What about intention? What exactly is intention? Play around with it.

I'm not talking about the sort of future intention that people often talk about - e.g. 'set an intention to be kinder this week'. I used the word to talk about perhaps the gap between apparent 'choice' and action - so, like 'choice' happens, it becomes intention and then action happens - sometimes there is no gap - the action happens immediately. I think it's all ideas though, because looking at an example it's all just thoughts until action happens. Let's say I'm playing a board game, it's not my turn but 'I' think about what I will do on my turn and a plan/choice arises. This is just thought about what might happen. If 'I' then carry out the action there is the impression of continuity of choice - intention - action through which we might thread an idea of 'I'.

Is there anybody needed for intention?

No, perhaps not. It's just the idea of an 'I' providing a sort of continuity. There's a sort of energy preceding the action too, but I think that is all made up of thoughts about what's about to happen too. I think the assumption of a choosing self, of continuity, of control is very strong and ingrained so most of the time I don't even notice that it's happening. The disconnect between thought and action is clearer when one doesn't actually go through and act on the so-called intention. 'Choice' doesn't truly happen until the actual moment of action - it's just ideas about what 'I' might do. And then 'choice' is really not there, again only idea. All there is is the action/happening.

What falls into a feeling? What exactly is this feeling? Is it a feeling, like in sensation?

I'm not sure now. It's all thoughts again. Somehow, altogether they become a kind of illusion of what is happening. It's hard to describe in words.

Right body, mind are labels, in body for a bunch of sensations?
No outside, is there an inside?
If you close the eyes and take a deep breath and sigh out.
Now look:
Is there an inside or an outside?

Just in sensation - be it touch, sound or sight there is no inside or out. In DE only there is no 'location' of the sensation. Only thoughts in the form of memory, assumptions etc. give a location and say in here, out there. But they are very deeply ingrained and automatic so give the impression of being a true part of the experience itself. I also spent a little time with eyes shut looking at the sensation of 'thoughts' and whether they felt like they were located somewhere - thoughts say 'in the head' because we have learned about brain etc., but they aren't really felt anywhere. When they are accompanied by some emotion because of the physical sensation of emotion in the chest / solar plexus thoughts, particularly those to do with a story about 'I', can feel like they are located 'inside' in the chest. All of these sensations get labelled 'I' or 'inside' somehow.

[Jadzia]

What would happen if for a moment or two you would drop all thoughts?
What would happen if you for a moment just don't care for explanations? How something is, what follows what....
What if your belief in thoughts would fail?
If thoughts could be around but no one listens? Just for a moment.

Love,
Jadzia

[YGirl]

If thoughts could be around but no one listens? Just for a moment

It's like watching them from a distance. A feeling of detachment. And if doing something practical at the time it is like observing the body acting by itself.

[Jadzia]

And if doing something practical at the time it is like observing the body acting by itself.

Is the body acting or is simply action happening?

Do this again and again, allow yourself to get out of your head and explore.

Love,
Jadzia

[YGirl]

Is the body acting or is simply action happening?

I see/hear/feel stuff happening. There is no way to know if there is a cause for the stuff happening, just from looking. However, because I'm so used to thinking that 'I' am in charge, there is a slight eerie feeling seeing the body moving, stuff happening (as if, deep down, thought's can't quite get that no-one is needed and that if 'I' am not doing it 'something else' must be LOL!).

[Jadzia]

All this is mind baffling, yes.

Lets have a look at something:
You wrote I see, feel, hear.....
Focus on the next noise.
Shortly listen to thoughts labeling, starting to tell a story.
The noise is heard.
Is there any difference between hearing and the heard?
Is there someone hearing?

Focus on the next felt sensation.
Same here, listen shortly to the thoughts.
The sensation is felt.
Is there any difference between feeling and the felt?
Is there someone feeling?

Love
Jadzia

[YGirl]

Is there any difference between hearing and the heard?
Is there someone hearing?

The sound of running water (the shower) is heard. Memory/recognition happens - the sound is identified/labelled by thoughts - this happens very quickly, so fast it's hard to see a gap. Without thoughts, there is just hearing. It happens by itself - no-one is needed to 'do' hearing. Is there someone passively hearing? There is perhaps the assumption that there is something present to hear - a knowing that hearing is happening. In the purest moment of just hearing this is not there either though - the 'knowing it is happening' requires thoughts to articulate. Thoughts, subtly and quickly, identify the source of the sound and by doing so there is a separation between a 'transmitter of sound' and an assumed something here as the 'receiver of sound'. The mental image that arises is linked to memories about the 'source' of the sound. No mental image arises about the 'receiver'. If hearing of a totally new sound showed up this might not happen, although thoughts would quickly compare with known sounds, categorise, theorise, label.

Is there any difference between feeling and the felt?
Is there someone feeling?

Similar story to sound, but perhaps a little easier to just feel the sensation of touch, because it is right here - i think there is something in the distance between sound source and receiver that thoughts more quickly separate out. But you can't say where 'sound' stops and 'hearing' starts - do I hear over there, or over here? There isn't an over there or an over here just in hearing, only thoughts say there is.
In touch, as I've noticed before, and been practising with, I can see a gap between experiencing just touch sensation and thoughts splitting out into hand and table and mental images of hand and table arising, and conclusions being drawn about the qualities of the table (smooth, cool etc. etc.).

So when looking very closely and focusing only on the direct experience there is only hearing, sensing (touch). But in everyday life the assumption and thoughts come fast and one takes it as truth that the separation is there, that there is someone here hearing, feeling and so on.

Had a strong sense of things just happening yesterday (no controller) - was playing a game with friends online, and we were arguing a lot about the best thing to do in the adventure - afterwards, and even during pauses I thought 'why am I arguing, chill out!' but no control, it was just happening - 'I' couldn't help 'myself' - program running. Then ashamed that I was arguing, criticising etc. That just happened too. Really a strong sense later on, after all was over, that i was not in control at all. Maybe it's easier to accept you are not in control when 'you' are doing something you aren't proud of, and vice versa LoL!

[Jadzia]

So in both cases you couldn't find anyone doing the hearing or feeling. There is the heard and the felt, the hearing and feeling. No one who hears or feels. Interesting eh. You can check the same with seeing, tasting.

Thoughts, subtly and quickly, identify the source of the sound and by doing so there is a separation between a 'transmitter of sound' and an assumed something here as the 'receiver of sound'.

Good. :-)
This is an important bit.
The separation is the idea that there need to be two thingies, but is there a separation between the heard and the hearing?

i think there is something in the distance between sound source and receiver that thoughts more quickly separate out. But you can't say where 'sound' stops and 'hearing' starts - do I hear over there, or over here? There isn't an over there or an over here just in hearing, only thoughts say there is.

Very good!
Yes, that gives one an idea or two if distance does exist at all, or?
What if it would merely be constructed, like the I.

Another thing to consider: Lets say a noise is heard outside. Thought says bird song, if one is learned one could say Nightingale is singing in front of the house, probably in the tree to the right, bla bla. Might be true, might not.
What is if someone is playing the bird song from a device?

Then ashamed that I was arguing, criticising etc. That just happened too.

Exactly, why not enjoy the play..., lol.

You are really becoming a professional in looking in DE!

Love,
Jadzia

[YGirl]

No one who hears or feels. Interesting eh.

And yet, most of the time one thinks/assumes/feels-as-if there is 'someone' experiencing - albeit passively, not as a 'do-er'. Is it habitual? Is it wrong labelling/assumptions about conscious experiencing? The assumption that if experiencing is happening, there must be something there to experience it? It is clear there is nothing but experiencing, yet the 'feeling' of something passive there persists. Maybe I'm referring to a witness, which I thought I had figured out - but it has come back around. It is clear that there is no 'awareness' or 'consciousness' without something to be aware/conscious of. THere is no 'awareness' on it's own. Only awaring/experiencing the sensed. Is it that we are so used to the use of language 'aware of X', 'this sees that' and so on, that we assume two things, rather than one experience?

The separation is the idea that there need to be two thingies, but is there a separation between the heard and the hearing?

So, already noted that in hearing, there is no source or receiver - thoughts add those, even down to the physics of the particles vibrating in between 'there' and 'here'. In asking 'is there a separation between the 'heard'' and the 'hearing'' do you mean a separation between the experience of hearing and 'sound'? Sound as a separate thing is just a concept - it doesn't really mean anything, in experience. Or do you mean is there a separation between hearing and the perceived 'source' (e.g. bird singing)? If source is only added by thoughts, then no. But let's say you can see the bird singing and hearing is happening - I suppose you can't know 100% that the source is the bird that you are looking at - memories, thoughts, 'past experience' is needed there. So there is just seeing and hearing, and the two are put together into a concept of 'bird singing' by thoughts.

[Jadzia]

Is it that we are so used to the use of language 'aware of X', 'this sees that' and so on, that we assume two things, rather than one experience?

The language we have supports duality and separation.

You say you figured the witness out. What exactly did you figure out.
These concepts are sticky, so don't worry.
We are so used that everything has a source, eyes see, but do they? Are eyes needed for taking in? Ears?

LOve,
Jadzia

[YGirl]

You say you figured the witness out. What exactly did you figure out.

Well, I understood that 'awareness' is not separate from the object of awareness... But I spent some time looking closer at this today. I've heard a lot of guided meditations say 'be aware of awareness itself'. So I had a really close look at this. There is the process of 'awaring', let's say seeing. Can I be aware of this awaring? What am I looking at if I try and look at awaring? I think it is just an idea, a concept of 'awareness' as something tangible (the witness if you like). There is nothing in direct experience - 'knowing I'm aware' seems to be just an idea. What knows? Just a thought I think. And a subtle belief below it that there is some 'thing' there. The idea that consciousness is a thing, rather than a process of conscious-ing. Being able to almost feel into the idea of 'awareness' makes one believe in it. I think the words 'awareness' and 'consciousness' are a bit of a problem - the 'ness' points to an idea of a 'thing' instead of a 'process' - a noun seems to have been invented where only a process exists.

We are so used that everything has a source, eyes see, but do they? Are eyes needed for taking in? Ears?

I wouldn't say 'eyes see' as in 'doing the seeing' - there's no active doing, no entity in there choosing to see. But they are a necessary component for 'seeing experience' - close the eyes, seeing stops (unless there is bright light giving colour through the eye-lids!). Just in the same way that light is a necessary component - go somewhere completely, absolutely dark and seeing stops. Hmmm, or does it? - one can 'see' blackness. We also understand that the brain is needed for seeing, but this is just taught and not verifiable in direct experience (except if you are someone who had severe damage of the nerve between the eye and the brain - that person may be able to verify for themselves!)

[Jadzia]

There is the process of 'awaring', let's say seeing. Can I be aware of this awaring? What am I looking at if I try and look at awaring? I think it is just an idea, a concept of 'awareness' as something tangible (the witness if you like). There is nothing in direct experience - 'knowing I'm aware' seems to be just an idea.

Beautiful.

Many meditations use the idea of a witness or observer, like consciousness or awareness these are concepts. We play the game that a concept is the thing whereas it only describes something, a process, an idea. Concepts are wonderful for learning, adapting but from a certain point on they are simply in the way, they are not what they describe. Time to put them into the shelf, though this doesn't mean that one shouldn't use them when needed.

You already see that words are tricky to describe that what is, you only can get as close to something then the word allows, it will always be a bit dissatisfactory.

Hmmm, or does it? - one can 'see' blackness.

:-)
Can seeing be stopped? Hearing? Feeling?
Is there a beginning and end to it?

Love,
Jadzia

[YGirl]

you only can get as close to something then the word allows, it will always be a bit dissatisfactory.

Yes - getting into tricky territory.

Can seeing be stopped? Hearing? Feeling?
Is there a beginning and end to it?

No, it can't be stopped. I need to look more at when there is absence of e.g. sound and what is really going on there.
But I don't think any of it can ever be 'turned off'. Even when asleep the awaring is only, say, turned down, since a strong sensation is able to wake one up - e.g. bright light, loud sound.

What am I looking at if I try and look at awaring? I think it is just an idea, a concept of 'awareness' as something tangible (the witness if you like). There is nothing in direct experience - 'knowing I'm aware' seems to be just an idea.

I think I need to spend some more time sitting/being with this, as the assumption is deeply held, and almost 'felt' - it needs a bit more 'breaking down'.
For a brief moment earlier, I was sure of the lack of separation - then I fell asleep LoL (been resting as I recover from being poorly).