The Gate

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2026 12:57 am**

Is there actually an “apple everywhere”?
Or are there only colours, sensations, smell, taste and thoughts appearing?
I see that “Apple is everywhere” is incorrect. Maybe a clearer way to say what I see is that what I formally thought of as Apple is no different than anything else, in that there is no meaning, although there is a different color in that space. Or a different taste if I were tasting it, or smelling, touching, thought. Apple, as a word or anything else does not have actual meaning. Like a newborn baby seeing something for the first time. It is hard to language this. Is it normal to feel frustrated?

What is actually present before conceptual overlay? Only the pure sensations, without definition.
Are “feet” actually seen? Or are there only colours/shapes, plus a thought labelling them “feet”?
Feeling feet in tub, simply warmth in parts underwater and coolness above.
Seeing feet in tub, simply pinks and grey shapes, and the colors swirling.
Hearing feet in the water, simply a light sloshing sound.
Thought about feet in tub, simply “the shapes are soothing to look at”

Without thought (labels), where exactly do “feet” begin and “water” end?
They don’t, it’s just colors and shapes. But then we name the colors and that’s attributing meaning too.

Can a hard boundary actually be found in seeing itself? Or does thought divide the visual field into objects afterwards?
It’s the brain interpreting shades and shadows as the boundary of things, plus their shape/depth, etc., thereby attributing meaning.

Are “feet” actually felt? Or are there simply sensations appearing? Does sensation itself say “I belong to feet”? Or does thought add that story later?
“feet” aren’t felt, it’s sensations of energy appearing as mind focuses on supposed feet. Then mind labels it as feet that are warm, cold, etc.

Can smell be located inside or outside? Does scent have edges? Does it announce “I am coming from water”? Or is there simply smelling happening?
Smelling seems to just arise, not just in the nose. I don’t find edges one looking closely.

Can “crystal” actually be found in sensation?
No, not “crystal”

Or only pressure, texture, temperature (aka labels for sensations)?
Seeing large crystal, simply reflections, lines, colors.
Feeling crystal, simply weight and cool firm texture.
Thought about crystal, simply “I feel happy experiencing this crystal”

Where exactly is the dividing line between “hand” and “crystal” in direct sensation?
There is nothing to indicate a dividing line, but the mind wants to indicate that there is.

Can sensation itself separate them? Or only thought?
It doesn’t seem like sensation can divide anything.

do the shapes really exist?
No, its like the Rorschach test, which can only be completed via the mind. The images people see in them are manufactured.

How does it feel to see what actually is?
It feels the same as when I am planning an art composition. Everything is just shape and color, creating feeling. The objects don’t matter.

Seeing the painting I’m working on, simply colors and lines.
Smelling painting, simply musty acridity.
Feeling painting, simply scratchy and tickly.
Thought about painting, simply “very bright”

Seeing the color book, simply bright colors and lines.
Feeling the color book, simply cool smoothness, tiny bumps, smooth edges.
Thought about the color book, simply “very white, it will open if held differently”.

Seeing the hanging light above my head simply black and whitish and many curved lines.
Feeling the hanging light, simply cool, slight textured feeling.
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply “those are great lines for a painting”.

Thank you for the video link, very nice and helpful to hear it out loud.

Love K

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2026 10:24 am**

Hi Kristine
This is very good looking! Especially this:

It doesn’t seem like sensation can divide anything.

Stay with that - not as a conclusion, but as an observation - because notice how quickly the mind rushes in afterward trying to explain:

the brain interprets…

perspective is learned…

meaning is attributed…

Those may or may not be true, but they are thoughts ABOUT experience. You don’t need them. You are already closer before explanation appears. And yes, frustration is completely normal. Why? Because language is built out of distinctions, objects, boundaries and meanings, but you are looking prior to those constructions. So there can be a strange tension where experiencing is immediate and obvious, but thought cannot successfully capture it. That frustration itself can be looked at too :)
What is frustration before the label? Where is the boundary of it?
Is it anything more than sensation + thought?

It feels the same as when I am planning an art composition.

That is a beautiful clue. Artists often accidentally move closer to raw seeing because they temporarily stop relating to the world as “objects” and start relating directly to colour, contrast, line, texture, movement, spatial relationship. In those moments, the conceptual world softens. And it’s not because objects disappeared somewhere else, but because thought stopped imposing objecthood so aggressively.

The objects don’t matter.

Can an object actually be found that could matter or not matter?
I suppose the analogy with the icons on your computer desktop comes handy. They are used as a visual representation of what is actually a binary code – zeros and ones - so you can make use of them. But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it?
And look carefully here... When thought says “there is no meaning” that too is meaning. That too is a conceptual overlay. So don’t replace the old concepts with new concepts like “nothing has meaning”, “everything is one”, “everything is illusion”. Just keep returning to simple looking - what is actually present before thought comments on it? That simplicity is enough.

Lets’ look at “body” and “brain” as in

It’s the brain interpreting shades and shadows

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?

And in the light of that... what does the label “brain” refer to? Can a “brain” be found in DE?

Look very carefully, especially with the question about body doing things. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, walking, lying down, etc) before replying.
Please watch again the video about the quote function:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fAToDNh9hQ

Love
Rali

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2026 2:43 am**

Hi Rali,

What is frustration before the label? Where is the boundary of it?
Is it anything more than sensation + thought?

Frustration before the label is electric tension around the chest, neck and lower gut, extending out into the space in front of them an unknown distance. Nothing else.

Can an object actually be found that could matter or not matter?

No, because the mind decides what “matters” there is no inherent mattering in any object.

But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it?

No, it’s just more zeros and ones.

When thought says “there is no meaning” that too is meaning. Just keep returning to simple looking - what is actually present before thought comments on it?

Saying anything at all felt weird when doing yesterday’s exercises for this reason. All that is present is the sensation of the thing.

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?

It’s b. There are no fingers when I first feel cold, just cold.

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?

Cannot know how tall the body is, there is only sensation.
No weight or volume, only a different sensation where touching the cushion (with no clear edges).
No shape or form, and no boundry between assumed body and cushion, only one sensation.
It is only a body.
I do not feel and inside or an outside.
Actual experience of body is only sensation or sensation energy. It doesn’t “do” things, it just is.

what does the label “brain” refer to? Can a “brain” be found in DE?

It is only sensation.

There so little to say really 

Love K

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2026 12:58 pm**

Hi Kristine
Excellent. Notice how much simpler your answers are becoming. You are no longer reporting what you think should be there. You are reporting what is actually found.
A couple of places are worth looking more closely.

Actual experience of body is only sensation or sensation energy

Look carefully. The actual experience of the body is thought. Thought points to sensation and labels it a ‘body’, but can a body be found as actual experience or only thoughts about a body?

It is only sensation.

It doesn’t “do” things, it just is.

Are there actually sensations? Or is "sensation" another label?
This isn't a trick question. Look.
A “sensation” seems more immediate than "body", but does experience ever announce itself as "a sensation"? Or is there simply whatever is present, with thought later calling it a sensation?
Look very carefully… Before the explanation appears, before "brain," before "mind," before "body," before even “sensation”, what is actually present?
Not what is true. What is present? There is a difference. Keep looking there. There is nothing wrong with using DE labels or any other label, but it’s important to see their empty nature – icons on your desktop :). The direction of inquiry now isn't toward finding a better description. It's toward seeing whether any description survives inspection.
When it comes to the “body” doing things, here is an even deeper investigation. 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

Posted: **Sat May 30, 2026 10:01 pm**

Hi Rali,

can a body be found as actual experience or only thoughts about a body?

I'm not sure. I can feel the pure sensation only, but there might be a subtle overlay of thought.

Are there actually sensations? Or is "sensation" another label?

Sensation is just another label, so I guess I do know that a body can only be experienced as a thought. Saying sensation seems more accurate than saying body, but it’s still only a label.

A “sensation” seems more immediate than "body", but does experience ever announce itself as "a sensation"? Or is there simply whatever is present, with thought later calling it a sensation?

I don’t seem to recognize general day-to-day sensation until my mind turns to it, looks for it. It does seem like more dramatic sensations are announced, like banging a shin, or spraining an ankle. But mind is what sees it, reacts to it. I can't tell if the mind is not there that the pain is not there.

Before the explanation appears, before "brain," before "mind," before "body," before even “sensation”, what is actually present?

Awareness. But that’s still a label. Even “energy” or “emptiness” or “nothing” is a label. To answer your question, a label is required.

2. 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?

The image and the felt sensation are completely different.

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?

Sensation in the hand vaguely suggests the image of hand but there is absolutely no clear inherent connection. They are again completely different.

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?

This is more difficult because visual seems to take precedence over sensation, the hand movement feels very subtle when looking directly at it. Thought is quicker to suggest connection between the two, but I can see they are not the same.

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?

It in no way says the image is “me” or “my body”. It takes only a moment for thought to say it’s “a body”. But it’s not difficult to shift into it simply being colors and shapes.
o?

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?

Only thoughts/mental images of what is expected suggest there must be legs.

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?

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?

- There is only sensation and sound
- No, only sensation and sound
- Only vague concern about falling over because my eyes want to close to really feel this.
- It’s just thoughts about a body
- There is no actual proof that walking is happening

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?

I don’t see or feel a body walking through space and it seems more like the thing labeled room is moving around the sensations. I will practice this step (at least) a bunch more.

I have a houseguest arriving shortly who will be here through Monday, so I probably won't writ again until my Monday or Tuesday.

Thank you,
LK

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2026 10:01 am**

Hi Kristine,
Excellent. There is a noticeable shift from giving philosophical answers to reporting what is actually found. A couple of things stand out.

Awareness. But that's still a label.

Good. Don't move away from that too quickly. You noticed something important – every answer that thought provides is a label – awareness / consciousness / energy / emptiness / nothingness / body / mind / brain. These are all labels. The question isn't whether a better label can be found. The question is… before the label appears, what is there?
Not what can be said about it. What is there?

To answer your question, a label is required.

Is it? Or is a label only required to communicate an answer?
Notice the difference. Experiencing doesn't seem to require a label in order to be present. Only the report requires a label.
And there is another angle worth looking at. You seem to be suggesting that sensations are not recognised unless there is a description.

I don’t seem to recognize general day-to-day sensation until my mind turns to it, looks for it.

Look carefully. Who or what is doing this recognising?
A sensation appears. Then perhaps a description appears. Then perhaps a thought says, "Now I know what that is."
But who is reading the description? Who is recognising the sensation? Can an entity that recognises be found? Or is there simply sensation, followed by thoughts describing, naming and interpreting?
Don't answer conceptually. Look in immediate experience.
Another thing.

But mind is what sees it, reacts to it. I can't tell if the mind is not there that the pain is not there.

How is it known that there is a mind? Not what thought says. What is actually found?
Can a mind be located any more easily than a body can? Can a thought see, hear, feel, think? Or is "mind" another explanatory concept that appears after experience?
Don't answer from memory. Look.
One very good example of how words and language are just pointers to but not the actual DE, and how meaning is formed, is AI. GPT (Generative pre-trained transformers) are large language models that are based on the semantic relationships between words in sentences (natural language processing). GPT models are trained on a large amount of text. The training consists in predicting the next token (a token being usually a word, sub-word, or punctuation). Throughout this training, GPT models accumulate knowledge about the world, and can then generate “human-like” text by repeatedly predicting the next token. But does AI have any direct experience of what it’s talking about? And most importantly, is there an AI as an actual thing, or is it just an algorithm (set of rules)? Can an algorithm think, see, hear, etc? Besides the fact that there are no human beings (the point of this inquiry), we like to anthropomorphize - to attribute human traits, emotions, intentions, or behaviors to non-human entities, including animals, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena. The self-organisation of thoughts - their formation as a language structure, as well as their meaning and sequence - very much eliminates the need of a master mind with goals and agenda 🙂
And this is very interesting:

It seems more like the thing labelled room is moving around the sensations.

Beautiful. Now stop there. Don't explain it. Don't turn it into a theory or practice. Just see
When walking slowly, what is actually known?
Is there a walker? Is there a room? Is there movement through space?
Or are there colours changing, sounds changing, sensations changing, thoughts commenting
Look very carefully. Thought might be saying "I am walking through a room."
But is that ever directly experienced? Or is that a story assembled from many separate appearances?
One final thing to investigate over the next few days.
When a thought appears, how is it known that it is "your" thought? What exactly makes a thought belong to someone? Can ownership actually be found? Or does ownership arrive as another thought?
Enjoy your houseguest. No need to think about any of this while they are there. Life provides plenty of material for investigation all by itself.
Love
Rali

Posted: **Wed Jun 03, 2026 6:55 pm**

Dear Rali,

Thank you for your patience while I was occupied.

before the label appears, what is there?
Not what can be said about it. What is there?

Something that is different from what I see or imagine is there. But that’s a label, only there to communicate the answer. So nothing.

(“I don’t recognize general sensation until mind turns to it“)
Look carefully. Who or what is doing this recognizing?

I should have said awareness, mind seems to do the labeling after the thing is noticed. It’s very tricky because it’s almost concurrent with mind. Maybe I’m wrong, it’s so close. When looking at the patterns inside of closed eyelids it seems there is a gap.

But who is reading the description? Who is recognising the sensation? Can an entity that recognises be found? Or is there simply sensation, followed by thoughts describing, naming and interpreting?

I don’t know what is offering the labels but it is definitely not a “me”.

How is it known that there is a mind? Not what thought says. What is actually found?
Can a mind be located any more easily than a body can? Can a thought see, hear, feel, think? Or is "mind" another explanatory concept that appears after experience?

There is nothing that is a mind, there are only labels arising. Thoughts too. Void and from the void. Seemingly after experience.

But does AI have any direct experience of what it’s talking about? And most importantly, is there an AI as an actual thing, or is it just an algorithm (set of rules)? Can an algorithm think, see, hear, etc?

AI is not a thing, it is an algorithm that cannot feel any type of sensation.
That’s trippy, what you said above with AI in mind…“The self-organisation of thoughts - their formation as a language structure, as well as their meaning and sequence - very much eliminates the need of a master mind with goals and agenda 🙂”. It feels very obviously true.

When walking slowly, what is actually known?
Is there a walker? Is there a room? Is there movement through space?
Or are there colours changing, sounds changing, sensations changing, thoughts commenting?

Interesting walking around the room only because something/no-thing said to, with something/no-thing apparently seeing the shapes and colors moving around no-thing. Seeing is an agenda/thought arising now and then out of nowhere for no reason other than perhaps the algorithm got revved up. No walker, no room, no proof of movement through space. Apparent movement as seen as shapes and colors changing, but no apparent space.

But is that ever directly experienced? Or is that a story assembled from many separate appearances?

It appears to be an always assembled story.

When a thought appears, how is it known that it is "your" thought? What exactly makes a thought belong to someone? Can ownership actually be found? Or does ownership arrive as another thought?

I no longer believe it is my thought, there is no ownership. The thought seems to spontaneously arise.

LK

Posted: **Thu Jun 04, 2026 9:55 pm**

Hi Kristine,
Excellent looking.
What stands out most is that the certainty is diminishing. That's a good sign. The mind wants certainty, a position, it wants to arrive somewhere. Instead, there is more and more "I don't know." That is much closer to honest looking.
There are some areas that might be worth investigating a little more closely.

I should have said awareness, mind seems to do the labeling after the thing is noticed. It’s very tricky because it’s almost concurrent with mind. Maybe I’m wrong, it’s so close. When looking at the patterns inside of closed eyelids it seems there is a gap.

Several times now words such as awareness, noticing, recognising, and knowing, have appeared. Nothing wrong with that. But let's see if there is actually something that is aware, notices, recognises or knows.

Please try this simple exercise. Close your eyes. With eyes closed, you will now experience 'blackness'. There may be other things you can find going on, sure. If you are looking at a bright light, there may be a red glow. There may be sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics.
Just to make things simple, whatever you can see with eyes closed, I'm going to refer to it as 'black' or 'blackness' just for simplicity.
1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness' as I mentioned?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?
3) Can what is seeing/witnessing the blackness be found?
4) Can a pair of eyes/ an 'I' / 'me'/Kristine/awareness, anything be found that is witnessing the blackness? Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?
What do you find? Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the see-er/observer/experiencer/witness/awareness be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
Don't answer from what you think should be true. Look.
If awareness is found, how is it found? Can awareness be seen? Can it be felt? Can it be smelled? Can it be tasted? Can it be heard? Look! Are there two - awareness and what is happening? Where is the border where awareness ends and what's been aware of (e.g. thoughts / sensations /...) begins? Or is there simply whatever is appearing, plus a thought saying "I am aware of it"? Is awareness anything more than the mere fact, that whatever is hapenning, is hapenning?
Take your time with this. There is no rush to answer. What matters is not finding the right answer. What matters is discovering what is actually present.

Something that is different from what I see or imagine is there.

How is that known?
Look very carefully. Is there actually knowledge that something is there? Or is there simply an inability to describe what is present?
Those are not the same thing.

I don't know what is offering the labels.

Excellent. That is much more interesting than any answer, because every answer produces another concept. Stay with the not knowing, but not as a new philosophy - as a direct observation.

There is nothing that is a mind, there are only labels arising. Thoughts too. Void and from the void. Seemingly after experience.

How is "void" known? Can a void actually be found? Or is "void" another elegant label appearing in thought? Is "void" a container for appearances? Again, are there two - void and thoughts? What is really here?

Notice that "void" can become the new "self." The old story was "there is a me." The new story can become "there is a void from which everything emerges." Or "there is awareness in which everything appears." They all are explanations. They all may be appearing as ... thoughts. Look before the explanation.

I'm not suggesting there is a better word to use. In fact, quite the opposite. I like calling it just THIS. Buddhism speaks of "thusness" or "suchness," referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction. I like the word “THIS” as it is more like a pointing word – pointing to whatever is happening like an arrow with no extra meaning – rather than labelling it.
Love
Rali

Posted: **Sat Jun 06, 2026 1:08 am**

Dear Rali

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness' as I mentioned?

Yes

2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?

Pixelated randomness, some motion. (Just THIS)

3) Can what is seeing/witnessing the blackness be found?

No. I cannot find a witness or an I. It feels weird.

4) Can a pair of eyes/ an 'I' / 'me'/Kristine/awareness, anything be found that is witnessing the blackness? Or is there just 'blackness' to be found? What do you find? Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?

There is awareness of blackness, but no-one that is aware of blackness.

Would anything that is suggested as the see-er/observer/experiencer/witness/awareness be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

When I really look it kind of feels like the blackness is the awareness (or simply there is only the blackness). Awareness itself is a concept/thought.

If awareness is found, how is it found? Can awareness be seen? Can it be felt? Can it be smelled? Can it be tasted? Can it be heard? Look! Are there two - awareness and what is happening? Where is the border where awareness ends and what's been aware of (e.g. thoughts / sensations /...) begins? Or is there simply whatever is appearing, plus a thought saying "I am aware of it"? Is awareness anything more than the mere fact, that whatever is hapenning, is hapenning?

Awareness can’t be found, we must have made it up. For a minute I thought there was a subtle sense of beingness, but then saw I made that up to explain things. There is only the blackness or breath or taste, etc. I have only presumed that something is choosing to be aware of the blackness.

How is that known?
Look very carefully. Is there actually knowledge that something is there? Or is there simply an inability to describe what is present?

I can’t know that something is there or what it is, I can only label it. And then I can’t accurately describe what is present with the label. Seems like maybe only the experience itself is adequate. Unless that’s not there either.

How is "void" known? Can a void actually be found? Or is "void" another elegant label appearing in thought? Is "void" a container for appearances? Again, are there two - void and thoughts? What is really here?

Void doesn’t seem to be a thing either. Void can’t be experienced directly. It’s a label. Thoughts seem to arise in experience but void doesn’t.

LK

The Gate

10,000Things

Re: 10,000Things

Re: 10,000Things

Re: 10,000Things

Re: 10,000Things

Re: 10,000Things

Re: 10,000Things

Re: 10,000Things

Re: 10,000Things

Re: 10,000Things