The Gate

Ty,

Ok...So am I just noticing what is real by looking? Nothing special like trying to stay in the moment?

The genius of the method we use here is that it uses ordinary looking, and a small amount of ordinary thinking. If you misplace your keys, then you look for them. That's the kind of looking we're talking about. The only difficult thing is that you're looking inwards instead of outwards, which we're not generally used to doing. So that takes a little practice. So, no meditation. Staying in the moment, not really, except insofar as you need to do it to look.

As for ordinary thinking, you don't need to contemplate the infinite. Or go beyond the mind. Or solve any impossible paradoxes such as the ever-popular "There is nothing you can do to become awakened, because there is no you." Don't get me wrong - we ARE dealing with things beyond the mind. It's just that we're not trying to do anything impossible like trying to think about them.

This is "no self" for lazy people.

The "obvious" thoughts that appear to come on their own come from nothing. They just seem to appear. The more subtle "self talking" thoughts feel like there is a me initiating them but when I look closer they seem to appear out of nothing also.

I forgot to say that you're doing great with this!

So far it sounds like you haven't seen one at the point where they arise, but it could be hiding there somewhere. If you are in doubt about this, keep looking. I will ask more question about the relationship between "I" and thoughts soon.

2. Thats tricky. The content of the thought may or may not be real or true. Thoughts can correspond to reality

I didn't ask this question right. Let me re-state it.

So the question is "Is the contents of thoughts real?"

Let's take an example. Think of Batman riding a unicorn. Is that real? Clearly not.

Now, let's say there is a real cup on your table. Now think about that cup. There's a real cup on the table, and there's another cup that exists in the content of your thoughts. Is that cup real? Could you, for example, drink out of it?

Obviously not, but is it real in any other sense? For instance, if you stopped believing in that cup, would it go away? (Using Philip K. Dick's definition.)

Now, let's take that a little further. Let's say you had a thought that said, "I am going to Santa Barbara next week." Clearly the Santa Barbara that exists in the thought might bear a passing resemblance to the real one, but you couldn't rent a beach house there and expect to get a suntan.

And finally the question you were expecting... Is the "I" that exists in that thought real?


Steve

Ty,

So far it sounds like you haven't seen one at the point where they arise

SHOULD READ

So far it sounds like you haven't seen an "I" at the point where thoughts arise


Steve

Steve,

Thanks for the possivite encouragement!

I am having a great time looking inward at this process. A couple of questions...when I'm looking inward is it just to look when you are directing me to look for something or am I also looking for the illusive "I" when not being directed?

I am going to investigate this further, but it seems that when the self talking is happening it is appearing like the body is just talking to itself...If that makes sense.

It's funny, when I repeated "I am going to Santa Barbara next week" a quick thought of the town that I visited once flashed before my eyes. So obviously the thought of Santa Barbara is not even close to the actual experience.

For you're final question the "I" that is in the thought definitaly isn't real.

Even though there is a knowing at some level that "I" is just a thought, the feeling and experience of a ME is still very strong.

Thank you,

Ty

Ty,

when I'm looking inward is it just to look when you are directing me to look for something or am I also looking for the illusive "I" when not being directed?

Look wherever you possibly can for "I". I'm just making sure you don't miss anything important.

I am going to investigate this further, but it seems that when the self talking is happening it is appearing like the body is just talking to itself...If that makes sense.

Yes, that makes sense.

For you're final question the "I" that is in the thought definitaly isn't real.

Please keep contemplating the question "Are the contents of thoughts real?" and see what you discover.

Even though there is a knowing at some level that "I" is just a thought, the feeling and experience of a ME is still very strong.

That honesty will serve you very well in this inquiry, and of course that's to be expected. The approach I'm taking is to break the search down into different areas (the body, the contents of thoughts, ...), then get you to search each area.

OK, more questions about thoughts:

1. Can you stop a thought in the middle? Try it.
2. Can you predict your next thought? Try it.
3. Can you think only pleasant thoughts for an hour? (Don't actually do this unless you're REALLY unsure of the answer.)
4. Can you think no thoughts at all for 10 minutes?
5. Can you stop yourself thinking of a pink rabbit now that I have said it?

Steve

Steve,

"Are the contents of thoughts real?" I know that they aren't real but the "I" thought needs to be looked at more. It still feels real.

1. I have looked at this for the past two hours. What I considered to be two types of thoughts "self talk" and "obvious" thoughts that seem to come out of no where are both originated from no where. I need to continue looking but the "self talk" originates out of a previous thought that leads the "self talk" Thats how it appears.

2. I definately know that I can't predict the "obvious" thoughts and it is becoming more clear that the "self talk" can't be predicted either. I need to continue looking.

3. definately not...lol

4. definatley not

5. I tried several times with no success

Thank you so much,

Ty

Gidday Ty,

The human mind has a powerful experience simulator that allows it to imagine past and future scenarios in amazing detail. It's the reason why humans spend their time worryng about money and what other people think of them. Dogs don't have this to the same extent, so they are mainly concerned with what they can chew on.

Yes, the contents of thoughts are not real, but most of us don't recognize this and we believe some of it. I don't think anyone believes ALL their thoughts (except maybe the people who phone up talkback radio). If a thought about Batman arises, we don't believe that. But the thoughts we do believe take on a powerful appearance of reality.

Some thoughts are useful but every single one of them is fiction. It's either a story about reality, or a story about a story about reality, or a story about a story about a story about reality,... But it's always a story.

When you think, you are looking at fiction, and when you look, you are looking at reality. That's why it's 100% impossible to think your way to a no-self realization.

Here's an exercise for you: Walk around wherever you are and look at whatever is there. Notice the mind's so-called labelling mechanism: when you look at something, the mind automatically produces thoughts of different kinds about the thing. Take note of what kinds of thoughts appear and how quickly they appear. See if you can describe this mechanism to me in a little detail.


Steve

Ty,

I should add that the work you did looking at thoughts was very well done. Time spent just looking at thoughts - and NOT their contents - so that you know what they are is one of the keys to this.

It's actually quite tricky as I'm sure you found, because there's always a tendency to be drawn in by their content. One technique I've seen suggested is to imagine their content as "blah blah blah"... Which is quite frankly all it amounts to a lot of the time.


Steve

Steve,

The mind is very tricky. It surprised me but I had a lot of difficulty seeing how the mind was working when I looked around. I did this several times and the experience was never the same.

When I looked at objects there was no immediate labeling most of the time. There seemed to be a knowing of what the object is without the mental label. It felt like that was the case 80% of the time. When a person, a dog or something like a car was seen then a story began to form. If it was a mercedez for instance then the mind created a story how "I" would like to have a car like that."

I'm writing this while watching my sons football practice and thoughts come up like this kid is good or this kid isn't so good. It appears as more of a story but it definitely doesn't come up for several seconds after the seeing occurs.

Thanks,

Ty

Ty,

Yes, the mind is tricky. But it gets less tricky as you learn to see what it is. Actually there is no mind in direct experience as such.

It's a bit like "university". There is no university. There's just a collection of buildings containing people and stationery. So there's no mind. Really there are just thoughts, but we view them abstractly as a process called "mind".

When I looked at objects there was no immediate labeling most of the time. There seemed to be a knowing of what the object is without the mental label. It felt like that was the case 80% of the time.

Nice looking. Keep noticing this labelling for now. Labelling is a bit of a misnomer because it's mostly as you say, a knowing of what the object is rather than its name. So you've seen that some of it comes up immediately.

If course this "knowing" is all thought story.

So, what do you reckon? Could it be that what you know is not real? What do you actually know for sure?


Steve

Steve,

OK...I will keep noticing this labeling.

So the recognition of an object without labeling is part of the story?

I'm not sure anymore what is real. Last night I would try and stop a thought in the middle and the mind would finish it. It definitely seems that what I assumed to be true or real is most likely an illusion. The only thing I know for sure is that stories go on, feelings are felt, thoughts happen and there is an aliveness seeing it.

I'm gonna sleep on this one.

Thanks,

Ty

Ty,

So the recognition of an object without labeling is part of the story?

Let's re-state the question like this: You recognize something as an object. Is the idea that it is an object just a thought story, or is it a recognition of an inherent aspect of reality?

First we have to define an "object". So let's say that to be an object it has to be separate from other objects. Then we have to decide what "separate" means. Must there be space between the objects? If it's glued to another object, are they separate or are they two parts of one object?

BUT - a definition can only be a thought story, which is fiction. For objectness to be an aspect of reality, reality would have to depend on fiction. That's a contradiction.

So, separation into objects can't be inherent to reality.

I don't know if this argument works for you. I could be completely wrong about it. Ultimately you have to decide. What I have said may or may not be helpful.

I'm not sure anymore what is real. Last night I would try and stop a thought in the middle and the mind would finish it. It definitely seems that what I assumed to be true or real is most likely an illusion.

The last couple of days have been intense - certainly for me, so don't freak yourself out. Yes, we're looking at the aspects of experience where the common understanding doesn't quite add up. In this case, the question we're really interested in is, is there a "you" that controls thoughts?

The only thing I know for sure is that stories go on, feelings are felt, thoughts happen and there is an aliveness seeing it.

You are doing really well with this.

This line of inquiry seems to be going well so I'll push it a little further before we get onto the next thing. Questions:

1. Imagine you could switch your mind off and see the world without any concepts. What would you know about the world?
2. If you discovered that all concepts were fictional, what would you know about the world?

Steve

Steve,

I follow u 100%. There really are no separate objects or objects at all. While I was driving home as I looked at a car it wasn't separate from the road and the road wasn't separate from the ground. All of the so called objects I mentioned we're nothing more than labels that we're part of the thought story.

1. I really enjoyed imagining turning my mind off. The only thing that would be known is that there is a watching of this...

2. It is tough to see right now but it would make the world fictional

Thank you for putting so much effort into this! I am loving this process.

Ty

Steve,

Also...it seems as though there isn't as much of a difference between a person, a tree and a car. That might sound weird but without labels the individualality is much less.

Thanks,

Ty

Ty,

Thanks for your answers there. Very helpful for me to get a handle on where you're at.

Let's look at decisions and actions.

Take two similar objects such as a salt and pepper shaker on a table in front of you. Reach for one. Look really closely for the decision point: The exact point in time when the decision was made of which of the two to grab.

Do the same thing throughout the day whenever you have to choose between several similar things. Always look for the exact decision point, because we need to find out what your involvement was in that decision.

A variation on this: When you are eating, driving, or doing other mechanical tasks where not much thinking is involved, see if you can see the point where you made the small decisions. For example, which piece of food to eat.


Steve

Steve,

I can see clearly that there is no me choosing as far as thinking, but what is confusing is it feels like a me making the choice.

The effort to move to grab the cup is being confused as a "me" doing it.

Thanks,

Ty