The Gate

Hi Dan,

It's my pleasure. Thank you for expressing yourself openly.

If I try to look at the "gap" between the thought and the tension, searching for a tangible connection of some kind, there is simply nothing there.

Exactly so! The experience is known through the sight, taste, smell, hearing, touch and thoughts, the "gaps" are just so but we tend to fill the gaps connecting experiences with an imagined story, the story of the self.

Now you are ready to answer your own questions, you don't need to ask anyone anymore, as seeing in AE without "filling the gaps" with theories the answers will shine unobstructed.

So on to your question:

What is the difference exactly? I am having difficulty understanding the difference between "noticing that the thoughts are in sequence" and "having a thought that says they are in sequence."

I reformulate. What is the difference between noticing through your senses that you have a Ferrari in your garage and thinking that you have a Ferrari in your garage?

You don't experience things being in order as raw sensory data; it's a concept, you have to think it. For example I could see on a television screen a red letter "A," then a blue letter "B," then a green letter "C." Now, the colors of the letters I would experience directly, in AE, as I would the shapes of the letters. But to actually notice that they're in alphabetical order, that takes thought, no? "Order" is a concept, not a perception.

Very accurate, shape and colors is what is known, (being aware that "shape" and "colors" are also concepts used for the seek of communication.

So now apply the same method to the other senses included the sixth sense, the mind. Try it with a drink you are about to have, for example, can be a food too. Report what is experienced or known before labeling.

What is known...

- in the seeing?
- in the smelling?
- in the touch?
- in the hearing?
- in the taste?
- in the thinking?

perception of warmth. noticing a pleasantness to the warmth- is this pleasantness AE, or does it require a thought to become "pleasant"?

Try to answer your question yourself. Is "pleasant' known in the seeing, smelling, touch, hearing, taste, thinking? What is pleasantness in actual experience? Is it anything that is seen, smell, felt...thought?

Love,
Luisa

Hi Luisa,
Thanks for the great instruction. Let's see what we have:

What is the difference between noticing through your senses that you have a Ferrari in your garage and thinking that you have a Ferrari in your garage?

The difference is the concept of "Ferrari." To notice the Ferrari through my senses is really just to experience the color, shape, reflectivity, etc. of the Ferrari. Or perhaps to feel the metal if I put my hand on it. The raw sensory data is just that- mere perceptions. It "becomes" a Ferrari once my mind assembles those perceptions into a coherent whole- the concept of "Ferrari." Thinking that I have a Ferrari in my garage requires the concept of Ferrari; seeing or feeling the sensory data that the Ferrari produces does not. One is simply experience, the other is experience followed by thought which comments on the experience. And in fact it is possible to have the thought "I have a Ferrari in my garage" without actually experiencing the Ferrari at all.

What is known...

- in the seeing?
- in the smelling?
- in the touch?
- in the hearing?
- in the taste?
- in the thinking?

In the seeing: only color, shape, brightness are known.
In the smelling: only the vague smell of coffee is known, hard to pin down.
In the touch: only pressure and warmth are known, on the hand.
In the hearing: only a sound of swallowing is known, seemingly inside the head.
In the taste: only sweetness, roastedness, creaminess are known.
In the thinking: I am stuck on this one - there are the five senses, which produce sensations, and then there is thought, which is different than sensation- but what about sensations which do not come from the five senses? Such as the pleasure that arises while drinking the coffee? What if I am meditating and I feel physical pleasure that is not related to any of my external senses, but is just a feeling of pure pleasantness, inside the body and all throughout it - is this another class of sensation? Is it similar to touch? Whatever this is, I experience it while drinking the coffee- there's the actual taste of the coffee, then there is the pleasure that arises immediately after the taste. Does this involve thinking though? My feeling is that it does not. Which leads right into your next question:

Is "pleasant' known in the seeing, smelling, touch, hearing, taste, thinking? What is pleasantness in actual experience? Is it anything that is seen, smell, felt...thought?

"Pleasant" seems to not be known in the seeing, smelling, touching, hearing, tasting, or thinking themselves - it seems separate. For example I taste a bite of pizza - if I am very hungry, there is the taste of pizza, then there is great pleasure. If I am very full, or feeling sick to my stomach, there is still the taste of pizza, but there is no pleasure. There may actually be unpleasantness in its place. In either case, the taste of pizza is still there though - so the pleasure cannot be contained "in" the taste itself. It cannot be known in the tasting. On the other hand, the pleasure does not seem to be known through thinking, either. I tried focusing my mind on AE, and then bringing a pleasant sensation into focus. While keeping the pleasantness going, I watched my thoughts. I could feel the pleasantness while thinking, and also during the gap in between thoughts. So it mustn't be that pleasure is known through thinking. I think pleasure is known in the same way that color is known- through pure perception- although it is through a different mechanism of sensing. I guess in a nutshell my answer would be that pleasantness is felt- it is known through the feeling- but it is not seen, smelled, heard, touched, or tasted. It is merely felt, "internally."

Thank you,
Dan

Hi Dan,

Thinking that I have a Ferrari in my garage requires the concept of Ferrari; seeing or feeling the sensory data that the Ferrari produces does not. One is simply experience, the other is experience followed by thought which comments on the experience. And in fact it is possible to have the thought "I have a Ferrari in my garage" without actually experiencing the Ferrari at all.

Noticing that you have a Ferrari is, as you very well said, seeing the colors and shapes, smelling, hearing, tasting, touching. Now, when thinking "I have a Ferrari" the only thing can be known or noticed (actual experience) is a thought which content is "I have a Ferrari". So the sixth sense is there noticing concepts, ideas that arise as thoughts. See? And indeed, thinking that you have a Ferrari it does'n bring it to existence. Having a Ferrari you can drive it, thinking you have it, you could only imagine you are driving it.

In LU we say in the seeing there is only the seeing, in the smelling there is only smelling, in the hearing there is only hearing, in the touch there is only feeling, in the taste there is only tasting and in the thinking there is only knowing (referring to concepts, ideas, thoughts) This is only what we find in AE, in AE there are not labels, concepts.

but what about sensations which do not come from the five senses?

Does this sentence make any sense to you?
Try this:
Play a song or it a food, smell a sent that is connected to your emotions somehow.
Listen, taste or smell. Report what is happening there. What is raw experience (AE) and what is imagination.

I'm going to push you a bit here. You know exactly how to LOOK in actual experience. The only thing you need to do is LOOK. You have proved you can ramble around very well but we don't need that here, not anymore, you need to focus now. You need to burn to dismantle the fallacy.

Pleasant, unpleasant, good, bad, cold, hot, what are all these words? Are them anything but concepts, words, letters put together?!
Can the letters do anything else but be seen? Can the words by themselves provoke sensations? Can pleasantness be localized? If so where exactly?

What is there before labeling a sensation as pleasant, unpleasant, good, bad, cold, hot? Anything else but an experience? There are, of course, simple experiences (the sensation on the finger tips when typing) and more complex ones (the sensations when receiving a massage or sounds that disentangle a cascade of feelings provoked by memories) What we ACTUALLY know are the experiences (through the six senses) as I said above, the thoughts are also known.

I think pleasure is known in the same way that color is known- through pure perception- although it is through a different mechanism of sensing. I guess in a nutshell my answer would be that pleasantness is felt- it is known through the feeling- but it is not seen, smelled, heard, touched, or tasted. It is merely felt, "internally."

To clarify: when we use "color" and "shape" we are not referring to the different colors and the different shapes as concepts - this is a little bit tricky. We refer to "color" and "shape" as alterations that are perceived by the sight. Likewise when smelling, there is a smell that's known but we don't use smell here to describe any particular smell but to point that smelling is happening.

You are using your imagination here, stop doing it!! This is a very realistic process to dismantle our believes, to see the stories that the self creates to get protected, to see where we are deceiving ourselves. There is not anything magical to discover here, all there is is what is, you won't find the "trick" as there is no trick is very simple, basic, natural.

Please write about the feelings that rise after reading the last paragraph.

Love,
Luisa

Hi Dan,

How is it going? Everything fine there?

Warm regards,
Luisa

Hi Luisa,
Yes, everything is good. I am trying these exercises repeatedly as I feel I might be on the verge of something. Thoughts are becoming more distant, they are feeling more and more like just another appearance in consciousness. This is both encouraging, and also making it a bit harder to "think," in the way that I always would in the past. I will update with a new post tonight.

Thank you,
Dan

Excellent Dan,

Please don't try too hard and keep in mind that to expect something to happen will prevent the flow. It is very simple.

Waiting for your responses tonight.

Love,
Luisa

Yes, no expectations. I understand. When I say "breakthrough," I mean more of a breakthrough in my understanding of your questions, not some sort of transformative breakthrough in consciousness. I will report back as soon as I am done with work.

Thank you,
Dan

Hi Luisa,
Ok, here is what I got.

but what about sensations which do not come from the five senses?
Does this sentence make any sense to you?

I know it sounds nonsensical, but what I mean is "internal" sensations- like the pleasure that arises while meditating, or let's say hunger. I'm just curious as to what part of my experience this belongs to. It's a sensation, yes, but it doesn't seem to come from seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting or touching. And it doesn't seem to be a thought, either.

Try this:
Play a song or it a food, smell a sent that is connected to your emotions somehow.
Listen, taste or smell. Report what is happening there. What is raw experience (AE) and what is imagination.

Ok, I played a song that is strongly connected to my childhood. There is the raw experience of hearing. The tones, rhythms, etc. I hear the sounds of a piano, but I don't know that I'm hearing a piano in AE. I know that it's a piano after, once I form the concept of a piano being played, and of my hearing it. Same goes for all the other components of the song. Then there is the feeling of nostalgia, that works like this: song is playing, I am hearing. I hear music, I hear words. The words cause concepts to form, thoughts of things being mentioned. Then at once, out of nowhere there is a pang. A strong sensation in the stomach and a flash of a memory. Riding in the car with my parents and this song is on, when I'm a child. This part is imagination. The piano I picture is imagination. AE is just the hearing of the sounds. I have a question, just to help clarify our terminology and make it easier to communicate- I understand raw sensory data being AE, while the memory of being in the car is imagination. But if there is a "sixth sense" which is thinking, knowing, then isn't the memory, which is a thought, also part of AE, since I am experiencing the thought? Or do we say the five senses are AE and imagination is not? Just want to be clear on how to communicate these things to you.

Pleasant, unpleasant, good, bad, cold, hot, what are all these words? Are them anything but concepts, words, letters put together?!
Can the letters do anything else but be seen? Can the words by themselves provoke sensations?

These words are just concepts, just a group of letters that when I see them, trigger a thought in my head. In AE: I read hot, I see the letters; then I imagine what heat feels like. There are the letters, which are just letters, then the imagined feeling of heat on my hand. At no point is there real heat in AE. The words by themselves cannot provoke sensations, only the hollow imagining of sensation, which is nothing like actual sensation.

Can pleasantness be localized? If so where exactly?

Not really. Sometimes when meditating it will seem to be originating in my stomach, for example. But when I try to locate what exactly this means, I fail to find anything. I look in AE and try to see what it means for a feeling to be "in my stomach" but I can't really find an answer; it seems to be just another concept my mind has assigned.

You are using your imagination here, stop doing it!! This is a very realistic process to dismantle our believes, to see the stories that the self creates to get protected, to see where we are deceiving ourselves. There is not anything magical to discover here, all there is is what is, you won't find the "trick" as there is no trick is very simple, basic, natural.

Please write about the feelings that rise after reading the last paragraph.

This is the part I was referring to earlier when I said I felt something changing, and that it was getting harder to think about things. I meant that in a good way, though. As I read this last paragraph and pay attention to experience, I notice a feeling of whirling somehow, thoughts or feelings swirling up, it feels like a "self." A feeling of self-consciousness- "listen to Luisa, pay attention, try to get this right." But as I get to the end, where you discuss there being no "trick," I feel that start to die down, I pay attention only to what is, right now, and it all feels empty of anything in the center. The whirling dies down, there is only the exact experience of right now. The sights that are seen, the sounds that are heard, the feelings felt. The thoughts themselves seem distant now. A thought arises, but it feels like I had nothing to do with it. I didn't "think" the thought- it just appeared and then disappeared. I read your last paragraph several times and had this experience each time. And it is starting to carry over into the rest of my life a bit- I'm working, and I notice I'm thinking, and all at once the thoughts seem distant again. I start to feel like I don't know what I'm looking for again, because what else could there be, other than what there is, right now.

I hope that makes sense, it's getting more and more difficult to explain as we go further in.

Thanks for your patience,
Dan

Hi Dan,

I know it sounds nonsensical, but what I mean is "internal" sensations- like the pleasure that arises while meditating, or let's say hunger. I'm just curious as to what part of my experience this belongs to. It's a sensation, yes, but it doesn't seem to come from seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting or touching. And it doesn't seem to be a thought, either.

Look at something in front of you, say a cup. Seeing is happening there, right? What knows that seeing is actually happening? With sounds, what is knowing that hearing is happening; with thoughts, what knows that thoughts are happening?

LOOK at it directly, without using the intellect. Let's focus on hunger now, this is a very good example and can be the key to dissolve the lie.
When a sensation, that you lately will label as hunger, is felt. What is knowing the sensation before labeling it?

See that sight, hearing, touching, etc, are again more concepts, empty labels, all there is is KNOWING, and is not knowing something (like a cup, a nice smell, etc) but just KNOWING.

There is no one there meditating having pleasant feelings in the stomach. All there is is THIS. Knowing. Awareness.

I have a question, just to help clarify our terminology and make it easier to communicate- I understand raw sensory data being AE, while the memory of being in the car is imagination. But if there is a "sixth sense" which is thinking, knowing, then isn't the memory, which is a thought, also part of AE, since I am experiencing the thought? Or do we say the five senses are AE and imagination is not? Just want to be clear on how to communicate these things to you

Imagination is thoughts, so the AE here is hearing (a song) and thoughts (memories) and this is all that is. Nostalgia (sadness, pleasure, happiness) arises from the story of the self, a self that had parents, with whom once was traveling in a car while playing that song. But that self is just a thought as it is the self that feels hungry even we say "I am hungry", all that is happening is a sensation that is known, and is all that is.

There is no that self at all. It never was. It never will be.

LOOK into the last paragraph again. Tell what it comes, but look at it without using the intellect, no theories just raw experience.Write whatever comes

Love,
Luisa

Hi Luisa,
Ok, let's see:

Look at something in front of you, say a cup. Seeing is happening there, right? What knows that seeing is actually happening? With sounds, what is knowing that hearing is happening; with thoughts, what knows that thoughts are happening?

I am looking here- I really am. Not intellectualizing, so try to bear with me if language is breaking down. It honestly feels as though nothing is knowing. Nothing is knowing sight; nothing is knowing sounds. These things are just known. Not known by anyone or anything- just known. The knowing itself seems to be the only thing that exists.

LOOK at it directly, without using the intellect. Let's focus on hunger now, this is a very good example and can be the key to dissolve the lie.
When a sensation, that you lately will label as hunger, is felt. What is knowing the sensation before labeling it?

Again, nothing that I can point to. Nothing I can specify. Hunger is just known, among all the other things that are known. When I really look here, I notice the boundaries between the different senses, imagination, thought, etc. start to break down. If all of these things are simply known, then they are all just different instances of knowing, and grouping them into "sights," "sounds," "thoughts," etc. is merely conceptualizing. This is very helpful.

Imagination is thoughts, so the AE here is hearing (a song) and thoughts (memories) and this is all that is. Nostalgia (sadness, pleasure, happiness) arises from the story of the self, a self that had parents, with whom once was traveling in a car while playing that song. But that self is just a thought as it is the self that feels hungry even we say "I am hungry", all that is happening is a sensation that is known, and is all that is.

There is no that self at all. It never was. It never will be.

LOOK into the last paragraph again. Tell what it comes, but look at it without using the intellect, no theories just raw experience.Write whatever comes

When I read this, I think: there is AE which is only the hearing of the song and the thoughts that arise. Then, the thoughts trigger emotions and nostalgia, which are now part of AE as well. But none of this is outside of AE; none of this is separate, a separate self. The hearing, the memory, the feeling of nostalgia, that is all there is. There is no self they are all happening to. There is only the knowing of each, in AE.

Thank you,
Dan

Hi Dan,

I just wanted to share this video with you. I will come with my responses later on.

Enjoy it:

There is an idea/belief that sensation is coming from sight - the object seen, in this example, the object being the ‘hand’. It is a false perception as this video shows!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaP0MqvkvUw

See you later,
Luisa

That was amazing - I would like to try this experiment myself!

Looking forward to your responses.

Thank you,
Dan

Hi Dan,

Yes the experiment is great. I'd like to try it too!

You are really doing a great job Dan. Let's go to chop this in smaller pieces.

The knowing itself seems to be the only thing that exists.

Trust the experience Dan. "It seems" or is what you actually see?

When I read this, I think: there is AE which is only the hearing of the song and the thoughts that arise. Then, the thoughts trigger emotions and nostalgia, which are now part of AE as well. But none of this is outside of AE; none of this is separate, a separate self. The hearing, the memory, the feeling of nostalgia, that is all there is. There is no self they are all happening to. There is only the knowing of each, in AE.

Exactly so. "there is AE which is only the hearing of the song and the thoughts that arise", but then you say:

"The thoughts trigger emotions and nostalgia". LOOK at it, is it true? can thoughts do that? is the sentence "The thoughts trigger emotions and nostalgia" anything but a thought? Do you believe it?

There is something that I feel is not totally clear yet. "Memory" is the judgement of the content of a THOUGHT, the judgement is not AE, what is known in AE is simply a thought, (which content you labeled as memory), "the feeling of nostalgia" is a thought (which content is "feeling nostalgia"), conceptualizing an emotion. The content of a thought requires intellectualization which is out of AE and disentangles the self story. On the other hand if with "the feeling of nostalgia" you mean "nostalgia" an emotion. Again, LOOK at it. What is an emotion in AE? Is it a sensation? a thought?

Can "nostalgia" be felt? What is "nostalgia" in AE? Is there anyone feeling nostalgic?

From previous messages:

So an anxious thought will arise- "I need to put gas in my car"- and then immediately afterward, a feeling. A tension in the stomach appears. It feels unpleasant. This is from direct experience- I watched very carefully.

Can a thought be anxious? Can a thought provoke anxiety? What is anxiety in AE?

Keep it up Dan, you are doing great.

Love,
Luisa

The knowing itself seems to be the only thing that exists.

Trust the experience Dan. "It seems" or is what you actually see?

It's what I actually see. There is nothing else there but the phenomena. There is no other thing that experiences the phenomena. I can't even say, "There is the phenomena, and then the knowing of the phenomena," because the only way that phenomena exists is by being known. How could there be phenomena that is not known? It's impossible. So I would say either: there is only knowing, OR, there is only phenomena - but they both mean the exact same thing.

"The thoughts trigger emotions and nostalgia". LOOK at it, is it true? can thoughts do that? is the sentence "The thoughts trigger emotions and nostalgia" anything but a thought? Do you believe it?

This goes back to a previous question, that of whether an anxious thought can actually be observed to trigger the feeling in the stomach. No, if I actually look, there is no visible "cause" between the "memory thought", and the feeling of nostalgia. They come in order, but I cannot actually see the one causing the other at all.

Can "nostalgia" be felt? What is "nostalgia" in AE? Is there anyone feeling nostalgic?

It can be felt- it is felt. What I mean by that is the sensations we're labeling "nostalgia" are certainly felt- they are sensations like any other. But the term, or concept "nostalgia" itself is not felt; it is not directly known. It is assigned after the knowing of the feeling occurs. Nostalgia in AE is something like a feeling of sadness combined with a feeling of love; I cannot reduce those two feelings much further. Sadness appears to originate in the stomach, and love in the chest; the former feels somewhat unpleasant, the latter very pleasant. They feel like vague patterns of energy inside the body. It's hard to break them down much further than that, but that is the experience in AE. Labeling them "sadness" or "love" is not in AE- it is conceptualizing afterwards. And no, there is not anyone feeling nostalgic. The feelings we're labeling as "nostalgia" simply exist; they are felt, they are known.

So an anxious thought will arise- "I need to put gas in my car"- and then immediately afterward, a feeling. A tension in the stomach appears. It feels unpleasant. This is from direct experience- I watched very carefully.
Can a thought be anxious? Can a thought provoke anxiety? What is anxiety in AE?

A thought cannot be anxious, no. A thought may be accompanied by, or immediately followed by, anxiety, but the thought itself is not anxious. Anxiety in AE is a feeling, a sensation, something like a tightness in the belly, sometimes along with buzzing sensations like electricity that creep along the skin. An excitement. The sensation of the heart beating more forcefully, and faster. Those are the pure sensations of anxiety in AE. The thought, whatever it was, that preceded these sensations is completely separate and cannot be observed directly to provoke the sensations.

Thank you,
Dan

Hi Dan,

Wonderful! I'm delighted you see now that all that is is just life flowing. There is no "I", no controller either witness.

So what is Dan? How would you describe it fully, stating only the obvious in AE?