The Gate

Hey there Eli!

Thank you for such a thorough examination. Well done, actually. I have found a few places to dig into, but.. but... but... I want to keep you out of philosophical thinking if I can. KISS method.

Let me ask—why does a phone fit with your beliefs about the world and a flying donkey, not-so-much. What's different about them as far as belief goes? Please give a single sentence response for these questions.
"A phone fits in with my beliefs about the world, flying donkey doesn't."


We're going to tackle this nugget too: How do you determine whether something "makes sense"? What's the criteria? Please give me a single sentence response to this one, too.
"So maybe rule number three is: 'it makes sense for it to be real'.


How about this one. Where did the model of reality come from? One sentence, please.
"It fits my model of reality and facts."


This is especially interesting:
"It's also harder for the brain to keep up something not based on reality and fact, which I could probably make collapse by scrutinizing it with the senses."


IMPORTANT HINT. If you take nothing away from this post, understand THIS:
Here's what we're doing here. We're starting to take a look at your thought process. See, we all base new thinking on earlier thinking. We build towers of thought with what we learned early on as the foundation.

Those earliest thought patterns are so ingrained that we don't realize they now serve as an unquestioned base for all new thinking. And its never, ever subject to scrutiny because we've lived with it for so long. What if its inaccurate?

If you'd like to see reality... the truth... we will question EVERYTHING.

Sound good, my friend?

:)
Delma

All this resonates so much. I'm giddy for battle, if that makes any sense.

why does a phone fit with your beliefs about the world and a flying donkey, not-so-much. What's different about them as far as belief goes?

Phones have more supporting ideas for and less contradicting ideas against their existence in my mind (memories of using them a lot, other people talking about them, knowledge of how they work), than flying donkeys do.

How do you determine whether something "makes sense"? What's the criteria?

I guess, again, when that something does not conflict with and/or is supported by my ideas, my model.

Where did the model of reality come from?

A lifetime of having my attention drawn to things, tied together with stories I was told about them.

If you'd like to see reality... the truth... we will question EVERYTHING.

Sound good, my friend?

Yes ma'am! It's about time.

Thank you!

So... tell me about Santa, but only through using your criteria.

Is Santa real?

So... tell me about Santa, but only through using your criteria.

Let's see, so my criteria are: things experienced, tied together with a story. Story fits things experienced, things experienced back up the story.

Here he's called Saint Nicholas, but same idea.

As a child, things experienced were: I see him on TV arriving in a boat, the shoe I put next to the chimney with a letter disappeared, toys and candy appeared a few days later, a guy with the same appearance visits the house to talk to the kids, ...

The story that tied these things together was: Saint Nicholas arrives on his boat every year, to go from roof to roof, bringing gifts for us down the chimney.

Later, exact same evidence, different story. Story was replaced by a story of my parents putting the gifts next to the fireplace, and the guy I always see on TV or showing up at christmas parties is a random person dressed up.

Is Santa real?

Nope, no doubt he isn't.

Why is Santa not real now?

So...You were told he exists. Saw evidence, too.

Then you were told he does not, despite not being shown evidence that he does not.

In either case, there is a constant. The constant is belief. Test this hypothesis of mine. Is it true in your experience?

(That was an inquiry into belief and how we don't question beliefs nearly enough)

Back to the wallet! When looking at it again, look closely and describe each of these three things:

Seer
Seeing
Seen

Thanks, Eli!!

Why is Santa not real now?

So...You were told he exists. Saw evidence, too.

Then you were told he does not, despite not being shown evidence that he does not.

In either case, there is a constant. The constant is belief. Test this hypothesis of mine. Is it true in your experience?

(That was an inquiry into belief and how we don't question beliefs nearly enough)

Let's see if I'm following you. Believing means feeling a story is true. When you say 'the constant is belief', all you're saying is that in both cases I'm believing something, right? I swapped out one belief for another, regardless of the evidence?

I vaguely remember my mom telling me Santa isn't real and that it was all them all along, and I pretty much went 'OK, thanks for all the gifts then'.

Right now the idea of Santa seems obviously fiction to me, and the idea of parents putting gifts under the tree and saying it was Santa seems obviously true. Why? Maybe story A is true, and it's all a conspiracy. Maybe there's a story C that I'm not even aware of, and story B is false too. Santa's an alien making parents believe he isn't real. This feels ridiculous, but I think the issue's more that my truths don't.

Maybe stories aren't where truth is at, period. But then my brain starts fighting, saying one story could still be 'closer to truth' than others, meaning it's possible to hone in on the ultimate true story or something. Tangent time.

When you say 'now' and `in your experience'. I'm home now, no sign of Santa, or parents sneaking around putting gifts under trees, or anything involved in these beliefs and stories. I see bits of my body, laptop, room, and all I can do is go digging in memories and thoughts to support my beliefs. Nothing to convince myself they're true in plain sight. I say your hypothesis is true in my experience, because all I can do is believe. I can't 'know', here and now. There's not the slightest hint of evidence for these stories in the moment.

Back to the wallet! When looking at it again, look closely and describe each of these three things:

Seer
Seeing
Seen

Seen: Shades and colors. Feeling of some of the shades and colors being wallet, others being not-wallet.

Seer: Me! Wait... Seen is what appears, the seer is what it appears to. It just feels like, a center, a viewpoint. The seen stands relative to this viewpoint.

Seeing: the interaction between this viewpoint and the appearance, the appearance appearing to this viewpoint.

Don't know how I can convey my confusion about this to you. The reason I did them out of order is because 'seen' seems like the only clear one. My booksmarts already knows these 3 are actually one, that the subject-object relationship is an illusion. The exercise shows I don't get my dumb booksmarts.

P.S.: Too wordy again?

Eli!!!

Nope. Not too wordy at all. Nice work, really.

Can you stay with the seer/seeing/seen inquiry. Feels like you were exploring rather than just thinking about it.

Describe the seer with your criteria for reality.

This is inquiry. This is where the fun starts.

Happy Sunday,

Delma

Describe the seer with your criteria for reality.

Interesting. The criteria I gave earlier was for 'my model of reality'. Things experienced (past and present tense), stories tying them together. My model of the world, that my experiences right here and right now can fit into. From far away galaxies to personal relationships.

You say 'describe the seer', as if there is one. Kneejerk reaction, I agree. Of course there's a seer. He's right here. It's me. No model of the world, no stories, this is right here, right now, all the time, always with me, always me, eternal center of my universe. Piece of cake.

What is the seer... it's what experiences the things experienced. It's subjected to things experienced. And yet, it's treated as an object, as a thing experienced. It's part of the stories. It's tied by stories to the things experienced. The seer seeing the seen. The eater eating the apple.

Stop. Snap back to right here, right now. Something's seen. What's the seer seeing the seen. When I try and look, it's weird. I think of the words 'seer', 'seeing', 'seen' one at a time, and it's like I can feel my mind selecting what it thinks those are. 'Seen' selects the entire field of vision, 'seer' selects a location that feels like it's somewhere in my head, 'seeing' selects an invisible line drawn from the center to whatever I'm looking straight at. Does this make sense?

'Seer' points to an invisible point, 'seeing' to an invisible line. Guess that is a clue. How could they be visible. The definition of visible is that it's part of the seen, which is thing number 3 in this story. Is this just word play?

Seer seeing the seen. Actor acting on object. The verb supposes that there's a thing doing the verbing right? The verb 'seeing' relies on the 'seer' to be there to do the 'seeing' in the first place. So that's why 'seeing' isn't an issue, as it will go away if the seer goes away. If there's no invisible point, there's no invisible line to draw from it.

Does the seer need to be visible to be real? No, but does it need to be possible to observe it with at least one of the senses? Come on, it's supposed to be right here, right. It feels like there's a seer, but it's not a feeling like being hungry. It's mind, not senses. The mind only knows of things through the senses. If the seer can't be sensed, because it's by definition what's doing the sensing, then how does the mind know about it? Just a word it heard through the ears a few times too many? It's hearsay, turned into a conviction that it's here spot in the middle for eternity?

And yet, right here, right now, it still feels like there's a seer seeing the seen. A relationship between me and stuff I look at. What's the hangup here? And who's feeling the feeling of there being a seer seeing?

Uh oh, getting frustrated again.

I'll just drop this here for now cause I think I'm stuck.

Happy Sunday to you too, Delma. No days off!

Hello Eli.
Stuck is excellent. It's that wall thinking can't reason its way past.

Earlier, you defined the criteria of what is real. Do you want to modify that or is it still your truth?

If it is still your truth, then use it to find the truth of reality as it actually is. Where is the seer? Is it merely within language or is there substance?

This was excellent:

" It's part of the stories. It's tied by stories to the things experienced. The seer seeing the seen. The eater eating the apple."

Noun. Verb. Noun.

Here's a story:

"I am looking at my wallet."

Point to the "I" performing the action. Forget logic for a minute and just look. Use the senses. Point to the assumption we all gloss over. Hint: it's in the very first word.

Show it to me.

:)

Hi!


Delma

Point to the "I" performing the action. Forget logic for a minute and just look. Use the senses. Point to the assumption we all gloss over. Hint: it's in the very first word.

Show it to me.

It's not there. The word I points to empty space. But the mind keeps fighting. There's got to be another explanation. It's seeking things to point to. No need to sense it, it says, it's there anyway. Senses can't sense everything. Logic's off.

At the same time it's also fighting to 'see it'. Silly things like 'Oo, pressure in the head! Oh boy, does this mean I'm about to see the truth of no self?' Nope.

All day I've been looking at things saying 'I am looking at...', looking where each word points.

I wrote up some wonderful irrefutable logic, my new criteria for reality, sturdier than ever. No use. It felt hollow.

So, just checking in today. I'll keep looking at the I who's looking.

Hi Eli.

Logic and thinking cannot awaken. You say that the mind keeps fighting. That's exactly correct. But only exactly.

So, is Eli a product of the mind since it's the only thing able to manifest a self?

Logic is decidedly off. But if we are looking at the truth of reality, and using solid criteria to investigate, how do we know that the idea that a self exists is not what's really "off"?

Ok, to continue, keep looking. But add the following exercise.

Let's use all the senses to investigate.

Hearer
Hearing
Heard

Can you find and describe the hearer?

And I meant to let you know that this inquiry is going along very well. So, thank you for sticking with it. I know it can be frustrating and it can feel as though you're going in circles. That's exactly the point at which many drop out, even as they stand at the door (or gateless gate, that is), without realizing it.

It's all part of the true process of waking up.

Thank you, Delma, I truly appreciate the wisdom and the support.

Not sure how many of those questions are rhetorical, but I want to dig in.

Logic is decidedly off. But if we are looking at the truth of reality, and using solid criteria to investigate, how do we know that the idea that a self exists is not what's really "off"?

First of all, this is where the mind works itself into a hole. The self wants to make progress, and progress looks like not doing anything a self would do. So it says logic's bad, it says it's ego trying to sound smart, so don't be smart.

Screw it, let's have another look at those criteria then.

The mind only knows of the world through the senses. The product of the mind is thought. Thought is like fuzzy pretend sensory perceptions. It sounds like words because it's mimicking words heard through the ears. It looks like movies because it's mimicking things seen through the eyes. But the essence is that it's second hand. All of it.

Words point to things. But some words are like... They don't point to anything. It's like we're kids on the playground trying to fit in, and we hear everybody else talking about having a 'me', and so we act like we totally have a 'me' too, and before too long we start to believe it. Words that point to nothing we ever directly experienced.

The mind mimicks and identifies with its own imitations.

I work with data analysis, and it helps me to think of the mind as a trained algorithm. Like when you feed an algorithm thousands of hours of random voices saying random things, and then you let it do its thing and it sounds like it has its own voice with its own things to say. But you know the truth. It's just a computer model pretending to be a real boy. You see it. You feel it. It sounds like it has its own will and identity, but it doesn't. It's unsettling. Just like the mind. Working through this is usually when I start seeing the very phrases I'm typing as not me.

Tangent again. Back on track.

Thought is not a reliable source of information. All that's left is the senses. Reality is tested with the senses. Mind can also only know reality from the senses. Therefore what can't be directly experienced, can't be known by the mind either. The mind can't know more than me, right here, right now. It's awareness, filled with sensory perception, and whatever thoughts mind throws on top of them. Mind also only knows what it receives through sensory perception. So what the mind says is irrelevant. If it's not there to be seen, then the mind's just talking crap.

My only criterium from now on: observable or bust.

So, is Eli a product of the mind since it's the only thing able to manifest a self?

Interesting question. It's Eli's mind, but it's really mind's Eli.

Mind fighting again.

Can't there be a real 'me' preceding the word 'me' just like there's a real wallet preceding the word 'wallet'? Sure thing, mind, so show it to me, if you're so damn sure of what it is. You can't observe it, yet you're so convinced you know it intimately. It's like religion. You see the deepest mysteries of the universe, and instead of accepting them as unknowable, you invent a completely arbitrary and suspiciously detailed story about a being who made it all so.

Good lord, 'me' and God have a lot in common...

No wonder I'm so full of myself.

Hearer
Hearing
Heard

Can you find and describe the hearer?

A nice change, I've been very caught up in seeing.

There's things heard, that's the obvious one. Sound's right there. What's the hearer hearing the heard... No shortcuts, no easy answers. It feels like there's a hearer, that the heard is appearing to the hearer through hearing. Sounds are relative to the hearer in space, some further away than others, some behind the hearer, some in front, some on the side. Ergo, the hearer itself is in space and has a front. Starting to find this logic a bit funny. If it's in space, it's right here. Like... riiiiight here.

...

I see you. This quiet little center. Stuck to everything. The thinker, the hearer, the seer. Let's stare you down some more.

Hi Eli,

Well, you really went into thinking, reasoning, and logic. None of that helps, though, does it. Thinking about this will lead you away from it.

This is what we are looking for, simply using the criteria you've established. Is the self, the Me, the I, this thing that has supposedly been there "all your life" really there?


Let's start over. The hint for today is to remind you to treat inquiry as a child would. Simples. Very simply and with ease.

You've said this about the hearer:

"It feels like there's a hearer"

and this about the seer:

"seen is what appears, the seer is what it appears to. It just feels like, a center, a viewpoint."

The common point you did not address, even though it's THE NUGGET:
"It FEELS as though it's there."

Use your own criteria for testing reality to answer just these two questions: can the seer/hearer be pointed to? Can the seer and hearer be described or is it true that they're no more than a FEELING? Don't reason it out, though. Just do a check and report your findings.


Keep in mind that the right answer is YOUR answer only. Your truth is all that matters.

Thank you!
Delma

Well, you really went into thinking, reasoning, and logic. None of that helps, though, does it.

Hahah, oh boy. My mind did quite a dance. Nope, didn't help at all.

can the seer/hearer be pointed to? Can the seer and hearer be described or is it true that they're no more than a FEELING?

Mind's struggling so much to find it. It can't be seen. Nothing. Just a feeling pointing somewhere. It can't be heard. It can't be smelled. It can't be touched. It can't be tasted. It feels like it's always felt though.

You know what's not a struggle to find? Every other thing that's here. Everything in this room, my body, my stuff, I can't NOT see it. No effort, it's just there. Music playing, it's just there. 'Me"? Squint, tense up, look really hard! Nothing.

If it was right here, it should be cake to see it. It should be obvious. It's not. It's mysterious. What a contrast. Seen = everything. Seer = nothing. What's not to get. But the mind persists! Stubborn thing.

My criterium is: if it can't be sensed with the senses, it's not there. The mind can't know about something in the here and now that the senses can't detect.

So. It can't be more than a feeling...