The Gate

Hi Paul

"seeing color" comes straightaway when I don't think about it

Does this label describe your DE best? Can you see no colour, even if you close your eyes? Look again. Seeing is already colour, and in no seeing (the sense) there is no colour (e.g. in deep sleep), so isn't it over labelling to use both, more part of everyday language? In DE everything is better described with verbs than with nouns.I feel that this is semantics, but as long as you see that "colour" is synonymous with "seeing" (not separate), it’s fine. You might enjoy this video of Alan Watts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVpj7WWC-nw

1. Imaginary orange - even when I imagine eating the orange as vividly as possible, it still does not feel very vivid. There's a "hollow" feeling to the imagination and made me want to eat the actual orange.

2. The experience of eating the orange feels infinitely more vivid than the imagination of it. It's also feels much more enjoyable to eat an orange than to imagine eating an orange :)

3. The description barely describes the experience. If someone had never eaten an orange before, they could read the description and probably tell that eating an orange is more like eating a pineapple than it is like eating a piece of bread. But they would still have almost no understanding of what the experience is like.

Great! This is a perfect example of how you should look for no self. You are not looking at Imaginary experiences and we are not looking at description. We are looking at the Actual Experience of seeing no self.
So. Let’s move on.

Love
Rali

Ups! a part of my message disappeared:)
So. Let’s move on.
Which one of these is "I" the closest to in all honesty? Please choose from the below three:

1. thought
2. visual image
3. bodily sensation

Hi Rali

Does this label describe your DE best? Can you see no colour, even if you close your eyes?

Color is always seen, even when eyes are closed

so isn't it over labelling to use both, more part of everyday language?

yes. "seeing color" came quickly to mind probably from habit of language use, but "seeing" feels like most accurate description. I liked the video you posted

Which one of these is "I" the closest to in all honesty? Please choose from the below three:

1. thought
2. visual image
3. bodily sensation

"I" is definitely closer to thought than to visual image. Right now "I" feels much closer to thought than to bodily sensation. Bodily sensations are comfortable right now. However, at times when bodily sensations are very uncomfortable, it seems like the "I" is felt stronger in bodily sensations. But even at those times the association between "I" and bodily sensations probably comes from thought. I'll have to look closer the next time that happens.

HI Paul
Very good!

"I" is definitely closer to thought than to visual image.

So you see yourself as the thinker mostly, right? Let’s focus on thinking then.
For the next exercise I want you to sit somewhere quiet and observe thoughts.
A thought appears. In that moment is there anyone or anything which recognises the thought or is being aware of it? Can you see anything that is separate from the thought and does the thinking? Where do thoughts appear from? Do they appear randomly or in a structured way? Is there anything that is responsible for the thoughts like a traffic cop saying which one to go and which one to stay? Can the flow of thoughts be changed? Watch like a hawk.
Write down a sequence of 5 thoughts in the order that they appear. Now check:
Could you predict the order of their appearance? Did you know which will be the second or the fourth? Can you stop them midway? How long does that last? Test it for the fun of exploration. Are they 100% true?
What are you, when you don't think about what you are?

For example, I can form the intention to spell the word "liberation" in my mind. Then the next thoughts that arise are "l-i-b-e-r-a-t-i-o-n," each letter appearing as a thought one at a time. Since I intended for those thoughts to happen, it feels more like I am the thinker of them.

What is an intention? How is it formed? Can you intend then to think only happy thoughts?
Remember, these questions are not just to be answered, they are pointers. They show how to explore and find answers for yourself as this is your inquiry. You still have to answer them here, though :)
Love
Rali

Hi Rali

It seems like I identify more as the thinker because I was avoiding this inquiry. I had some free time to do this inquiry yesterday but I avoided it and distracted myself instead. Next time I'll try to notice that happening earlier and look into the inclination for avoidance.

For the next exercise I want you to sit somewhere quiet and observe thoughts.

The first thing I notice is that thoughts seem to come less frequently when I am observing them.

In that moment is there anyone or anything which recognises the thought or is being aware of it?

No, there's just a quiet recognition of the thought.

Can you see anything that is separate from the thought and does the thinking?

No

Where do thoughts appear from?

They just appear, but not from anywhere.

Do they appear randomly or in a structured way?

The thoughts appear randomly. I can't predict when they will happen. However, this is related to the passive role of observance I am taking for this inquiry. If I take the role of the "thinker" it seems like I can set up fairly predictable "thought chains," like the example I gave of spelling a word in my mind. But this involves believing the content of thoughts rather than just observing thoughts so it's not DE.

Is there anything that is responsible for the thoughts like a traffic cop saying which one to go and which one to stay?

No, not when observing thoughts in DE.

Can the flow of thoughts be changed?

It can only look that way if I believe the thought content. If I just look at the thoughts themselves and don't believe the content, there's no evidence that I can do this. I'm beginning to see what a radically different perspective DE is. Even "the flow of thoughts" is an idea, because there's at most one thought in DE at a time. The idea that there are other thoughts that flow together is thought content and not seen in direct experience.

Write down a sequence of 5 thoughts in the order that they appear.

1. "It's taking a long time for a thought to come"
2. "I wonder what I'll think next"
3. "Oh, well that was also a thought"
4. "The thoughts I typed are kind of funny"
5. "What about image thoughts"

Could you predict the order of their appearance? Did you know which will be the second or the fourth?

I couldn't have predicted any of the thoughts before they happened.

Can you stop them midway? How long does that last?

I covered up 4 and 5 and read 1-3 then closed my eyes and thought 1-3. I didn't remember what 4 and 5 were and didn't think them. Then I opened my eyes and saw 4 and 5 and then I thought them also. Thinking 1-3 was much faster the second time than when I originally wrote them.

Of course the description I just wrote is not from DE. It's loaded with concepts. Maybe I'm still confused what DE is though, because is there any way to answer these 2 questions from DE? Seems like from DE there isn't such a thing as "midway" or even time...

Are they 100% true?

No, they were mostly just thoughts about thoughts and the content was pretty disconnected from direct experience.

What are you, when you don't think about what you are?

hmm...I don't know

What is an intention? How is it formed? Can you intend then to think only happy thoughts?

An intention is a thought. It's a belief that a decision has been made to perform an action in the present or future. From perspective of DE it just arises spontaneously like all other thoughts do. The intention can arise to only think happy thoughts, but that intention has no power to stop non-happy thoughts from arising.

Hi Paul
Very interesting reply :)

It seems like I identify more as the thinker because I was avoiding this inquiry. I had some free time to do this inquiry yesterday but I avoided it and distracted myself instead. Next time I'll try to notice that happening earlier and look into the inclination for avoidance…
…An intention is a thought. It's a belief that a decision has been made to perform an action in the present or future. From perspective of DE it just arises spontaneously like all other thoughts do. The intention can arise to only think happy thoughts, but that intention has no power to stop non-happy thoughts from arising.

So, thoughts are powerless, right? So, now how is inclination different from intention? How is it observed? Please describe it in more detail

The thoughts appear randomly… If I take the role of the "thinker" it seems like I can set up fairly predictable "thought chains,"

We are not talking about their content (what they are about) but about their arising. So, if the content is disregarded is the arising random or “in chains”? In what way is the “random” different from “in chains” without the content?

I can't predict when they will happen. However, this is related to the passive role of observance I am taking for this inquiry. If I take the role of the "thinker" it seems like I can set up fairly predictable "thought chains," like the example I gave of spelling a word in my mind. But this involves believing the content of thoughts rather than just observing thoughts so it's not DE.

How is the “prediction” appearing? Where is the knowing of the order stored? LOOK! Don’t just assume or remember things. Is DE a special mode of seeing? Or does Direct Experience refer to where to look at what really is happening – the senses (not in thought content)? How is the role of the “thinker” taken in DE? How is the “passive” role taken? Is there an observer there? How are these roles observed with the senses? Is there anything that shapeshifts from an observer to a thinker? As you can see all the questions are pointing to the senses and not the thought content to find out what REALLY is happening

Can you stop them midway? How long does that last?

I covered up 4 and 5 and read 1-3 then closed my eyes and thought 1-3. I didn't remember what 4 and 5 were and didn't think them. Then I opened my eyes and saw 4 and 5 and then I thought them also. Thinking 1-3 was much faster the second time than when I originally wrote them.

I don’t think you understood this question the way I intended it. I meant to just observe and see if you can interrupt a thought midway like for example with 3. "Oh, well that was!” but with a new thought – in a way not finish the thought

Are they 100% true?

No, they were mostly just thoughts about thoughts and the content was pretty disconnected from direct experience.

But even when the content is related to the DE is it 100% true and accurate - like with the description of eating an orange?

What are you, when you don't think about what you are?

hmm...I don't know

That’s a good and honest answer! However, this question is a pointer, not a question to be answered per se (like a zen koan). So, keep on looking.

Of course the description I just wrote is not from DE. It's loaded with concepts. Maybe I'm still confused what DE is though, because is there any way to answer these 2 questions from DE? Seems like from DE there isn't such a thing as "midway" or even time...

Communication involves using thought content (description/language). It is a tool for an exchange of information. Labels are like pointers. Our experiences are transcribed with labels and this is how information about experiences is exchanged. When I say something, I use labels. The listener takes these labels and puts them through his filter of beliefs and a meaning is either interpreted in the same way or differently. What we try to do here is to mutually agree on the labels that we will use and what they are referring to in advance. So, I use language to point to DE (senses). You look at your DE (senses) to see what is really happening (not description by thought but real experience). Then you report your DE using the labels we agreed upon in the beginning (describing the experience of your senses). Remember the colour of the socks example :)
Just to ensure that you are crystal clear about DE and the labels related to it...here's an exercise that you can try as many times throughout the day as you can. Label daily activities, objects and emotions simply as colour/image, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought as per the apple example.
For example, when having coffee in the morning, become aware of:
Seeing a cup, simply= image/color
Smelling coffee, simply = smell
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought

Break down daily activities into these categories (which are all Actual/Direct Experience) and report back with lists EXACTLY like the one above. Please write a few examples from your daily life.
Love
Rali

Hi Rali

So, thoughts are powerless, right? So, now how is inclination different from intention? How is it observed? Please describe it in more detail

The inclination was also related to physical feeling of resistance. A thought would arise like "I should do the inquiry now" and then some feeling of resistance in the body, and then another thought like "no, how about later." Are these 3 experiences causally linked? That's normally how I would look at it, but in direct experience there's no evidence of causality.

So, if the content is disregarded is the arising random or “in chains”? In what way is the “random” different from “in chains” without the content?

The arising is random. When content is disregarded, "in chains" is meaningless. Thoughts just appear spontaneously.

How is the “prediction” appearing? Where is the knowing of the order stored? LOOK! Don’t just assume or remember things.

The "prediction" and "knowing of the order" are both only appearing in thought content

Is DE a special mode of seeing? Or does Direct Experience refer to where to look at what really is happening – the senses (not in thought content)?

It's not just a special mode of seeing. That's what's alarming to me. Earlier I was treating "seeing in DE" kind of like a game - I wasn't genuinely skeptical about the thought content. Now I'm starting to be genuinely skeptical. Why believe the thought content is literally true when there's no evidence to support it? But there's *so much* wrapped up in thought content - self, time, causality, things - there's fear that if I continue this inquiry, I'm going to see with no doubt all of it is illusory. Belief in all of it will stop which will be a huge shift in perspective to something unknown, and my current perspective might never come back. So that's what the fear comes from.

How is the role of the “thinker” taken in DE? How is the “passive” role taken? Is there an observer there? How are these roles observed with the senses? Is there anything that shapeshifts from an observer to a thinker? As you can see all the questions are pointing to the senses and not the thought content to find out what REALLY is happening

None of these roles are found by the senses. It's all thought content

I meant to just observe and see if you can interrupt a thought midway like for example with 3. "Oh, well that was!” but with a new thought – in a way not finish the thought

Oh ok, there can be thoughts with wording that starts out the same way but then ceases in the middle of the thought. But that's just how some thought might happen, I can't make it happen that way.

But even when the content is related to the DE is it 100% true and accurate - like with the description of eating an orange?

No. It looks impossible for any thought content to be 100% true and accurate.

Break down daily activities into these categories (which are all Actual/Direct Experience) and report back with lists EXACTLY like the one above. Please write a few examples from your daily life.

Thank you for the explanation of DE. I was overcomplicating it.

Seeing the keyboard, simply= image/color
Feeling the pressure of the keys on the fingertips, simply = sensation
Hearing the clicks of the keys, simply = sound
Thought about typing, simply = thought

Seeing the shirt I'm wearing, simply = image/color
Smelling the fabric of the shirt, simply = smell
Feeling the texture and warmth of the shirt on the body, simply = sensation
Hearing my hand rubbing the fabric, simply = sound
Thought about whether the shirt matches with my other clothing, simply = thought

Seeing a bagel, simply = image/color
Smelling the bagel, simply = smell
Feeling hot sensation when removing the bagel from the toaster, simply = sensation
Tasting the bagel, simply = taste
Hearing the bagel being broken apart, simply = sound
Thought about eating the bagel, simply = thought

Hi Paul
Very good! I can see that you are clear about DE from your examples.

The arising is random. When content is disregarded, "in chains" is meaningless. Thoughts just appear spontaneously…The "prediction" and "knowing of the order" are both only appearing in thought content…None of these roles are found by the senses. It's all thought content

As you can see a lot of what we assumed happens only in thought content – description of reality that doesn’t quite cover it and a lot of the gaps have been filled with assumptions.

The inclination was also related to physical feeling of resistance. A thought would arise like "I should do the inquiry now" and then some feeling of resistance in the body, and then another thought like "no, how about later." Are these 3 experiences causally linked? That's normally how I would look at it, but in direct experience there's no evidence of causality.

Let’s examine this physical feeling of resistance. What is holding you back is fear— the fear that there is no you. As you know already feeling is sensation + thought. Separated from the thoughts and images that are attached to it, all that is there is raw sensation. Inquire into the sensation and ask if the sensation itself knows anything about ‘fear’ and ‘resistance’. Can you find anyone/anything IN the sensation itself, or BEHIND the sensation that is fearful? Now look at the thought that comes with it. Can you find anyone/anything in the WORD ‘fear’ that is fearful?
Once you are at just raw sensation without the thoughts, allow the sensation all the space it needs without pushing it aside or judging it. Sensations come and then go. But, while you are “there” look at what the thought is trying to protect. Is there anything that needs protecting? Thoughts are self organising (as you already reported). They stick to each other like matching puzzle pieces (stories about stories). Anything new that comes along and does not match the pattern will be attempted to get rid of as it costs the system “energy” to rebuild it from scratch :)

It's not just a special mode of seeing. That's what's alarming to me. Earlier I was treating "seeing in DE" kind of like a game - I wasn't genuinely skeptical about the thought content. Now I'm starting to be genuinely skeptical. Why believe the thought content is literally true when there's no evidence to support it? But there's *so much* wrapped up in thought content - self, time, causality, things - there's fear that if I continue this inquiry, I'm going to see with no doubt all of it is illusory. Belief in all of it will stop which will be a huge shift in perspective to something unknown, and my current perspective might never come back. So that's what the fear comes from.

DE is not even a special mode of seeing, as seeing is seeing – you can’t change it. Can you change how you see your screen? Can you see it from above while you’re sitting in front of it? :) What "DE" does is accentuating the experience of the senses isolated from the old thought content, so the thought content can be adjusted to describe the experience better. That’s all that is “different”. The shift is very subtle. Now tell me, what is a perspective? I’m sure you’ll agree that it is just the way we describe reality – thought content, right? So, the only thing that will change is the content of your thoughts running along of what has always happened and will continue to happen the same way, describing it a bit better - like the difference between remembering eating the orange and describing the real experience of eating it. So, what will change? Can thoughts affect anything or they just try to describe what actually is happening? Did your description of eating the orange affect the AE in any way? Or just came along with it? Yes, self, time, causality and things are illusory but there IS something there – there is seeing, hearing, etc (experiencing), which appear as them. And because they are an illusion, they or their absense can not affect the reality - like the Kanizsa Triangle

Thoughts just point to experiencing, give it meaning that can be passed. So, you will continue to use the same language, using pronouns, nouns, etc. but their use will be limited to just that once their illusory nature is seen.
Stay with the fear a bit and observe very carefully. If it doesn’t appear on its own try to read your paragraph about it. Please, let me know how it goes. It’s important to deal with the ‘fear’ before we move on. And we will go through the whole inquiry as we can't just aquire new assumptions.
Love
Rali

Hi Rali
Thanks so much for your help with this.

Inquire into the sensation and ask if the sensation itself knows anything about ‘fear’ and ‘resistance’. Can you find anyone/anything IN the sensation itself, or BEHIND the sensation that is fearful?

The sensation doesn't know anything about fear or resistance. I tried looking "behind the sensation" but don't see anything. There's just sensations and thoughts about the sensations.

Now look at the thought that comes with it. Can you find anyone/anything in the WORD ‘fear’ that is fearful?

No, the word 'fear' can't be fearful. It's just a word.

But, while you are “there” look at what the thought is trying to protect. Is there anything that needs protecting?

I did this and sat with it for a long time..nothing arose that needs to be protected

Can you change how you see your screen? Can you see it from above while you’re sitting in front of it? :)

No

Now tell me, what is a perspective? I’m sure you’ll agree that it is just the way we describe reality – thought content, right?

Yes

So, what will change? Can thoughts affect anything or they just try to describe what actually is happening?

When I look right now I don't see any evidence that thoughts affect other aspects of experience. For some reason there's still lingering doubt that that's *always* true, probably because of memories. For example years ago when I had severe depression, the colors in my experience literally seemed more drab/dull. And when I overcame the depression, everything started to look more vivid/bright. I remember noticing that at the time. But of course, this memory is just thought content...

Did your description of eating the orange affect the AE in any way? Or just came along with it?

Here again I don't feel 100% sure. For example when I think the word "sweet" can that somehow amplify attention placed on the "sweet" aspect of experience such that the taste itself actually changes? Or if someone says "notice the sensations in your feet," I'll have that thought, and next the sensations in my feet are felt more vividly.

Hi Paul
It’s my pleasure working with you :)

I did this and sat with it for a long time..nothing arose that needs to be protected

So, is the fear still there?

For example years ago when I had severe depression, the colors in my experience literally seemed more drab/dull. And when I overcame the depression, everything started to look more vivid/bright. I remember noticing that at the time. But of course, this memory is just thought content...

Is it possible that it was the other way around – dull colours and sensations were labelled ‘depression’? And then when this changed it was labelled ‘not depression’/’normal’?

Here again I don't feel 100% sure. For example, when I think the word "sweet" can that somehow amplify attention placed on the "sweet" aspect of experience such that the taste itself actually changes?

I would suggest to do the exercise again and watch like a hawk. Is it the taste that appears first or the label? Remember how we compared the three scenarios? We had just a memory first. So, if the labels affect the experience, then wouldn’t it be possible to experience the sweetness without the presence of the experience or make an orange appear? Then later we had the real experience. So, the experience is already here before the thought – the sight of an orange – which brings the label ’orange’ and accompanying label ’sweet’ (from memory). Is the taste dependent in any way on the label ‘sweet’ when it is experienced (when the orange is actually tasted)? Tell me is the taste just ‘sweet‘ or does it have ‘hues’ of sour and bitter and thought labels just the strongest one, because thought content can be observed only one at a time? What will happen if the orange is not ‘sweet’ but it’s ‘sour’? Would the taste still be experienced as ‘sweet’ or it will be relabelled as ‘sour’? From what you’re saying it follows that because the label ’sweet’ is already there taste will be experienced as ‘sweet’ even though it could be ‘sour’. We have lemons here that look like oranges. If you see one then the thought ‘orange’ and ‘sweet’ will appear – would you still find the lemon sweet or would you make a sour face and label it as sour? :) Don’t assume things from memory, put it through DE. We are here to re-examine all previous assumptions.

Or if someone says "notice the sensations in your feet," I'll have that thought, and next the sensations in my feet are felt more vividly.

Does the sensation appear as reaction to the thought or to the sound (labelled “notice the sensation in your feet”)? Observe very carefully. Does the sensation start after, together, or before the thought?
You might find this video interesting:
https://vimeo.com/90101368?fbclid=IwAR3
Love
Rali

Hi Rali
Thank you for your reply, I've been doing inquiry using the questions you gave me but I won't have time to finish and reply until tomorrow.

Best
Paul

Hi Paul
Thank you for letting me know!
Take your time
Love
Rali

Hi Rali

So, is the fear still there?

No. I can feel the sensations that previously seemed tied to fear without the fear. The same sensations that I was rejecting before can actually be totally accepted and welcomed. This is a new experience to me. I've heard advice in the past to "accept and welcome" unpleasant sensations, but I always felt like I was faking it before.

Is it possible that it was the other way around – dull colours and sensations were labelled ‘depression’? And then when this changed it was labelled ‘not depression’/’normal’?

Yes, probably it happened like that.

Is it the taste that appears first or the label?

The label appears first (to write the description from memory)

So, if the labels affect the experience, then wouldn’t it be possible to experience the sweetness without the presence of the experience or make an orange appear?

I was thinking the labels could amplify an aspect of the experience that was already there, by increasing focus or something. But after repeating the exercise there's no evidence that happens. It would be like making my vision more red by thinking "red"...it doesn't work like that.

Is the taste dependent in any way on the label ‘sweet’ when it is experienced (when the orange is actually tasted)?

No

Tell me is the taste just ‘sweet‘ or does it have ‘hues’ of sour and bitter and thought labels just the strongest one, because thought content can be observed only one at a time?

The latter.

What will happen if the orange is not ‘sweet’ but it’s ‘sour’? Would the taste still be experienced as ‘sweet’ or it will be relabelled as ‘sour’?

It would be relabeled as sour

would you still find the lemon sweet or would you make a sour face and label it as sour? :)

I would label it as sour

Does the sensation appear as reaction to the thought or to the sound (labelled “notice the sensation in your feet”)? Observe very carefully. Does the sensation start after, together, or before the thought?

Can sounds be interpreted as words or sentences without thought? I don't see any gap between hearing someone saying a sentence and interpreting the meaning of the sentence. I'm automatically interpreting the meaning of the sentence as it is being said. But maybe that doesn't count as a thought. In this example, there isn't necessarily a follow-up thought. I hear+interpret the sentence simultaneously, and right around when the sentence ends I notice the sensation in my feet.

You might find this video interesting:
https://vimeo.com/90101368?fbclid=IwAR3

Yes I've read about this research before, it is interesting.

Hi Paul

Does the sensation appear as reaction to the thought or to the sound (labelled “notice the sensation in your feet”)? Observe very carefully. Does the sensation start after, together, or before the thought?

Can sounds be interpreted as words or sentences without thought? I don't see any gap between hearing someone saying a sentence and interpreting the meaning of the sentence. I'm automatically interpreting the meaning of the sentence as it is being said. But maybe that doesn't count as a thought. In this example, there isn't necessarily a follow-up thought. I hear+interpret the sentence simultaneously, and right around when the sentence ends I notice the sensation in my feet.

If they were interpreted directly then we wouldn’t have to learn new languages, or as babies, learn to speak and communicate. Does meaning exist outside of thought? If you hear somebody speaking in Chinese would the sounds mean anything to you (presuming you don’t speak Chinese)?

While we are testing these assumptions, let’s test even bigger ones which could make our discussion pointless. What is time without memory (thought content)? Can you directly experience ‘past’ or ‘future’ (with your senses)? Can you directly experience '1 min ago' or ‘1s ago’? Do cause and effect exist without thought? How are ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ experienced directly? Test!
Love
Rali

Hi Rali

Does meaning exist outside of thought? If you hear somebody speaking in Chinese would the sounds mean anything to you (presuming you don’t speak Chinese)?

No, meaning doesn't exist outside of thought and I can't understand the sounds of a foreign language I haven't learned. This is the view I already had before you asked this question:

Or if someone says "notice the sensations in your feet," I'll have that thought, and next the sensations in my feet are felt more vividly.

Does the sensation appear as reaction to the thought or to the sound (labelled “notice the sensation in your feet”)? Observe very carefully. Does the sensation start after, together, or before the thought?

In my last post I wanted to clarify that the interpretation of sounds counts as "thought." Since it does, I don't see a problem with the ordering of sound/thought/sensation in the example I gave (if "time" is assumed).

What is time without memory (thought content)?

Other than thought content, there is no experience of time.

Can you directly experience ‘past’ or ‘future’ (with your senses)? Can you directly experience '1 min ago' or ‘1s ago’? Do cause and effect exist without thought?

No

How are ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ experienced directly? Test!

Cause and effect isn't experienced directly. The idea comes from thought content.