The Gate

Hi Allyne

I may not be as prompt to reply over the next two days, although I will try. We leave in the morning to travel several hours away to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. This is our third trip to find out about my wife’s serious health condition. We are not expecting good news.

Thank you for letting me know and I’m really sorry to hear this! Please take all the time that you need! I hope you hear some good news!

No. They are like monkeys leaping from limb to limb on a tree.

:)

Gone. Absent. Non-existent. A thought that arose and passed away.

Very good! So if “you” exist only in thoughts where is the problem? Thoughts say funny stuff. As we saw with the "apple" example, they are like the icons on your desktop. The icons 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 "email" really a box with mail in it?
Just look now...a thought can be found, but can an “I” (a person) be found in thought itself?
So if you apply the “apple” example to “I”:
Does the label "I" contain an actual I...does it contain an actual person?
Does the label "I" itself, suggest in any way that it is an I?
Does the label "I" know anything about an I?
What does the label "I" point to? In other words, what does the word/label "I" actually refer to?


Let’s move on to the “body”…
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?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, walking, lying down, etc) before replying.

Love
Rali

So if “you” exist only in thoughts where is the problem?

Thoughts say funny stuff. As we saw with the "apple" example, they are like the icons on your desktop. The icons 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 "email" really a box with mail in it?

Love this example. No, it’s not in a box.

Just look now...a thought can be found, but can an “I” (a person) be found in thought itself? So if you apply the “apple” example to “I”: Does the label "I" contain an actual I...does it contain an actual person? Does the label "I" itself, suggest in any way that it is an I? Does the label "I" know anything about an I?

No! (to all those)

What does the label "I" point to? In other words, what does the word/label "I" actually refer to?

It just points to the thought of “I.”

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”?

B. Coldness.

With eyes closed, where does the cold appear? Observe the order in which the details appear.

The sense of coldness. Then the sense of cold “in the fingers.” Then the thought that of holding a cold bottle of Diet Coke.

Can it be known how tall the body is?

No.

Does the body have a weight or volume? In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

No.

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?

There is just the sensation (touching).

Is it "my" body, or is it just a body?

I suppose “a” body but I don’t experience a body — just sensory experience/awareness.

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?

No inside or outside. I have direct experience of hearing, touching, smelling, etc. The mind draws inferences about objects of perception. But the body is a convenient shorthand for communication like “I.”

Can the 'body' do things? Look very carefully, especially with the last question. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, walking, lying down, etc) before replying.

“Allyne” did all those things today! It is tortuous to speak of all this in the context of direct experience. My answer is no, the body cannot do things, as I can’t say there is a body per direct experience. But of course in conversation I would say things such as “I washed my body,” even though from the perspective of direct experience it makes no sense.

Hi Allyne

It just points to the thought of “I.”

Awesome observation!

The sense of coldness. Then the sense of cold “in the fingers.” Then the thought that of holding a cold bottle of Diet Coke.

Good! But now notice, are there two sensations – one labelled “cold” and one labelled “in the fingers” – or just one labelled “coldness in the fingers”? Where exactly are “fingers” located (with eyes closed)? Is “fingers” a location or a label for sensations?

No inside or outside. I have direct experience of hearing, touching, smelling, etc. The mind draws inferences about objects of perception. But the body is a convenient shorthand for communication like “I.”

My answer is no, the body cannot do things, as I can’t say there is a body per direct experience. But of course in conversation I would say things such as “I washed my body,” even though from the perspective of direct experience it makes no sense.

Very good! The actual experience of the body is thought. Thought points to sensation and colours, and labels it a ‘body’, but a body cannot be found as actual experience, only thoughts about a body. As long as the emptiness of “body” is seen, its use in language is helpful to describe sensations/feeling.

BUT…What is that which has a direct experience of hearing, feeling, smelling…? Is there an experiencer, a witness of some kind? You say:

just sensory experience/awareness

And here is the idea that there is an awareness, which is a some thing that is having experiences! Where can this awareness be found exactly? Describe this awareness in detail and tell me where it is located? LOOK and see if you can find anyone or anything that can be defined as awareness? Awaring/knowing is happening...but can you find anything that is actually awaring/knowing?

Are the knowing of hearing and hearing two separate things with clear distinct borders? Can there be knowing of hearing on its own without the hearing? Or is there an inseparable knowing_hearing?

There is just the sensation (touching).

Yes! Now look , what is “touching” in DE?

We’ll explore the “body” in a bit more depth but let’s stop here for now so you can give these questions a proper LOOK.

Love
Rali

Good! But now notice, are there two sensations – one labelled “cold” and one labelled “in the fingers” – or just one labelled “coldness in the fingers”? Where exactly are “fingers” located (with eyes closed)? Is “fingers” a location or a label for sensations?

Just coldness. Then a thought.

BUT…What is that which has a direct experience of hearing, feeling, smelling…? Is there an experiencer, a witness of some kind? You say: just sensory experience/awareness And here is the idea that there is an awareness, which is a some thing that is having experiences! Where can this awareness be found exactly? Describe this awareness in detail and tell me where it is located? LOOK and see if you can find anyone or anything that can be defined as awareness? Awaring/knowing is happening...but can you find anything that is actually awaring/knowing?

I cannot find an experiencer, a knower, a feeler, etc. There is just awareness without finding an awareness-er.

Are the knowing of hearing and hearing two separate things with clear distinct borders? Can there be knowing of hearing on its own without the hearing? Or is there an inseparable knowing_hearing?
There is just the sensation (touching).
Yes! Now look , what is “touching” in DE?

There is just feeling.

Hi Allyne

Can I please ask you ( I already did) not to answer in bulk? Each question is a pointer and has its purpose. You summarising your answer makes it more like a logical conclusion than looking.
Please answer the questions again in full by doing individual looking for each one:

Where exactly are “fingers” located (with eyes closed)? Is “fingers” a location or a label for sensations?

And here is the idea that there is an awareness, which is a some thing that is having experiences! Where can this awareness be found exactly? Describe this awareness in detail and tell me where it is located? LOOK and see if you can find anyone or anything that can be defined as awareness? Awaring/knowing is happening...but can you find anything that is actually awaring/knowing?

Are the knowing of hearing and hearing two separate things with clear distinct borders? Can there be knowing of hearing on its own without the hearing? Or is there an inseparable knowing_hearing?

Love
Rali

Sorry about that!

Where exactly are “fingers” located (with eyes closed)?

Nowhere. Noon-existent.

Is “fingers” a location or a label for sensations?

Not a location. A label for sensations.

And here is the idea that there is an awareness, which is a some thing that is having experiences! Where can this awareness be found exactly?

Not locatable.

Describe this awareness in detail and tell me where it is located?

Can’t locate it. There is just sound, color/image, taste, etc, and thought.

LOOK and see if you can find anyone or anything that can be defined as awareness?

I cannot.

Awaring/knowing is happening...but can you find anything that is actually awaring/knowing?

No, I cannot.

Are the knowing of hearing and hearing two separate things with clear distinct borders?

Two separate things with clear/distinct borders. Hearing is the sound. Knowing of hearing is a thought about hearing.

Can there be knowing of hearing on its own without the hearing?

Not in DE. “Knowing of hearing” is a thought about hearing.

Or is there an inseparable knowing_hearing?

No.

Hi Allyne
Thank you very much for the answers!

Are the knowing of hearing and hearing two separate things with clear distinct borders?

Two separate things with clear/distinct borders. Hearing is the sound. Knowing of hearing is a thought about hearing.

Please describe these distinct borders between thoughts and sounds. Can you touch these borders, see them, smell them…?
Close your eyes and allow a thought or a series of thoughts to appear. With eyes still closed, listen to whatever sound is present for several moments. Now, go back and forth between thoughts and the sound.

Does the sound appear in a different place to thoughts?
Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides the thoughts and the sound? Or is the line a mental construct?
Do you have to overcome any obstruction in order for sound to appear in exactly the same “place”?

Now open your eyes and notice colours.
Do the colours appear in a different place to thoughts and sounds?
Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides thoughts, sounds and colours, or is that division a mental construct?

You can also do the above experiment with sensation and sound instead of thought and sound and see what you find. And taste and sound, smell and sound, thought and colour. There is a variety ways of doing this exercise to see whether or not there is an internal and external divide.

So...Can the senses be isolated without thought content or the division is a mental construct? Are there separate senses or
one indivisible seeing_tasting_hearing_sensing_smelling_thinking (THIS)?

Thought tells us that our senses are separate streams of information. We see with our eyes, hear with our ears, feel with our skin, smell with our nose, taste with our tongue. In DE, though, it is seen as a one experience. Although speech is perceived through the ears, what we see can change what we hear. In this video, a man produces the same syllable over and over again. If you watch his mouth, you’ll hear the syllable “fah,” but if you look away, you’ll hear “bah.” Although your ears hear “bah,” your eyes see “fah”. This phenomenon is known as the McGurk effect. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k8fHR9jKVM )

Another example of sensory interaction is how both taste and smell are vital for savouring food (flavour). If smell is lost or impaired, for instance, the taste of food will also be impaired, even if taste receptors on the tongue are working fine.
Here is a fun video that demonstrates how a relationship between sight and touch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DphlhmtGRqI

Even though it might look as there are clearly defined senses, DE shows a different story. So even the senses are dependently originated which makes them also empty of inherent existence. Clear?

Love
Rali

Please describe these distinct borders between thoughts and sounds.

More like a category difference. Sounds are categorically different from thoughts about sounds.

Can you touch these borders, see them, smell them…?

No. They are mental.

Close your eyes and allow a thought or a series of thoughts to appear. With eyes still closed, listen to whatever sound is present for several moments. Now, go back and forth between thoughts and the sound.

Thoughts about this process and how long it might take.
Sounds.
Thoughts about sound — birds
Thoughts about sounds — two different words
Thoughts about sounds — birds to the left of me in the yard

Does the sound appear in a different place to thoughts?

No.

Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides the thoughts and the sound? Or is the line a mental construct?

No actual line. Jusat a mental construct.

Do you have to overcome any obstruction in order for sound to appear in exactly the same “place”?

No, the same “place.”

Now open your eyes and notice colours. Do the colours appear in a different place to thoughts and sounds?

Same place as thoughts and sounds.

Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides thoughts, sounds and colours, or is that division a mental construct?

No, just another mental construct.

So...Can the senses be isolated without thought content or the division is a mental construct?

Maybe for a millisecond. But the mind is quick to (attempt) to identify and assess objects of awareness.

Are there separate senses or one indivisible seeing_tasting_hearing_sensing_smelling_thinking (THIS)?

There is just experiencing the senses and thoughts.

McGuckin effect — that was new to me.

Here is a fun video that demonstrates how a relationship between sight and touch:

Funny and weird.

Even though it might look as there are clearly defined senses, DE shows a different story. So even the senses are dependently originated which makes them also empty of inherent existence. Clear?

Yes.

Hi Allyne
Good looking!

Maybe for a millisecond. But the mind is quick to (attempt) to identify and assess objects of awareness.

By “mind” you mean thoughts, right? Or is there anything else that the word “mind” points to? In other words, is there an entity “mind”?

When you say “objects of awareness”, a corresponding “subject” is deemed necessary – awareness and its objects. Does experience happen like in language where you have to have a subject doing something (e.g. experiencing, detecting) on an object? Do you need anything to make something appear and be noticed, or it just appears, it just IS?
By inference, in language, if there is an object of any sort being detected, then there must be a subject that detects it! The “objects” seem to be present (there is something happening), you said that “Can’t locate it (awareness). There is just sound, color/image, taste, etc, and thought.” BUT, we established already that there are no objects (e.g. an apple), there are just the senses. ALSO, we saw that there are no distinct senses but inseparable experience, just THIS. So “objects” are not experienced as they are – they are created by language. And since “awareness” cannot be described, what makes it different from an assumption/a thought as well? So what does the term mean, or refer to? LOOK!
Is seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen (seeing as verb as it is a flux no solid things)? Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience (IS-ness)? Is there AM-ness and IS-ness, or just THIS?
The following images may be helpful in illustrating this:


"Thusness" or "suchness" is a Buddhist term, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction. What do you SEE?
Love
Rali

By “mind” you mean thoughts, right? Or is there anything else that the word “mind” points to? In other words, is there an entity “mind”?

Yes, just thoughts. No mind.

When you say “objects of awareness”, a corresponding “subject” is deemed necessary – awareness and its objects. Does experience happen like in language where you have to have a subject doing something (e.g. experiencing, detecting) on an object?

I was using “objects of awareness” as conventional meditation language. In DE, there are no objects — just awareness.

Do you need anything to make something appear and be noticed, or it just appears, it just IS?

No, it just arises and passes away.

So “objects” are not experienced as they are – they are created by language. And since “awareness” cannot be described, what makes it different from an assumption/a thought as well?

A thought is something experienced. Awareness is the very nature of experience.

So what does the term (awareness) mean, or refer to? LOOK!

Awareness refers to the very nature of experience. When I look, I only find awareness.

Is seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen (seeing as verb as it is a flux no solid things)?

There is just what is seen.

Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience (IS-ness)?

Just experience.

Is there AM-ness and IS-ness, or just THIS?

Just THIS.

"Thusness" or "suchness" is a Buddhist term, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction. What do you SEE?

Only awareness.

By “mind” you mean thoughts, right? Or is there anything else that the word “mind” points to? In other words, is there an entity “mind”?

Yes, just thoughts. No mind.

When you say “objects of awareness”, a corresponding “subject” is deemed necessary – awareness and its objects. Does experience happen like in language where you have to have a subject doing something (e.g. experiencing, detecting) on an object?

I was using “objects of awareness” as conventional meditation language. In DE, there are no objects — just awareness.

Do you need anything to make something appear and be noticed, or it just appears, it just IS?

No, it just arises and passes away.

So “objects” are not experienced as they are – they are created by language. And since “awareness” cannot be described, what makes it different from an assumption/a thought as well?

A thought is something experienced. Awareness is the very nature of experience.

So what does the term (awareness) mean, or refer to? LOOK!

Awareness refers to the very nature of experience. When I look, I only find awareness.

Is seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen (seeing as verb as it is a flux no solid things)?

There is just what is seen.

Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience (IS-ness)?

Just experience.

Is there AM-ness and IS-ness, or just THIS?

Just THIS.

"Thusness" or "suchness" is a Buddhist term, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction. What do you SEE?

Only awareness.

By “mind” you mean thoughts, right? Or is there anything else that the word “mind” points to? In other words, is there an entity “mind”?

Yes, just thoughts. No mind.

When you say “objects of awareness”, a corresponding “subject” is deemed necessary – awareness and its objects. Does experience happen like in language where you have to have a subject doing something (e.g. experiencing, detecting) on an object?

I was using “objects of awareness” as conventional meditation language. In DE, there are no objects — just awareness.

Do you need anything to make something appear and be noticed, or it just appears, it just IS?

No, it just arises and passes away.

So “objects” are not experienced as they are – they are created by language. And since “awareness” cannot be described, what makes it different from an assumption/a thought as well?

A thought is something experienced. Awareness is the very nature of experience.

So what does the term (awareness) mean, or refer to? LOOK!

Awareness refers to the very nature of experience. When I look, I only find awareness.

Is seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen (seeing as verb as it is a flux no solid things)?

There is just what is seen.

Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience (IS-ness)?

Just experience.

Is there AM-ness and IS-ness, or just THIS?

Just THIS.

"Thusness" or "suchness" is a Buddhist term, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction. What do you SEE?

Only awareness.

By “mind” you mean thoughts, right? Or is there anything else that the word “mind” points to? In other words, is there an entity “mind”?

Yes, just thoughts. No mind.

When you say “objects of awareness”, a corresponding “subject” is deemed necessary – awareness and its objects. Does experience happen like in language where you have to have a subject doing something (e.g. experiencing, detecting) on an object?

I was using “objects of awareness” as conventional meditation language. In DE, there are no objects — just awareness.

Do you need anything to make something appear and be noticed, or it just appears, it just IS?

No, it just arises and passes away.

So “objects” are not experienced as they are – they are created by language. And since “awareness” cannot be described, what makes it different from an assumption/a thought as well?

A thought is something experienced. Awareness is the very nature of experience.

So what does the term (awareness) mean, or refer to? LOOK!

Awareness refers to the very nature of experience. When I look, I only find awareness.

Is seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen (seeing as verb as it is a flux no solid things)?

There is just what is seen.

Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience (IS-ness)?

Just experience.

Is there AM-ness and IS-ness, or just THIS?

Just THIS.

"Thusness" or "suchness" is a Buddhist term, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction. What do you SEE?

Only awareness.

Hi Allyne

Awareness is the very nature of experience.

In DE, there are no objects — just awareness.

Awareness refers to the very nature of experience. When I look, I only find awareness

That sounds like a teaching and we agreed to leave these behind. We are here to check ALL assumptions. So how is this observed in DE? Is “awareness” a container of experience? Some kind of a lone witness or observer?
How is it that you can find ONLY awareness if you say it is indescribable? Can you touch it see it, smell it, …? What makes it different from just another concept? Are you trying to replace the self with awareness aka big SELF? Calling yourself “I”, “Awareness”, “not I”, “Universe”, “Light”, “Brahman”, “Ultimate Bliss”, “Energy”, “Emptiness” or Allyne....changes nothing. There is still a someone/something that is seeking and that life is happening to. Sorry to be so blunt, but what you’re saying sounds like just concepts.
Once again, where have all these concepts got you to date? Would you be here if they have worked??
Here is a fun video that you might enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lm3G0_ ... ex=17&t=8s
Please let me know what you think of it?!

It’s easy to shift all that “I” is believed to be onto “Awareness” – looking done :)! That’s bypassing the inquiry. If you want to find out what is really here, all these concepts/teaching/thought content should be ignored and you should simply look for yourself – what is here besides feeling, seeing, smelling, tasting, hearing, and thinking? You are allowing thoughts to dictate your answers even though, you are seeing, through your own experimentations that there is nothing else found.

If “awareness” is just a concept pointing to DE, what is the difference with using “spaghetti monster” or “unicorn”? Why are you so adamant to call what is happening “awareness”? I offered THIS which means nothing really but you insist it is AWARENESS. Does it have special properties that make it “awareness”? Please describe them

You said:

Can there be knowing of hearing on its own without the hearing?

Not in DE. “Knowing of hearing” is a thought about hearing.

But if we look at the definition of “awareness” (Oxford dictionary) it is:
“Knowledge or perception of a situation or fact.” So please explain what is thought and what is actually here?
I’m sorry to be pedantic, but I want to sieve all the believes from actual seeing and language, so please indulge me with answering these questions.

Love
Rali

That sounds like a teaching and we agreed to leave these behind. We are here to check ALL assumptions. So how is this observed in DE?

I don’t know what else to call it. After examining sound, color/image, etc., and seeing they have no substance, and seeing that there is no see-er, hearer, feeler, etc, all that remains is the condition for experiencing sense data and thoughts. Not a replacement for “I” and certainly not for the loaded terms you listed (“Universe”, “Light”, “Brahman”, “Ultimate Bliss”).

Is “awareness” a container of experience? Some kind of a lone witness or observer?

Not happy with any of those terms. I say what I meant by awareness below.

How is it that you can find ONLY awareness if you say it is indescribable?

Words crack, as TS Eliot wrote. Awareness, or maybe “aware-Ing” seemed the least misleading way of saying what is “there” other than the sense-experience and thought(s).

Can you touch it see it, smell it, …?

No.

What makes it different from just another concept?

I don’t think of it as a concept in the sense of “an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances.”

Are you trying to replace the self with awareness aka big SELF?

No.

Once again, where have all these concepts got you to date? Would you be here if they have worked??

You are reading a lot more into my use of “awareness” than was intended.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lm3G0_ ... ex=17&t=8s
Please let me know what you think of it?!

I copied and pasted the URL in my browser and saw the message “This video isn’t available anymore.” Maybe if there is a title I could search by.

It’s easy to shift all that “I” is believed to be onto “Awareness” – looking done :)! That’s bypassing the inquiry.

I don’t believe that is what I am doing. I think you are drawing mistaken inferences.

If you want to find out what is really here, all these concepts/teaching/thought content should be ignored and you should simply look for yourself – what is here besides feeling, seeing, smelling, tasting, hearing, and thinking?

Not thinking of teaching. To me, what seemed leftover was just being aware of sense-experience and thoughts as they arose and passed away. And only as they were arising, persisting, and passing away. I wasn’t positing a thing called awareness that is always there (or if it is, I am not aware of it!).

I think awareness given how I understand it is fine, but I’m just as fine with THIS or JUST THIS.

If “awareness” is just a concept pointing to DE, what is the difference with using “spaghetti monster” or “unicorn”? Why are you so adamant to call what is happening “awareness”? I offered THIS which means nothing really but you insist it is AWARENESS. Does it have special properties that make it “awareness”? Please describe them

No, I’m not adamant about calling it “awareness.” I’m fine with “THIS” or “JUST THIS” but that sounds just as susceptible to being called a “teaching” as “awareness.”

But if we look at the definition of “awareness” (Oxford dictionary) it is:
“Knowledge or perception of a situation or fact.” So please explain what is thought and what is actually here?

The definition in my dictionary is in the first instance “the quality or state of being aware,” and “aware” is “having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge.” And the definition of awareness is “knowledge and understanding that something IS HAPPENING or exists.” So what I meant by awareness is being aware that something is happening (a sense “experience” or a thought arises and passes away). But, as I said, I am happy with THIS or JUST THIS.