The Gate

Hi Bill

Is anything moving through time… or is this moment unmoving, alive, self-contained?

Without seeing any change?

Time may be just the label we attach to change. But changes presupposes temporal order. And change is experienced now, which means that now has a finite duration. So the only way you can eliminate time is if you also discard change. But change is directly experienced. I see no way forward without assuming the reality of time.

Good. Now watch it collapse...Drop the words. Drop the logic and presuppositions. Stay here and look.
Right now:
Where is “change” actually happening?
Can you find an edge—where one state stops and another begins?
Or is it just one seamless, flickering display—thought labelling it “change”?
Look closer:
Can you see time, or only the sensation+thought that says “this is change”?
Is there ever a “before” and “after,” or just this? How can you experience change now if it needs before for comparison and before is just a thought? Not a special temporal thought just an ordinary one, appearing right one. The illusion is right here in that thought...Do you see the absurdity of it?
Where is the change without the observer, registering states, remembering?
Without the claim of sequence—
Where is the order?
Where is the timeline?
You say change is directly experienced. Show me. Not the idea. Not the narrative.
The raw thing. Right here.

What changes without labels? Even sensations, thoughts, sounds, colours, smells, tastes are labels – DE labels but still labels, which cut off artificially from the whole. Can you find borders between them without the labels? OR is it one seamless, inseparable experience/just this?
You said change is directly experienced—beautiful. But let’s dig:
Without any labels—no ‘sensation,’ no ‘thought,’ no ‘sound’—
What exactly is changing? Change is relative to a thing - one thing changes in the context of another...
Can you isolate the actual shift, without already having labelled two different things?
Where does ‘one’ thing end and another begin, in direct experience—before thought names it?
Isn’t it always just this—vivid, present, unnameable?
And isn’t ‘change’ just a thought slicing this into imaginary parts?
Watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyUtbn ... 4&index=33
Presuming you are not a biologist,what changes without knowing what is what? Colour? Sound? What happens when you drop even these? Drop the description/commentary and enjoy the "show"
If change is possible only with a timeline and the proof for time is change, how are they independatly existing - it smells like a story...
Don't think about change, look!
Love
Rali

Where is “change” actually happening?

Everywhere.

Can you find an edge—where one state stops and another begins?

Very often, yes.

Or is it just one seamless, flickering display—thought labelling it “change”?

Yes, but the label is hardly necessary.

Can you see time, or only the sensation+thought that says “this is change”?

Again, no label needed.

Is there ever a “before” and “after,” or just this? How can you experience change now if it needs before for comparison and before is just a thought?

Because apparently it's a physical reality, not just a thought.

Where is the change without the observer, registering states, remembering?

I guess that's a physics question.

You say change is directly experienced. Show me. Not the idea. Not the narrative.
The raw thing. Right here.

I close my eyes. I open my eyes.

Hey Bill
I will wait for the rest of your work before I answer...
Love
Rali

I will wait for the rest of your work before I answer...

Oh. LOL. I'd assumed it was clear we were getting nowhere.

The video is quite awesome! Thanks. :)

Okay, here's the rest:

What changes without labels?

Labels aren't required. This changes.

Can you find borders between them without the labels? OR is it one seamless, inseparable experience/just this?

Yes, I agree with you there.

What exactly is changing?

Everything.

Can you isolate the actual shift, without already having labelled two different things?

"Shift"?

Where does ‘one’ thing end and another begin, in direct experience—before thought names it?

We have to rip things out of the whole with thought. We kinda make them up.

Isn’t it always just this—vivid, present, unnameable?

Yes.

And isn’t ‘change’ just a thought slicing this into imaginary parts?

No, absolutely not.

Presuming you are not a biologist,what changes without knowing what is what? Colour? Sound? What happens when you drop even these?

Constant change.

Where does ‘one’ thing end and another begin, in direct experience—before thought names it?

Yes, good point. In direct experience it's all a seamless whole. But there's more here that's not yet grasped, because multiplicity is undeniable too.

Hey Bill

it’s a physical reality—not just a thought.

You are very brave to claim anything about reality. But right now, can you see ‘physical’?
Can you touch the thing called ‘reality’—or is that another thought claiming authority? Can you touch anything? Or there is just touching (more like feeling)?

I close my eyes. I open my eyes.

Before the label ‘open’ or ‘closed’—what’s actually happening? (if only you were practicing the cup of coffee breakdowns).
So in your DE, is there an “I” “opening” and “closing” something called “eyes” that the I sees though? And that I sees change? ( I got tired of putting “” – it’s exhausting)
Where does the ‘opening’ start and the ‘closing’ end?
What is really moving—without those words?

Here is a ‘eye-opening” exercise that you can try (excuse the pun):
Close your eyes.
With eyes closed, you will now experience 'blackness'. There may be other things you can find going on, sure. If you are looking at a bright light, there may be a red glow. There may be sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics.
Just to make things simple, whatever you can see with eyes closed, I'm going to refer to it as 'black' or 'blackness' just for simplicity.
1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness' as I mentioned?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?
3) Can what is seeing/witnessing the blackness be found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me'/Bill, a person or anything else be found that is witnessing the blackness? Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the see-er/observer/experiencer, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

Let's move on to opening the eyes now.
Again, address this very simply - The 'seeing' sense only for the moment.
With eyes open, a world of objects appears . . . a room . . . a computer screen etc.
What you can specifically see isn't of interest here, and whatever it is, I am simply going to refer to it as 'what can be seen'.
This might be a little more tricky, but give it some consideration.
1) With eyes open, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'what can be seen' as I mentioned?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'what can be seen'?
3) Can what is witnessing 'what can be seen' be found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me'/Bill be found that is seeing/witnessing 'what can be seen'?
Or is there just simply 'what can be seen' to be found?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT SEE-ER/observer/experiencer be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the see-er/observer/experiencer, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

change is experienced.

By who? You say that you’ve seen there is no self, then WHAT is monitoring/experiencing change? What is insisting there is “change”? Reality itself? Is reality a conscious thing, that can observe stuff and argue? Where is the evidence for that (DE)? Can reality split itself into not-reality and reality (observer and observed) to observe itself? Can you see the absurdity of that story?
So…can you find an observer (in any form or shape) doing the experiencing of change? Or is there just this, and the story that someone is watching it? Don’t evade through physics concepts! LOOK! Check. It’s all there – plain and obvious. Only deeply cherished beliefs are obstructing the view (see my footnote quote from Alan Alda :))

You are still pretty caught in labels and stories. Are there really two – experience and change without the story)? Or just ‘experiencing’ – a verb trying to capture the dynamic nature of this (the lava lamp). “States” are just a description, a fairy tale, a “world” based on concepts/things, where there are none. Present moment is just one present moment, and has anything to do with a duration of a certain state. Any division is imaginary, just like all the borders between countries are imaginary, imposed over the territory.

Science is a tool – a “helpful” story (an icon on your desktop), but still a story/an illusion that is layered on top of an indescribable/unmeasurable reality.

Can you see time, or only the sensation+thought that says “this is change”?

Again, no label needed.

How is it known then without the label/story/memory that there is a change – remember this is not knowable/describable (the taste of chocolate) – we’ve been through that already? Knowing is an approximation of “reality”. Is there any knowing outside of thoughts? Even to register a state is a thought. Any claim about reality is a fairy tale/false/non-existent.

this changes.

But without knowing what “this” is, or what is changing—
What’s left of that sentence?
Just a vague impression… and a thought saying “this is change.” THIS is not a thing - it just points to right now, right here

You already said:

We have to rip things out of the whole with thought

So—look now:
If change only exists by carving imaginary edges into seamless experience… is it really change? Or just thought slicing what never split?
If everything is changing… compared to what? How is it known without a memory/thought saying "this specific thing (or just this) looks different than 30s ago"
Where is the still point you're measuring from?
What exactly is the difference between “constant change” and “just this”?
Love
Rali

My feel about this inquiry is that it is more like a philosophical debate with very little looking. Let me remind you that I'm not giving you arguments but pointers where to see for yourself. You have to decide for yourself - do you want to ne right or you want to see???

My feel about this inquiry is that it is more like a philosophical debate with very little looking.

Yeah.

Let me remind you that I'm not giving you arguments but pointers where to see for yourself.

Thank you so much, Rali!

You have to decide for yourself - do you want to ne right or you want to see???

No, I absolutely do NOT want to be right. I want to be shown where I'm wrong. But there's a sense that this line of inquiry isn't working.

You're an angel, Rali. You led me through to the realization that what I was calling "me" doesn't exist, and it's impossible now to imagine that it ever did.

But there's also now the sense that our whole social edifice is constructed of similar such fictional characters. Scary, actually. What happens when/if this too is realized?

Hi Bill

You're an angel, Rali. You led me through to the realization that what I was calling "me" doesn't exist, and it's impossible now to imagine that it ever did.

That's great! :)
What has changed in the past few days?
What’s life like with no “you” at the center?
Can anything happen to you anymore?
How do decisions, preferences, emotions play out without a self?
If “you” never existed…
What was living this life all along? When?

But there's also now the sense that our whole social edifice is constructed of similar such fictional characters. Scary, actually. What happens when/if this too is realized?

Yes. Not just “there’s no me,” but…
There’s no one. Anywhere. No guide and guidee.
No others. No society. No history. No “humanity.” [Contemplate the "Heart Sutra" again]
Just thoughts dancing in a web of language - the "world of Bill"
Fictional centers/characters. Stories talking to stories.
So when this is seen—not as concept but as lived absence—what happens?
You say there is fear. Of collapse. Of nihilism. Of no reference left. Of emptiness. (Emptiness doesn't mean nothing of course - just no-thing)
Perfect!
That fear… is it happening to someone?
Or is it just another sensation + thought, arising in the same centerless field?
What actually needs protecting when there’s no character to protect?
If none of it is real—what’s left?
And can that be threatened?

There is a Buddhist saying "Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters".

First Stage (Mountains are mountains, waters are waters):
This represents the ordinary, pre-enlightened state of mind where things are perceived as they seem, with labels and concepts.
Second Stage (Mountains are no longer mountains, waters are no longer waters):
This stage signifies a period of questioning and transcending conventional understanding, where the nature of reality is explored and seen and the limitations of perception are recognized.
Third Stage (Mountains are once again mountains, waters once again waters):
This represents the state where the world is seen with a newfound clarity and understanding, but not in a way that is detached from the "world", but rather with a deeper appreciation for the inherent nature of things (the icons on your desktop). A mirage is still there but it is seen for what it is and water is not expected – the illsion is not a delusion anymore.

Please answer the previous questions as well (do the looking). Let’s not leave a stone unturned. Beliefs are based on other beliefs in the illusion/delusion game!
Love
Rali

Hey Bill
Are we still doing this?
Love
Rali

Hey Bill
Are we still doing this?

Hi Rali,

If you still want to, then yes, of course. :)

Bill

Hi Bill
I wrote that, because you still haven'y replied and I was wondering if you have given up. You'll be surprised how many people don't finish the inquiry in general and disappear without saying a word. It's not easy to deal with beliefs and you have to be ready to challenge everything. That's why we put in the opening reply that we want a notice if you won't be able to reply in time - we want to know if people have given up or not. Furthermore, it takes time to make sure that they won't come back, which is not fair on the people that are waiting to be guided. So please let me know if you decide that this is not for you or if you have something happening at the moment - life happens...
Love
Rali

I wrote that, because you still haven'y replied and I was wondering if you have given up.

Of course. In this particular case, though, although it's true that I had been feeling a bit overwhelmed by it all, I was spending most of my time next door and away from this computer.

You'll be surprised how many people don't finish the inquiry in general and disappear without saying a word.

Well ... it is surprising to hear that, because it isn't very considerate to the teacher. Rest assured, if I decide I need to quit altogether, I'll let you know. If I don't, it's because I can't. (Mebbe I'll be dead, I'm almost 70)

It's not easy to deal with beliefs and you have to be ready to challenge everything.

Yes, tell me about it.

That's why we put in the opening reply that we want a notice if you won't be able to reply in time - we want to know if people have given up or not.

Of course.

Furthermore, it takes time to make sure that they won't come back, which is not fair on the people that are waiting to be guided.

Certainly. It's quite inconsiderate.

So please let me know if you decide that this is not for you or if you have something happening at the moment - life happens...

Of course. And I'll try to be more diligent about future delays. But as I said above, I wouldn't leave permanently without letting you know.

Thanks so much for everything, Rali. As I'd previously observed, you're like an angel. A superlatively beautiful person.

Bill

Yes. Not just “there’s no me,” but…
There’s no one. Anywhere.

Actually, that's exactly what I was worried about. But then I realized it isn't true. These other people all exist in direct experience. The only one who doesn't is the one I was calling "me". And that makes sense, because our mental models of others are mostly non-fiction. Because those models are of the entire animals, who certainly obviously exist. Just as "my" body exists. I can recognize that it's fat and has gray hair, for example. Those are directly observable. What doesn't exist is the fictional character that was constructed to represent it. He was never observable because he never did exist.

Thanks so much, Rali. I plan to go back and answer all the previous sections I'd skipped over.

Bill