The Gate

.... Ok I am back from my break.

So I went downstairs to think this through. Something has shifted big time. Downstairs I thought, I said 'sensory input' too. But moments later it dawned upon me, "Sensory input gets processed by Mind.' So those too manifest as Thoughts. So basically it is all THOUGHTS.

But I knew this already. I have understood this in many different ways. I have explained this to friends and family for the past so many years. And did a good job at showing them how it is ALL an illusion. Yet, right now, in this moment, I can SEE this. It holds a deeper meaning now. I think I understood it but did not accept it completely before trying to get hold of people to listen to my bs.

I feel, my understanding of the nature of Reality just deepened by a tiny notch. I must now let it settle in I guess.

Meanwhile, I will reply to the rest of your message ...

Break this down, there is not a direct experience of "feeling like a person". This has to be a sensation + a thought "feeling like a person". Zoom in as close as you can to where exactly that sensation is, and does that sensation know anything about 'being a person'?

Yes, there is no direct experience of a person. There are just sensations where the body touches stuff. But they don't suggest or hint at a person. Which is why I said 'Feeling like a person' happens. These touch points, and vision and ability to hear, smell, taste, ability to move from room to room leads to such an impression. Technically, this should not happen. But it does. I know the difference now. I know there is no reason to even 'feel like a person.' And when 'feeling like a person' comes into play, I see that happen too.

'Life' - what is the difference between this and 'Germany'? Can you locate 'germany' in its totality? If we drove to Germany, and crossed 1 foot over the boarder and I pointed to a tree and said "germany?" is it true?

I know what you mean here. Remember this?

"All the nerdy, heavy duty philosophy words are funny. In fact everything is funny. Religions, atheism, maps, gifts, anger, guns, wealth, rich, poor."

With Life I meant ALL THAT IS HAPPENING. The total of it.

So can you locate 'life'? If I point to a shoe, is that 'life'? How about a bird, is it 'life'?

oooh. I just said with Life I mean ALL THAT IS HAPPENING. The total of it. So how can I isolate a bird or a shoe from it. It is not distinct from ALL THAT IS HAPPENING. Bird and shoe are not happening separately from what I am calling Life. Ouch. That is another realisation there.

Again, I used to hear and regurgitate this word ONENESS. And ffs I KNOW what it means and why it means what it means. But now I get it.

Wesley you are awesome. You are shepherding me to a fantastic DIY surgery of Self. This one just broke a structure.

I cannot thank you enough. Sorry about all the melodrama, but I will report back tomorrow with a more sound explanation of where I am at in this now. Only one question,

What is going on? Why the distinctions? What is the purpose of Thought? Why does the Reality have these elements?
I will try to look for the answers via contemplation. But, it would be great to have your input.

Cuddles
Mona

Hi Wesley, continuing from my last two posts ...

So what happened since I posted last night ...

So I understood all this a bit more yesterday while replying to your message. At a deeper level. But, I keep floating between, "I understand it" and "What was it again?" There are moments when I know what I understood and then there are moments when I have to revisit my own message to you to revise what I understood then. To get that same Eureka moment.

In all, I think yesterday was an 'intellectual' understanding of the matter. Deeper than every before but intellectual. Or I would not keep losing the plot.

I now think that my following post too was just an intellectual breakthrough.

There is witnessing happening, check?

This one feels more appropriate. I cannot locate or find a witness, but witnessing is certainly happening. Wow. So there is no witness and yet witnessing is taking place. I see now. This made me see more clearly. I get it now. omg omg ha ha. Witnessing is happening just like typing is happening. Thank you for helping me see this. But this is amazing. Something happening without a doer. I had read about this. But now I actually know what it means.

But then, all 'breakthroughs' or 'understandings' can not be anything more than intellectual. All knowledge about IT can only be just that - Knowledge. And then when I think of it, Knowledge is not separate from IT.

I am super confused. Perhaps I am trying to think this through. But, that is not how it works I hear.

I need your help again.

Thanks
Mona

(A polite note, so you don't miss the above two replies, this is my third post in a row, so you may have to scroll up for the other two.)

Hi Mona,

Busy day will respond tomorrow.

-W

Sure Wesley, no rush. I am going out too. Thanks.

Hi Mona,

Thank you for the writing ^^

I'd like for us to take a step back and revisit the style of the dialogue - the guiding is designed this way for a reason, because it is very effective. The questions I ask you I would like for you to look for their answers in your immediate and direct experience, that means only what is seen/heard/smelled/tasted/touched. Without judgement, notice how an explanation is an assumption, it comes from thought. It does not come from your immediate first hand experience.

For example: If I say pick up a cup, direct experience looks like this: hand moves, hand grabs cup, sensations felt, thoughts of being thirsty, sound of drinking water.

Explanations/assumptions: brain makes a decision when to pick up cup, cup feels cold, the cup feels cold because of it's temperature and that temperature in relation to the bodies temperature.

Please remark the difference in these two examples before going ahead, does it make sense? There is what's happening as sure as we can be, and there are assumptions placed by thoughts on what's happening.

Now in the same fashion as the example above, please describe to me the direct experience of "all that is happening", or "life".

Big hug,
Wesley

Hi Wesley, thanks for your time.

Now in the same fashion as the example above, please describe to me the direct experience of "all that is happening", or "life".

All that is happening in this immediate moment is typing. Sensation of touch. Raw sensation cannot be named. The fingertips have a feeling that cannot be described. Any name I give to this sensation will not be appropriate. The fingers are fast, moving almost automatically at a certain speed. A rapid clicking sound is being heard. Occasional hand movement to the mouse. Thoughts are few and are being typed as soon as they come up. Thoughts are becoming typing simultaneously. There is peripheral vision of the rest of the room. The screen is also somewhat peripheral, only the bit where the cursor is and the typing is appearing is being the focus. Occasional short breaks are happening. Breathing and other movements are subconsciously happening. Some other ambient sounds are happening.

I am a bit unsure about the 'assumption' bit of your question. I don't understand how 'cold' is an assumption. It is a raw sensation to me. But, I may be wrong.

I hope I did not misunderstand your question.

Hugs
Mona

Hi Mona,

I am a bit unsure about the 'assumption' bit of your question. I don't understand how 'cold' is an assumption. It is a raw sensation to me. But, I may be wrong.

Ah okay, forget cold. Here's what I mean, with another example "witnessing of cup, brain makes decision to make hand and pick up cup, cup is cold, it must be cold because my body temperature is warmer, etc." That the 'brain' made a decision, and that the cup is cold because of your body temperature, these are are all assumptions laid onto the experience by thought.

A useful guideline here, for you to confirm for yourself: if something doesn't come from your direct sensory experience, it is a thought. Thoughts are real in the way they can be experienced, undeniably. The content of thoughts however is illusory, it lacks the same quality as things directly experienced through the senses.

You can think of water all day, you can imagine it vividly, what it would feel like in your mouth, the sensations of quenching your thirst, etc etc. However, it will never actually quench you, if you were in the desert a thought of water is just a thought, and not water.

So can all that is happening, as in everything, the entirety, the whole, be experienced directly other than as a thought? Or are there just these sounds, sensations, sights, etc. Isn't this life, as real as it gets? And where is the separation, the separate self?

Sending a hug,
Wesley

Hi again Wesley, there was an urge to reply to your mail soon after reading it. But, I wanted to give you the most honest answers after Looking. I read your mail several times. Initially, I felt like saying, "I know what you are asking me to do, but, as a meditator for 7 years, that is all I have done. Immense focus/attention on the most immediate without labels." Or "Hmm, maybe you want me to stop contemplating/yapping and bring the awareness to bodily sensations, but I have been doing exactly that every night for so many years!!"

But, later I realised that is not what you want. I keep categorising EVERYTHING as Thought and Illusory. But that is not the case. Word Water is a Thought, but its sensation on contact is not a Thought. There is an experience there that although cannot be labeled but it is very much happening. Contact with 'present' sights, sounds, smells etc does have a real effect. A very immediate effect. Their names are many, but the very real sensation is indescribable.

Past, future, personality, ambition, over there, behind, outside room, Germany etc manifest as Thought. Should not be included in my 'all that is happening/life.' But what manifests as raw sensation from CURRENT ATMOSPHERE is not a thought. It is there and it cannot be labeled. It is not in the water, it is in the contact with water. It is not in the car horn, it is in the hearing of the sound. It is not in the rose, it is in the smelling/seeing of the rose. No words can describe it anyway.

Maybe there is no NOT CURRENT ATMOSPHERE. ohh. Thought is real, Germany is not.

So you helped me narrow my 'all that is happening' to Thoughts and Raw Sensations. Thoughts 'about' what doesn't matter. Sensations 'about' what doesn't matter. Those would be labels/illusions. But Thoughts ARE there and Sensations ARE there. What they mean in not happening. Drawing meaning from that is happening too. Although, it is just happening as yet another Thought.

I used to think that since Mind interprets these raw sensations and makes sense of them, then these are eventually Mind borne. Hence, Thoughts. Like the word Apple, the sensation generated via its taste too must be a Thought. But, I now see what you mean. Hopefully, I have not misinterpreted your reply. Please correct me if I have totally digressed from what you said.

So can all that is happening, as in everything, the entirety, the whole, be experienced directly other than as a thought?

Yes, in direct experience there is just sensations. A set of sensations that can neither be described nor named. In direct experience there are thoughts. Again, what a Thought IS cannot be described to someone who has never experienced it. There is no direct experience of what is not present in Now and Here. Not Now and Not Here has to be dismissed and categorised as Thought content. Experience of Thought is Now and Here. But its content is useless.

Or are there just these sounds, sensations, sights, etc.

Yes. The words Sounds, sensations, sights too are just labels. They are there, but any name will just be a label a Thought. But their 'experience' is undoubtedly here, although as something that cannot be expressed via words. Finger on Keyboard is leaving a raw sensation that doesn't depend upon the words Finger or Keyboard or Touch. It will be there without those words. Just as it is. No language doesn't mean no raw sensation.

And where is the separation, the separate self?

There is no separate self or separation at all. This is all there is then, the raw sensation without labels. From here all concepts arise as Thought. "Aha, something happened after this unnamable, seeable, smellable, tasteable object was touched. I will now give it a name. I will call it Apple. I will call the sensation 'hard/solid/smooth/cold'. I will call what happened it appeared in my vision as 'seeing', I name the sensation I get after biting into it as 'taste/sweet/crunchy." And hence begins the book of concepts and labels and complications. But the initial and the most real/undeniable origin is the raw sensations. Rest is all Thoughts. Right?

Boiled down to that level, it is a sensation. But, it is a 'personal' sensation. Here comes a noob question - A droplet on the grass has no effect, but a droplet on the body has. Could you help me with this?

Thanks Wesley.
Big Hug
Mona

Hi Mona,

It's not necessary to make any assumptions for the self illusion to be seen through - that includes the assumption that there is no self. You just have to see that what you are thinking is a self, is not, it is a thought. Sometimes when beliefs are seen through, there is like a 'sinking hole' where the thoughts can't stand not defining and labeling and quickly try to make sense and form new beliefs and assumptions. So I suggest remaining with the approach of "how do I know this? Where's the proof, can I see/hear/smell/taste or touch this thing, and if not what is it than?" Someone told me once to "don't just take thoughts word for it, check their references" ;). Check the references, a thought says something exists. Okay where? What?

There is no separate self or separation at all. This is all there is then, the raw sensation without labels. From here all concepts arise as Thought. "Aha, something happened after this unnamable, seeable, smellable, tasteable object was touched. I will now give it a name. I will call it Apple. I will call the sensation 'hard/solid/smooth/cold'. I will call what happened it appeared in my vision as 'seeing', I name the sensation I get after biting into it as 'taste/sweet/crunchy." And hence begins the book of concepts and labels and complications. But the initial and the most real/undeniable origin is the raw sensations. Rest is all Thoughts. Right?

There are certainly sensations. But i'm not sure I follow if you say everything is sensations. Is looking at an object a sensation? It is generally okay to leave the labels "seeing/hearing/smelling/tasting/touching". You don't see sounds, nor do you feel sights. There's something distinct about these, and that's fine.

A droplet on the grass has no effect, but a droplet on the body has. Could you help me with this?

Hmm, well that's how it is I suppose! What conclusion are you looking to make out of this? That you are not grass because you didn't feel the water droplet?

Hug,
Wesley

Hi Wesley,

Thanks for your reply.

I suggest remaining with the approach of "how do I know this? Where's the proof, can I see/hear/smell/taste or touch this thing, and if not what is it than?"

I get this one loud and clear.

You don't see sounds, nor do you feel sights.

Yes it is not a raw sensation like touch. There is just an experience of sights of sounds. Calling it sight or sound or waterfall or car horn is not important. It will be there without those labels. But, yes it is not the same as the raw touch sensations.

Hmm, so with this we have narrowed it down even further.

What conclusion are you looking to make out of this? That you are not grass because you didn't feel the water droplet?

No not that. But, that there is some location, limited to the proximity of the flesh.
But never mind, it was a silly question and you aptly answered it. >>>

Hmm, well that's how it is I suppose!

Discussing this stuff we are already in the realm of Weird. Where our usual rules don't apply. Our Newtonian world collapses. Our beliefs are rendered baseless. So why hold this one! So yes, that is how it is.

When we realise that experience of raw sensation is happening without an experiencer which is the mother of all Weird, then why not accept that experience of droplets on grass need not be the same as experience of droplets on face.

Thanks again Wesley.
Lots of love
Mona

Hi Mona,

Discussing this stuff we are already in the realm of Weird. Where our usual rules don't apply. Our Newtonian world collapses. Our beliefs are rendered baseless. So why hold this one! So yes, that is how it is.

Yes, this is not about coming to facts about the reality of existence. Newtonian rules and so on are fine, science still has a place after the self-illusion is broken, the two aren't contradictory. But to break the illusion, theories and facts don't do anything, it requires looking at your own experience and how things are actually happening.

Yes droplets on the face or on the grass, all the same there's no separate self in any of it.

So Mona, do you feel you have any further sticking points? Is there any lingering doubt, that perhaps somehow somewhere there's a separate self?

Hug,
Wesley

Hi Wesley, thanks for the reply.

So Mona, do you feel you have any further sticking points? Is there any lingering doubt, that perhaps somehow somewhere there's a separate self?

OK Wesley, I think I am ready to say the words I never thought I'd be saying because I hated those exact words when the guru circus people used to say them. With their pasted smiles and their deep breaths rinsed with spiritual mouthwashes and those blissful pauses in those Youtube Satsangs with a bunch of sleepy eyed, psycho-travelling patrons high on nerdy words.

"When you see the Truth, all questions get answered."

But I will say them in my own imbecile words ...

"The ifs and buts are all a whole lot of chicken poo. The questioner has logged out of GMail. Over and out."

Trouble is, they were right.

BTW questions are still happening. Aaahahahaaa

Lots of Love to you Wesley.
Mona

Hi Mona,

Great, yes please do put it in your own words!

So then do you feel complete here? Or is there something else you'd like to look into regarding the self-illusion?

Hug,
Wesley

Hi Wesley, thanks for your post.

Great, yes please do put it in your own words!

What should I say? I am speechless. If I attempt to put it in words I will make a mess of it.

All my bs has died a natural death.

So then do you feel complete here?

No 'I' feels complete. But there is completeness. It is hard to show what I mean here. But, I hope you would see what that means.

Or is there something else you'd like to look into regarding the self-illusion?

Yes and No.

Let me paint a picture of what I see. Please remember that this is just putting something nameless I am trying to put in words. Words won't do justice but please bear with me ...

There is a very whole zero. It doesn't answer, it is the answer. The answer is it. It swallows all questions and becomes the only answer. All dilemmas, all cloudiness, all clever arguments have just one answer. It is not the sensation of touch. It is not knowledge, it is nothing like any of that. In fact, it is nothing. But it is THE answer to everything. Sorry if I don't make sense. I can't. I am trying very hard to explain in all my honesty. I wonder if I can say this without sounding crazy - 'Nothing' is the answer to all the questions. Nothing is the answer to Everything. It gives no answers, it is the answer. To infinite questions.

A coin that has Everything on the Heads side and Nothing on the Tails. My coin just lost both its sides. What happens to a coin that loses both its sides?

Thanks Wesley, please pardon my creepy answer. Like I said "If I attempt to put it in words, I will make a mess of it." I did not want to describe it in any way, but, I must for the protocol of this forum and for you to see if I need further help. I did need further help several times, but all the questions have their only answer. It is sucking up questions like a vacuum cleaner.

Hugs
Mona

Hi Mona,

Thanks for your answer. Happy to hear things seem to be shifting quite well and yes this can be very difficult to articulate into words. But it's okay to do so if need be ;).

Do you feel ready then for the final questions?

Hug,
Wesley