The Gate

Hi Kaiser
Really good looking!

Only thoughts believe in thoughts...
Thoughts or thinking seem to have an impact on changing them but direct experience is still there.

Can thoughts do things? Can thoughts believe other thoughts? Some sequences come almost inseparable because they’ve been fired together for a long time - what we call beliefs. New thoughts that appear either stick to them (fit with the beliefs like puzzle pieces) or not – what we call confirmation bias. There are beliefs/thoughts but is there believing, or just thinking? How is the ‘believing’ different from thoughts just appearing and disappearing?
Can thoughts do anything else but describing/ conceptualising?

I can only see directly and notice a thought. I can believe a thought without noticing it and some how forget or dim direct experience. In direct experience I can notice thought and just notice it. I can see how the body responds and observe thought without necessarily believing it. There seems to be a willful component to this effect. It feels this way. But thoughts or more accurately instincts hint this is a sleight of hand, a trick because I haven’t watched the belief arise and it’s probably only thoughts believing more thoughts.

Noticing of thoughts arising happens and noticing of thought content happens. Next time you watch a movie, notice how you get sucked into the story; how emotions come up and judgements appear. Then all of a sudden, there is like a flip back to the room - as if focus zooms out. Observe how it happens. At which point is there a decision to snap out? Is there one that makes that decision or does it simply happen, effortlessly? Is it different from being sucked into mind movies/ getting lost in thought? If there is nobody to believe, is ”believing in the story” actually happening or is it a story about “believing in the story” (more thought content)?
Love
Rali

Can thoughts do things? Can thoughts believe other thoughts?

In direct experience thoughts are insubstantial, immaterial and can only comment on experiences. Thought has no mechanism to alter or effect what is directly experienced. Moreover, in direct experience thoughts have no entity nor will. Thoughts are as unbiased as everything else. This is highly unexpected and a rather unexpected challenging exercise.

There are beliefs/thoughts but is there believing, or just thinking?

In direct experience there is no belief, just what is presented, without bias. Thinking is as neutral as anything else directly experienced.

How is the ‘believing’ different from thoughts just appearing and disappearing?

In direct experience, beliefs aren’t there, are not inherently different from any other neutral thought. They are just different thoughts.

Can thoughts do anything else but describing/ conceptualizing?

Thoughts when directly experienced have little if any impact. This is highly unexpected as some thoughts seem to have a direct on bodily sensations in a flavor of emotions. In order to understand or make sense of this, two ways of being seem to be needed. This is odd and doesn’t make sense. In direct experience thoughts are not very substantial nor powerful, nor really charged.

At which point is there a decision to snap out? Is there one that makes that decision or does it simply happen, effortlessly?

The snap out of emotionally being involved with a movie just happens. There isn’t a noticeable moment of choice.

Is it different from being sucked into mind movies/ getting lost in thought? If there is nobody to believe, is ”believing in the story” actually happening or is it a story about “believing in the story” (more thought content)?

It is very similar to being sucked into a mind movie. There is an experience of nothing belief and nothing a belief has the same qualities as any other thought.
This line of questioning seems to have a misleading or undermined bias that points to personal private experience as not existing, and sure, that’s what we’re exploring. I experience a private personal experience all the time… except with direct experience. Man this is puzzling. A thought occurred that I’d need a personal entity to express and experience love or fear, followed by a thought that if there’s no self in reality, only illusion would be lost and emotions are already happening and are real. But in direct experience a sobriety does not reflect a self and I’d have to explore emotions to validate their existence. This is fascinating.

If there is nobody to believe, is ”believing in the story” actually happening or is it a story about “believing in the story” (more thought content)?

In direct experience, it is clearly a story about believing in a story. Now we’re getting down to brass tacks. Story. Story about believing in a story. That’s the bait that give’s flavor to being… meaning, story. Thoughts are neutral in direct experience. Stories and beliefs are thoughts also. Meaning, that’s involving complicated separate entities, injects competition and will. Hmm. Meaning, there’s a lot there. In direct experience is there meaning? Nope. Meaning is definitely added by thoughts. So meaning, believe, reasons, intellect are not discovered yet in direct experience. This may take a while to set in but meaning, story, belief, agency and volition/will, they’re not found in direct experience.

Hi Kaiser
Great! I loved what you wrote! Now, let’s explore further…

In direct experience thoughts are insubstantial, immaterial and can only comment on experiences. Thought has no mechanism to alter or effect what is directly experienced. Moreover, in direct experience thoughts have no entity nor will. Thoughts are as unbiased as everything else. This is highly unexpected and a rather unexpected challenging exercise.

Let’s look even deeper. Are there thoughts at all or just thinking (verb)? Reality is closer to verbs than to nouns, because it is in a constant flux. Language demands that there are subject and object for clarity of conversation - like “the grass is growing”, but is the grass growing itself? So if there is no thinker, are there thoughts or just thinking?

This line of questioning seems to have a misleading or undermined bias that points to personal private experience as not existing, and sure, that’s what we’re exploring. I experience a private personal experience all the time… except with direct experience. Man this is puzzling. A thought occurred that I’d need a personal entity to express and experience love or fear, followed by a thought that if there’s no self in reality, only illusion would be lost and emotions are already happening and are real. But in direct experience a sobriety does not reflect a self and I’d have to explore emotions to validate their existence. This is fascinating.

Now what are emotions in DE? Bring focus to how you feel right now. Describe it in a few words for yourself. Notice words that label feelings arise when attention goes to the feelings. Just play a little and observe how it all works. What are emotions actually? Are they appearing at a specific center? Are they personal? Are you the owner of feelings? Let’s say for example that you are angry (or any other strong emotion). Try to keep being angry for as long as you can, without even a second of forgetting that you're angry. How did you manage?
Love
Rali

Are there thoughts at all or just thinking (verb)?

In direct experience there definitely is thinking, seeing, smelling, tasting, touching/sensing, motion/action, hearing, happening.
There is nowhere to have indirect experience, it’s not actually there. There is no place for a me and it’s not personal.
It’s not that there is something wrong, the trouble arises when pretending is dominant. This isn’t true… pretending is just not there in direct experience, but there’s something accurate here, so I indulge. There’s nothing wrong with “Me”, there is an experiencing, a thinking of “Me” or a sense of “Me”, yet suffering occurs when what IS Happening (direct experience) is somehow forgotten through this pretending, this preference of fantasy. When direct experience is directly experienced or looked at, it’s just obvious. A “Me” experience is a playfulness without anything wrong with it. And it’s just not true but allowed and welcomed. Even in the fantasy of “Me-ing”, when fantasy is preferred over direct experience (and all seems lost) an honesty is sensed, an unsettling felt and invites an invitation into direct experience. There really isn’t anything wrong. Back to direct experience…

is the grass growing itself? So if there is no thinker, are there thoughts or just thinking?

There is no grass that grows there is just “that, there” (shape, color, -seeing, thinking of growing happening -thinking). There is only thinking.

Now what are emotions in DE? Bring focus to how you feel right now.

Ooh, this is tricky because it’s a blending of fantasy with direct experience and direct experience wipes out fantasy when looked at. It’s like trying to describe the hypnagogic between being awake and being asleep. I’ll try to lean towards direct experience so humor me. This won’t be accurate and truthful but I’ll give it a shot. In direct experience there is sensing and thinking. Right now there is tight in throat- sensing, tight in abdomen- sensing, tickle in legs-sensing, awareness of space- sensing, object- seeing, environmental sounds- hearing, tight in jaw and face- sensing, movement of breath and holding breath- sensing, thinking of understanding/explaining- just thought and a blending of all- NOT happening in direct experience… in direct experience just thought. A blending of all that experiences excitement- Not happening in direct experience.

Describe it in a few words for yourself. Notice words that label feelings arise when attention goes to the feelings.

I feel excited. I feel a part of and appreciated. I feel kind and loving.
Label feelings when attention goes to feelings:
Good, preferred, satisfied, smart, important, valuable

What are emotions actually? Are they appearing at a specific center?

In direct experience emotions are sensing and thinking. Wow this is clumsy. I can’t articulate it, emotions aren’t finite, nothing is finite in direct experience, emotions aren’t there or real the way they seem. In direct experience there isn’t emotion. There’s a sense of playfulness with thinking and sensing but no specific “playfulness”. There is no center as nothing is solid or finite.

Are they personal? Are you the owner of feelings?

Nothing is personal in direct experience, there is no personal in direct experience. There is a sense of intimate thinking and sensing. This sense is experienced and isn’t there when looked for directly. There is a sense of ownership and isn’t there when looked at.

Are you the owner of feelings?

I am definitely the owner of all feelings. And in direct experience there are not feelings, no Me, only sensing and thinking. If there are feelings there’s a me as an owner, but in direct experience there’s thinking and sensing and an undefinable sense of playfulness that disappears back to thinking and sensing happening.

Try to keep being angry for as long as you can, without even a second of forgetting that you're angry. How did you manage?

I’m having trouble getting angry. But there is a change in sensing. Body senses of diffuse energy sensations- sensing. Thinking has a change in flavor- thinking. There seems to be a participation with emotional charge but absolutely no control. There seems to be an inviting of emotional charge for this exercise, kind of like “will” or volition but no control. The sensing and thinking definitely changed but was not constant. How did I manage? 🤣 I did great! It’s just that I’m a powerless fantasy but as such, I did pretty fucking awesome!

Hi Kaiser

It’s not that there is something wrong, the trouble arises when pretending is dominant. This isn’t true… pretending is just not there in direct experience, but there’s something accurate here, so I indulge. There’s nothing wrong with “Me”, there is an experiencing, a thinking of “Me” or a sense of “Me”, yet suffering occurs when what IS Happening (direct experience) is somehow forgotten through this pretending, this preference of fantasy. When direct experience is directly experienced or looked at, it’s just obvious.

What is pretending? What forgets DE through pretending? All of this suggests a doer, an entity that remembers/forgets things, does things like pretending (so it thinks, chooses , etc.). Is there such an entity? What does it look like? Is there a witness?

A “Me” experience is a playfulness without anything wrong with it. And it’s just not true but allowed and welcomed. Even in the fantasy of “Me-ing”, when fantasy is preferred over direct experience (and all seems lost) an honesty is sensed, an unsettling felt and invites an invitation into direct experience. There really isn’t anything wrong.

Is “I” a character in a story or just a label? Does the “I” exist anywhere?
Thoughts are self organising (as you already reported). They stick to each other like matching puzzle pieces (stories about stories). For a story to be seen as that or not, there is a need for a reference point (a center) - something to identify with thoughts, believe them and recognise it as a story. So, check is there anything that believes them or doesn’t? Or is it just a sequencing of thoughts that creates the illusion, like the frames of a movie, where rapid series of still images create the illusion of movement? When frame rate slows down all the illusion of movement is lost. “Story”, though, is still a misleading label (thought content) as there is no reference point – it’s all THIS. Also, what enjoys the story, or suffers?
We can examine this a bit further… Is there time (as the story needs time to exist)? What is time without memory (thought content)? Can you directly experience ‘past’ or ‘future’? Can you directly experience ‘1 min ago’ or ‘1s ago’?

I feel excited. I feel a part of and appreciated. I feel kind and loving.
Label feelings when attention goes to feelings:
Good, preferred, satisfied, smart, important, valuable

It is more like sensation + excited (thought), and then further “good, preferred, etc” (more thought content)

I am definitely the owner of all feelings. And in direct experience there are not feelings, no Me, only sensing and thinking. If there are feelings there’s a me as an owner, but in direct experience there’s thinking and sensing and an undefinable sense of playfulness that disappears back to thinking and sensing happening.

So, are you the owner or are you not? Are there two realities – DE and not-DE? If you are the owner in a “specific reality” then can you control the feelings? Can you choose to experience only “good” feelings and not “bad”? That is why I asked to try and maintain a strong feeling (anger or whatever appears). Again, are there two realities – DE and not-DE?

There seems to be an inviting of emotional charge for this exercise, kind of like “will” or volition but no control.

Is there volition or just thoughts (memories) and sensations that usually fire together with these thoughts, in response to my question?
Love
Rali

There’s so much here you’ve challenged me with. I’m gonna have to give it some serious investigation.

What is pretending? What forgets DE through pretending?

Direct experience is naked, raw, unhidden, obvious. And there’s an overpowering thinking. Yet the thinking cannot obscure, alter nor influence the seeing, smelling, tasting, sensing and hearing. Direct experience shows there is nowhere to or a time when “I” could get lost in thought. Focus or attention selects from what’s here. Direct experience shows there is no pretending. I just don’t understand this. Thinking is neutral, almost quiet here, so how could I have a personal experience? There are thoughts of getting lost in thought- just thought, neutral, translucent thoughts/thinking. Hmm. A preference or habit? No, that’s not there, that’s thinking. Thinking? Well, a smell does not taste or hear. Focus or attention? That might just be thinking also. When just smelling there is less seeing, but seeing doesn’t disappear. When just thinking, seeing and smelling and hearing and tasting and sensing are less yet still fully available in full obvious measure. So just thinking- specific content of a just thinking with more just thinking attracting and continuing more just thinking fits the bill. Thinking doesn’t ignore or forget direct experience, it just thinks. Smelling can’t hear, it doesn’t forget or ignore hearing, it just smells. There really isn’t any pretending or forgetting direct experience. If there was attention or focus in direct experience that would feel more satisfying but it’s not there. Things are not what they seem.

All of this suggests a doer, an entity that remembers/forgets things, does things like pretending (so it thinks, chooses , etc.). Is there such an entity? What does it look like? Is there a witness?

There is life or living, perhaps that’s a thought. Hmm. There are clear sensations and quiet. The quiet is very allowing. Hmm. There’s nothing back there at a location. Impulses take on discernible significance and there’s action or compulsion. Hmm. There are thoughts/thinking with context of comments about sensations. Thoughts/thinking feel very familiar even if they’re new and spontaneous.
There’s no witness that stands out and is obvious. There are thoughts/thinking that have content-comment about sensations, explanations about sensations, actions, reasons, stories, beliefs that compel more of the same.

In direct experience there is no obvious entity or witness and nothing behind or inside in a discernible location or shape or anything that senses register.

Is “I” a character in a story or just a label? Does the “I” exist anywhere?
Thoughts are self organising (as you already reported). They stick to each other like matching puzzle pieces (stories about stories). For a story to be seen as that or not, there is a need for a reference point (a center) - something to identify with thoughts, believe them and recognize it as a story. So, check is there anything that believes them or doesn’t? Or is it just a sequencing of thoughts that creates the illusion, like the frames of a movie, where rapid series of still images create the illusion of movement?

I can’t access an answer to “Is “I” a character in a story or just a label?” because it’s all just thoughts/thinking. A thought about a thought is still a thought. But to humor the question, thought suggests that “I” is a label, although it could also be a character in a story or a good story in and of itself. In direct experience “I” is thinking, content of thinking. There is thinking but no separate obvious “I” standing apart from sensing. It’s content within thinking.

There is silence, impartial silence, unmoved and allowing. There are thoughts and their content compel more thoughts/thinking. Silence is unmoved, neither believing nor disbelieving thought content. In direct experience thoughts are just thoughts and cannot create any illusion. Illusion is also thought/thinking. If anything, illusion is thoughts and thoughts ad nauseam, yet the other senses are still there, fully available if seemingly muted (smell cannot hear).

Also, what enjoys the story, or suffers?
We can examine this a bit further… Is there time (as the story needs time to exist)? What is time without memory (thought content)? Can you directly experience ‘past’ or ‘future’? Can you directly experience ‘1 min ago’ or ‘1s ago’?

What enjoys the story? Hmm. Thoughts/thinking have pleasant and unpleasant content. There are corresponding sensations registered by a sensing body. All of which is allowed unencumbered by silence. Sensations are pleasant and unpleasant, open and wide, tight and constrained. Thoughts/thinking have content about what enjoys or suffers but thought/thinking is just thought/thinking. Silence couldn’t give a shit either way so in direct experience there is nothing to enjoy or suffer. But then, hmm, this could be just thought, yet sensing has a wisdom towards enjoyment, perhaps it’s just thought, it’s not obvious like the senses are in direct experience. Although a reliable, predictable and sometimes obvious intention or compulsion frequently arises into action that leans towards pleasant and resists unpleasant. That happens in time, sure, and is also spontaneous. Nothing stand alone, so it’s a hunch there’s a wisdom in the senses although it could be just more thought content.

The second question is old hat and obvious. There is absolutely no such thing as time, past or future. I’ve had a very deep look at this and I’m throughly convinced, I know there’s no such thing as time, or music for that matter. I’ll go to direct experience as agreed so hmm… Nope, time and past and future is pure fantasy of thought/thinking. Btw, I know this is also thought content yet, if I may, mindfulness is absolute nonsense. It presupposes an effort is required to stay in a moment when in reality there’s nothing else on offer.
My apologies, just say “Kaiser, just direct experience please” and I’ll respect our forum. I get these playful or boastful compulsions from time to time.

So, are you the owner or are you not? Are there two realities – DE and not-DE? If you are the owner in a “specific reality” then can you control the feelings? Can you choose to experience only “good” feelings and not “bad”? That is why I asked to try and maintain a strong feeling (anger or whatever appears). Again, are there two realities – DE and not-DE?

There seems to be an inviting of emotional charge for this exercise, kind of like “will” or volition but no control.

Is there volition or just thoughts (memories) and sensations that usually fire together with these thoughts, in response to my question?

In direct experience an owner cannot be found, that’s thought content. I am not the owner. I cannot choose my feelings, self-help is silly. I cannot pick and choose good over bad. Damn, this is just weird to say and put my arms around, but no, there is only one experience. Only one direct experience.
As far as volition and will, damn. It requires an owner, a witness and a whole lot of added stuff from thought content. In direct experience there are thoughts/thinking and the other senses. Thought content simultaneously mixed with sensations blend like smelling tasting. Perhaps that’s what happens and very quickly gets described as will or volition with an owner. It’s not obviously there in direct experience when looked for. I honestly cannot say, and since direct experience is quite straightforward, I’m okay with not knowing whilst looking more. I’d have to say if pressed, will and volition is a fantasy, yes. It’s thought content as it requires an owner.

Hi Kaiser
Thank you so much for your effort and persistence!

When just smelling there is less seeing, but seeing doesn’t disappear. When just thinking, seeing and smelling and hearing and tasting and sensing are less yet still fully available in full obvious measure. So just thinking- specific content of a just thinking with more just thinking attracting and continuing more just thinking fits the bill. Thinking doesn’t ignore or forget direct experience, it just thinks. Smelling can’t hear, it doesn’t forget or ignore hearing, it just smells. There really isn’t any pretending or forgetting direct experience. If there was attention or focus in direct experience that would feel more satisfying but it’s not there. Things are not what they seem.

Exercise:
1. Sit comfortably on a chair. Close your eyes. Lift your leg and pay attention to the sensation of “leg lifted”
2. Open your eyes and now pay attention to the sight of the leg only.
3. While looking at the leg, pay attention to the sensation of the leg.
Do sight and sensation appear simultaneously? Do they appear separately? Do they depend on each other? Is there a link between them?
Also, what is focus/attention? Are there two things – focus and objects of focus (experiencing) or one indivisible knowing_seeing_tasting_hearing_sensing_smelling_thinking (THIS)? Can the senses be isolated without thought content? Is the knowing of each of them separate or it’s knowing of seeing_hearing_tasting_sensing_smelling_thinking / experience?

Btw, I know this is also thought content yet, if I may, mindfulness is absolute nonsense. It presupposes an effort is required to stay in a moment when in reality there’s nothing else on offer.

Yip! Reality is all there is - THIS. Being mindful would imply an entity that has control (effort) over thinking :). Noticing of thoughts arising (DE) happens effortlessly, and noticing of thought content also happens effortlessly :) – “self-organising” experiencing, just THIS. Effort exists only in thought content.
Love
Rali

Exercise:
1. Sit comfortably on a chair. Close your eyes. Lift your leg and pay attention to the sensation of “leg lifted”
2. Open your eyes and now pay attention to the sight of the leg only.
3. While looking at the leg, pay attention to the sensation of the leg.
Do sight and sensation appear simultaneously? Do they appear separately? Do they depend on each other? Is there a link between them?

Sight and sensation appear simultaneously. They do not appear separately.
They do not depend on each other. I can experience sensations while not viewing them. I can view objects without sensing them, such as “that car over there”.
There is a link between them, they’re both happening. They are elements of this “happening”.

Also, what is focus/attention? Are there two things – focus and objects of focus (experiencing) or one indivisible knowing_seeing_tasting_hearing_sensing_smelling_thinking (THIS)?

Focus and attention are thinking content, comments. What is referred to as attention is a happening of and within this “Happening”. And, there seems to be only one happening.

There is no distance or time in hearing or seeing. The objects, seeing and subject are thought content. In direct experience there is only seeing, only hearing

Hi Kaiser

Sight and sensation appear simultaneously. They do not appear separately.
They do not depend on each other. I can experience sensations while not viewing them. I can view objects without sensing them, such as “that car over there”.
There is a link between them, they’re both happening. They are elements of this “happening”.

Yes! 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. Senses affect each other. 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 )

This body feels it, connecting with thought.

I can see how the body responds and observe thought without necessarily believing it.

Body senses of diffuse energy sensations- sensing.

There are corresponding sensations registered by a sensing body.

What is a ‘body’?
Exercises:
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 DE 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?
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