The Gate

Hi Andres,

Please allow me till tomorrow to get back to you :) Apologies, and please continue looking in direct experience.

Warmly,
Ankita

Of course! Take your time, I am not in a hurry. I have been looking :).

Hello hello,

Happy to be writing back.

I can see that on its own it cannot. But there are doubts indeed. It is difficult to accept that thoughts would be completely non-interfering with life happening on its own. Looking back on my life there are numerous episodes where thought seemed to have had an impact on my life. Epiphanies, solutions, and ideas that suddenly emerged in thought. There is a feeling that these then have had an impact on life... long-term? As a kind of feedback mechanism into the organism? That the thought on its own doesn’t change what is happening is clear. Interestingly a sentence saying that “I” do not exist is easier to accept than a sentence saying that thought doesn’t affect what is happening.

This is a great reflection and really important to address. Let's take this really slow -- slow it all the way down and truly look at the full potential of what thought is capable of.

You see, if there are epiphanies, solutions, ideas, or anything impactful in any way in thought, then certainly thoughts must be deemed valuable and not be dismissed the way spirituality so wants us to. In that case, it would actually be helpful to spend most of our time lost in thoughts, because even if a lot of them are just chatter, a few of them still might be worth gold. This is a very common, very deeply ingrained, unchecked belief system that we usually operate on, we listen to the chatter and identify with it, waiting for it to "figure" something out, "process" something, "solve" something etc. Unless there is complete clarity on this, the subconscious will inevitably cherish thoughts, and no amount of deliberate and disciplined meditation can compete with the power of the subconscious.

So let's look. You express that there is a feeling that thoughts may have had an impact on life -- but this is from memory, and if we look at memory, all we see is thought justifying thoughts, and we have seen they can't be trusted. So our only way out is to look NOW, and see what an epiphany/solution/idea really is, the material it is made of, and if it happens within thought. I invite you to put aside the belief that this certainly happens within thought, and enquire with curious, fresh, brave eyes:

This exercise requires you to get "creative", please write to me 4 sentences about a creature that is a fusion of any two animals... maybe a fish and a bird? What does it look like? What is the name you'd like to give it? Does it have a job? What does it sound like? Just type it down, keep it silly :)

Now notice, you had IDEAS here. Where did they come from? Look at the thought process: "Oh its name is Gary because that's the name on top of my head...", "It's blue, no wait thats too common for a fish, make it glittery pink", and zoom out of these thoughts. Look at them. Are they "imagining" this creature? Can a thought imagine anything? Are they talking to each other? Can a thought know the content of other thoughts and communicate with it? Or, is there simply a knowing, that the thought is then narrating, very wordily, claiming doership? Watch what happens if you let the thought train just go on without identification, dismissing it as just sound. Notice how your fingers can still continue to type about this creature, as the thoughts try to keep up with you. Notice how they offer a lot of know-how, even advice, and yet the fingers just keep going, as the thoughts fight and change their narrative quickly to pretend they are making it happen.

Remember the palm flipping exercise.

See how this "life just happening" really just keeps happening, and doesn't require commentary. It may seem as though epiphanies are communicated in thought, but the next time there is a eureka moment, notice how it happened timelessly, instantaneously, causing a panic in thoughts to keep up and claim doership. There is a reason why such epiphanies take place when the mind relaxes, when thoughts subside or lose charge.

Ultimately, this sinking in to alertness and SEEING what thoughts are allows you to also see that creativity, ideas, newness -- none of this can come from thought. It is an outpouring, "happeningness" that pushes through, and thoughts seem as though they are expressing it, but its really the same commentary as when something regular is witnessed, like a flower, a colleague, a book, anything.

These videos might be helpful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OywqzR0QKLU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OAsQbARNSc

When the futility of thoughts is seen, the dependence on them starts to fall away -- and it is a big nightmare for the ego. If there is no inner world, where then do you go to regroup, reorient yourself in the face of overwhelming situations?

I have completely villianized thoughts in this post, so in our next exchange, lets also look at the right place of thoughts. Can you imagine what that could be? :)

Now coming to your other answers... There is some "memory content" in them, where I can tell you are referencing from memory instead of looking in the now. This has been a long one already so let's discuss those further in the next exchange too. But if after answering today's questions, your perspective on any older answers seems to change, please let me know! :)

You are doing great ofcourse. Hang in tight. Thank you for your sincerity so far and reporting diligently.

Loving,
Ankita

Please write to me 4 sentences about a creature that is a fusion of any two animals... maybe a fish and a bird? What does it look like? What is the name you'd like to give it? Does it have a job? What does it sound like? Just type it down, and keep it silly :)

It looks like its head is from a giant red snapper but there are wings instead of fins.
Snappy eagle.
Can’t imagine any job it could do, honestly. It seems to be a bit useless.
It’s mute. As its head comes from the snapper.

Now notice, you had IDEAS here. Where did they come from? Look at the thought process: "Oh its name is Gary because that's the name on top of my head...", "It's blue, no wait thats too common for a fish, make it glittery pink", and zoom out of these thoughts. Look at them. Are they "imagining" this creature? Can a thought imagine anything? Are they talking to each other? Can a thought know the content of other thoughts and communicate with it? Or, is there simply a knowing, that the thought is then narrating, very wordily, claiming doership?

There are images appearing in thought, sudden and complete, which then don’t change much. The thoughts don’t really seem to ruminate about this or change in themselves. They do display a kind of finished image. They aren’t talking. No, thoughts can’t communicate, they’re serial and not interacting. There is a knowing and yes, the thought does then narrate, I don’t see it claiming anything, really. The temporality isn’t crystal clear to me, it seems to be happening quite simultaneously sometimes.

I have completely villianized thoughts in this post, so in our next exchange, lets also look at the right place of thoughts. Can you imagine what that could be? :)

Honestly, I’m not sure what to answer here. Thought seems still quite necessary to live through day-to-day life, for visualization, for cultural techniques such as language, learning, and mathematics.

We have reached an interesting point. So far, everything seemed very clear. I write professionally and use language a lot, and thought plays a large part in that. I’m curious about where this leads and the questions are fascinating.

Hello Andres,

Once again I apologize for the delay in writing back to you. I will write to you tomorrow, and for this month, please expect a few delays here and there. Had a change in work life and still adjusting to the new schedule. My frequency will most likely be one reply every 2 days. Bear with me x

Loving,
Ankita

Hi Andres,

Now where were we...

Love our Snappy Eagle :)
Discussing these subtle, deeply internal things often gets intellectual, so before we get into it, lets remind ourselves to continue looking in direct experience only. This reminder is more for me :)

There are images appearing in thought, sudden and complete, which then don’t change much. The thoughts don’t really seem to ruminate about this or change in themselves. They do display a kind of finished image. They aren’t talking. No, thoughts can’t communicate, they’re serial and not interacting. There is a knowing and yes, the thought does then narrate, I don’t see it claiming anything, really. The temporality isn’t crystal clear to me, it seems to be happening quite simultaneously sometimes.

The confusion here seems to be attributing the "knowingness"/ "happeningness" to thought.

When we refer to "thought" as such, we mean the kind that ruminate, that process, that analyse, that judge, that decide, and so on. They group together to form memory, and then projections about the future based on this memory, and so on. It is a response from the past, always a second late to the party.

"Knowingness" / "Happeningness" on the other hand, is much more intimate, alive, raw. It is the sudden, instantaneous appearance of, as you say, "a finished image", that then becomes a part of the chatter of thought.

Note the following events:
- The exercise to come up with some weird creature is read
- A creature emerges
- A description of this creature is typed

Where in this was thought needed?
Or, could this have happened without thought?
Now note: immediate reactions like "Ofcourse! To even type in english, english must be understood and internalized in thought" -- can you see that this too is a thought?
Did english, language, your answer, all not appear simultaneously when they were needed?
Did they appear in thought, or did they just "happen"? Where is their location?

What about this could absolutely not have happened without thought? Is it the part where the creature emerges? Look closely, is it a spontaneous happeningness, or has it been contemplated, pondered upon, "decided" by thought?

Did you "choose" this creature? Did thoughts choose this creature?

Again, If there is retaliation from thoughts, watch the retaliation closely. Are those too not simply thoughts?

Now, compare this to our palm flipping exercise:
- The exercise to flip the palm is read
- The palm flips
- A report of the same is typed

Could this have happened without thought?

Let's look further deeper. You expressed that it is difficult to accept that thoughts do not interfere with life, and I invite you to look into continuity and interference itself. It appears that one event happens after the other, but look in direct experience, is this true? Who established the order?
A good time to refer to your answers from the memory exercise:

The content is basically the same, except the memory thought is felt to point to an experience from the past. There is a clear feeling “it has happened”, that it is “from the past”.

The content is basically the same, except the memory thought is felt to point to an experience that could happen from now on onwards. Also here, there is a clear feeling that this is a possible experience in the future.

Could you look closely and tell me what is this feeling? In direct experience, a feeling is simply a sensation + label. What is the sensation, and what is the label? Is the label just a thought? Without the label, what remains? Is the labelling thought any different from all other thoughts?

There is no real difference in terms of how the thoughts are, except a “knowing” whether it is category future or category past. But their form and content are the same.

The difference seems to be that logically some thoughts belong to the future or the past. Having a car crash and losing a leg can hardly be in the past, as I still have two legs. Me having a child would be in the past, if I were driving my son to school every morning. In the end, you could look at these and see that they are all also thoughts, and those are inherently not temporal, so the difference can’t be known exactly.

Great! Their form and content are indeed the same, and indeed the difference can't be known exactly. Something that is often said around here is that all of these are "stories" -- which just means thought justifying thoughts. You talk about the car crash, the legs, your child, the school, the morning, but all of this is thought content, not (im assuming) what is infront of you right NOW. This comes from memory, which is just thoughts.

I have completely villianized thoughts in this post, so in our next exchange, lets also look at the right place of thoughts. Can you imagine what that could be? :)

Honestly, I’m not sure what to answer here. Thought seems still quite necessary to live through day-to-day life, for visualization, for cultural techniques such as language, learning, and mathematics.

Thought does have its own place, and you're right -- it has crucial roles in language, learning, mathematics, or what can be broken down as: to create concepts to refer to. Reality is spontaneous, without order, without reason, raw and wild (do you see this?) and thought forms groups that can be referred to in order for this spontaneity to use. This happeningness flows as one with all other happeningness.

I write professionally and use language a lot, and thought plays a large part in that.

Just like finding out Santa isn't real doesn't kill the Christmas spirit, similarly, seeing through thought doesn't mean we become non-thinking potatoes. It is a perception shift, where thought is put into its right place, and it is seen how much of its role is completely dysfunctional.

I hope this is not too overwhelming. Simply look, effortlessly, and type what is seen.

Looking forward to your reply, warmly, lovingly,
Ankita

I apologize for the long pause, Ankita. I have been inundated with other things and I didn't want to answer without really considering your pointing.

Where in this was thought needed?
Or, could this have happened without thought?
Now note: immediate reactions like "Ofcourse! To even type in english, english must be understood and internalized in thought" -- can you see that this too is a thought?
Did english, language, your answer, all not appear simultaneously when they were needed?
Did they appear in thought, or did they just "happen"? Where is their location?

I keep somehow returning to analogies with computers. Thought seems to be more the LCD display than the CPU. No, the thought was not needed and it could have happened without, I guess. When working and entering what people describe as “flow states”... there isn’t really any thought there either. It is happening on its own.

What about this could absolutely not have happened without thought? Is it the part where the creature emerges? Look closely, is it a spontaneous happeningness, or has it been contemplated, pondered upon, "decided" by thought?

It is more like thought displays a part of is happening by itself.

Did you "choose" this creature? Did thoughts choose this creature?

It just emerged. Thoughts didn’t choose it.

Again, If there is retaliation from thoughts, watch the retaliation closely. Are those too not simply thoughts?

What do you mean with retaliation?

Now, compare this to our palm flipping exercise:
- The exercise to flip the palm is read
- The palm flips
- A report of the same is typed

Could this have happened without thought?

Yes.

Look in direct experience, is this true? Who established the order?

It seems to be that this impression is, in the end, also a thought.

Could you look closely and tell me what is this feeling? In direct experience, a feeling is simply a sensation + label. What is the sensation, and what is the label? Is the label just a thought? Without the label, what remains? Is the labelling thought any different from all other thoughts?

It really isn’t. When past events arise, there are often sensations. It can be anger, sadness, hurt, joy, depending on what event is thought about. This is not temporal at all, it is just a sensation. You’re right, the label on top is then just a thought.

I have been thinking a lot (lol) about thinking. You said in one of your earlier posts we’ll talk about the “right place” for thought. What would that be? I am slowly realizing that more and more is just thought... if it isn’t really necessary, why do we, as organisms, think at all?

Hi Andres,

Lovely to have you writing back :)

I have been inundated with other things and I didn't want to answer without really considering your pointing.

No worries at all

What do you mean with retaliation?

When deep rooted beliefs (ie a group of thoughts that arise together) are challenged, it can often stir up other thoughts that arise in defence of the belief system. I intended to mean this by retaliation.

I have been thinking a lot (lol) about thinking. You said in one of your earlier posts we’ll talk about the “right place” for thought. What would that be? I am slowly realizing that more and more is just thought... if it isn’t really necessary, why do we, as organisms, think at all?

You are absolutely right in noticing how so much is just thought. Thought as a device has its place in conceptualization -- quickly differentiating between an apple and an orange, because even though there is no individual entity such as an apple or an orange (it is shapes, colours, textures, taste, smell bundled together), but it is useful in the relative world when it comes to food. Similary, language is another such useful concept to navigate the relative world.
Ultimately, it is not thought that is to be discarded, but the identification with the concepts it makes. That is when it stops being useful and becomes a tool that perpetuates apparent suffering. And so our quest is not to diminish thought, but the illusion that there is a thinker of thoughts, the one that identifies with the thoughts, the doer born out of thin air. The thoughts keep this illusory thinker alive, both feeding into each other. Without the thinker/ doer/ "self", there is a lot less activity for thoughts, causing them to slow down on their own.

Your answer feels inviting of the idea that thought may not be as important as we think (as "thoughts" think), and now we want you to SEE it.

So far, our exercises have pointed out that "objects", "body", "control", "past", "memory" -- all of these only exist in thought, and that thought is not all true or important in and of itself. Do you SEE this?

Moving on, we will be focussing a lot less on thoughts and thought content and a lot more on raw sensations that arise as response to a happening. We want to practice relying much more on sensations than thought. Remember the exercise to differentiate "truth" from "lies" using sensations as a tool? Please run through our conversation so far as a refresher at your leisure.

Apart from all of this, how has life been lately? :)

I'm typing this on phone, so please excuse any typos.

Warmly,
Ankita

So far, our exercises have pointed out that "objects", "body", "control", "past", "memory" -- all of these only exist in thought, and that thought is not all true or important in and of itself. Do you SEE this?

It feels true. I can't really unequivocally write here that I see it. Not sure, why. Somehow the verb "seeing" is very much connected to eyesight.

Apart from all of this, how has life been lately? :)

Life has been good. Lots of turbulence work-wise and in other parts of my life. I have been re-arranging a lot in my life, mentally and also physically. Overall, I feel quite calm and relaxed.

Hi Andres,

Somehow the verb "seeing" is very much connected to eyesight.

Lets try this:
Look at whatever is in front of you. Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes) or is it like a windscreen view? Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen? Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

Warmly,
Ankita

Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes) or is it like a windscreen view? Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen? Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

It's a windscreen. There is no separation between seeing and what is seen. There is just experience. This is similar to the exercise about where the body ends, or the one about hearing sound. It is one experience.

And so where is this 'you'? :)

Ankita, sorry to keep you waiting and thank you for your patience. Life is happening fast these days.

The fact that I haven't answered yet and it took me so long also tells me: There is no quick and unequivocal answer to this question at the moment. It seems very obvious that "I" is a construct, and I look and look and can't really find anything anywhere. Yet, it still seems. There is doubt.

As always, no worries Andres ❤️

Let's start from the top/ bottom/ sideways again when time allows. Keep looking at the seeming of "I", its little confidence and bravado, its shakiness, its fear, its doubt. Amusing little loops :)

So, by coincidence, I stumbled upon the headless experiment by Douglas Harding. Simple, yet fascinating... andere there really is nothing but stillness.