The Gate

Hi Mark,

Maybe what I am experiencing is this 'no separation', it's quite strange, can only seem to grasp it momentarily.

Yes, it is worth trying this on different occasions. Even noticing this non-separateness for a moment is worth the attempt.

it belongs to both, no wait, that's not right .... I want to say both because I am, inadvertently, attributing the colour to the object. I want to say 'my perception' but that doesn't seem right either.

And perhaps my asking if the redness belongs to both is not quite fair either? Because if is accepted that there is no separation then it is hard to talk in terms of 'perceiver' and 'perceived'.

- depth, shape ..... even if we had no labels for those things, no names, they would still be a part of the 'direct experience' would they not? Or is that not so?

Yes, there is also depth and shape. These are also part of the experience taken as a whole. Again, apparent attributes of 'the object' , like redness and not 'separate' from it and yet part of the immediate sensation experienced.

And not only seeing. There is hearing, touch, smell and taste too. Investigations can be done with each of the five senses.


Best wishes,

Jon.

thanks Jon, will progress to the other senses but for now will stick with sight and the exercise given. I am curious to really experience the direct sensation of seeing.
Might post more observations/experience later, definitely tomorrow.

Ok, thanks Mark.

Jon.

Good day Jon,

Is there any break or line of separation between what is usually termed the 'act of perception' and 'object perceived'?

I've been doing this a bit and finding it really difficult to notice. My last object was a candle, simple and plain and ivory coloured. Really struggled, like my brain doesn't 'get' what it is supposed to be doing! I haven't yet worked out what it is that occurs i.e. is it that I automatically attribute the properties to the object? I do know I really struggle to process this whenever I try.

The other one though (between perceiver and perceiving) I seem to have no trouble 'getting'.

Also, I want to go back a bit:

Is there a spatially -located 'place' where thoughts definitely 'come from'?

my initial answer to this (I've never noticed but will take a look) was factually incorrect:
having previously studied NLP, I know this to be true - yes there are definitely spatially located 'places' where thought occurs - like how past is represented compared to future. They have different locations in 'space'.
More correct would be 'I've never noticed in this context.

And that's the most important bit - in this context you are asking 'where thoughts come from', is that the same as how we represent thoughts to ourselves? And does 'where thoughts come from' actually mean 'so is there a self located somewhere'?

In the context of a search for a separate self or not maybe I am getting two things confused, although it came up as thoughts so I wanted to share it.

I'm not sure how helpful any of this is in the process of realising no separate self exists: I recognise it is a lot of thought!

you comments/guidance will be welcome,
Mark

Hello Mark

I've been doing this a bit and finding it really difficult to notice. My last object was a candle, simple and plain and ivory coloured. Really struggled, like my brain doesn't 'get' what it is supposed to be doing! I haven't yet worked out what it is that occurs i.e. is it that I automatically attribute the properties to the object? I do know I really struggle to process this whenever I try.

It is possible to try too hard with this and othe excercises. We are not aiming for brain to get this. It's either seen or not and actually doesn't take effort. Relax for now. We may return to this later.

yes there are definitely spatially located 'places' where thought occurs -

Really? In an experiential sense or according to a theory? Looking at thoughts that appear right now, where are they appearing? Imagine a large image of a famous politician. Does that appear 'inside' or 'outside' of you?

And does 'where thoughts come from' actually mean 'so is there a self located somewhere'?

Well, does it? Are you asking if the illusion of 'self' is the same thing as thought?

Look now! Is there a 'self' to be found anywhere other than thought?


Best wishes,

Jon.

Hi Jon,

Looking at thoughts that appear right now, where are they appearing? Imagine a large image of a famous politician. Does that appear 'inside' or 'outside' of you?

Hmm. That depends on where 'you (me)' is thought to be. In answer - if I close my eyes and imagine a famous politician they appear in front of me, slightly to the left and higher up than my head.
By 'in front of me' I mean outside of my physical body.

And does 'where thoughts come from' actually mean 'so is there a self located somewhere'?

Well, does it? Are you asking if the illusion of 'self' is the same thing as thought?

Yes, that is what I was thinking at the time.

Look now! Is there a 'self' to be found anywhere other than thought?

Well, I can say no, there is not a self to be found other than in thought (mainly a voice in my head at present).

I

t is possible to try too hard with this and othe excercises. We are not aiming for brain to get this. It's either seen or not and actually doesn't take effort. Relax for now. We may return to this later.

Sure. Ok, thanks
Mark

Hi Mark,

! Is there a 'self' to be found anywhere other than thought?


Well, I can say no, there is not a self to be found other than in thought (mainly a voice in my head at present).

Alright. Is it clear that thoughts of 'me' and 'I', thoughts that reference a 'self', do appear?

And that 'you' do not 'make these thoughts happen'?.. they are a bit like announcements or ideas that simply come and go? (If this is not clear take a bit of time to notice thoughts, to see if anyone is 'thinking' them up or if they simply come and go)?

Is it clear that 'me' or 'self' is part of the content of thought, of what thoughts are ABOUT?

That 'self' is like Father Christmas or Batman, a character that is sometimes imagined to 'really exist'?

Best wishes,

Jon.

Hi Jon, I really appreciate you helping me with this.

Alright. Is it clear that thoughts of 'me' and 'I', thoughts that reference a 'self', do appear?

yes, this is clear.

And that 'you' do not 'make these thoughts happen'?..

yes, this is clear. It's just that 'I' don't seem to believe it (it must be that, belief, because I have seen for myself that I do not make thoughts happen).
Maybe I need to take a bit more time to notice, as suggested.

Is it clear that 'me' or 'self' is part of the content of thought, of what thoughts are ABOUT?

Yes, I was thinking this today, that thoughts simply name the self (I, my, me) so often that it becomes believed.

I still need more time on this though I think - it seems as though I have intellectual understanding and some direct experience, maybe the intellectual side is what I'm relying on more here, I don't know.
That is, it seems clear, I've seen it!, yet still seem to believe in an 'I'.

I don't know what I'm expecting to see/know here either. Maybe I am where I need to be at the moment.

speak later, Mark

oh, just thought, this bit:

If this is not clear take a bit of time to notice thoughts, to see if anyone is 'thinking' them up or if they simply come and go

maybe its that I have seen this and just need more time to practice seeing it - thoughts do not appear as if they simply come and go, there is still a strong identification with an 'I'.
Even though I know there is not one.

Hi Mark,

Hi Jon, I really appreciate you helping me with this.

It's my pleasure

And that 'you' do not 'make these thoughts happen'?..
yes, this is clear. It's just that 'I' don't seem to believe it (it must be that, belief, because I have seen for myself that I do not make thoughts happen).

But is it 'you' that sees this? Or is it simply ... seen?

Yes, a belief. You are right. A belief that 'I do make thoughts happen'.

Yes, I was thinking this today, that thoughts simply name the self (I, my, me) so often that it becomes believed.

There you are !

I still need more time on this though I think - it seems as though I have intellectual understanding and some direct experience, maybe the intellectual side is what I'm relying on more here, I don't know.
That is, it seems clear, I've seen it!, yet still seem to believe in an 'I'.

[/quote]

You're definitely on the right track. Just need to go a bit 'further'. I'll suggest a useful exercise in my next post.

Best wishes,

Jon

Jon, sorry but been unwell today, be around tomorrow, still engaged.

Sorry to hear that Mark. Get well.

Jon

Hi Jon,

I would like to go a bit further with this. What is the useful exercise please?

During this time of being unwell I have slept a lot and day has seemed no real different to night and at times waking has seemed no different to sleep. In a lucid type dream I was still investigating thought but something/someone was helping me 'watch' thoughts more and I really understood what I was being shown.
I've tried to bring that into my waking time but as often happens with dreams it has faded somewhat. That said, I am sure some of what I 'realised' has filtered through.

Feeling a lot better, hopefully back to normal in next day or two.
thanks,
Mark

HI Mark,

Some technical issues with this forum right now. Just lost the post I'd written for you. Will post in the morning, hopefully.

Jon.

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your post which is interesting. Please excuse the brevity of my reply today.

The exercise I mentioned is this:

Find a piece of fruit, such as a melon or something similar. Place it out of sight, preferably in a different room.
Now close your eyes and bring to mind the melon. Try to imagine what it is like, how it looks and feels.

After a few minutes of that, go and find the real melon. Now, hold it in your hands and experience all the sensations relating to the melon, its weight, feel, texture, colour,smell and so on.

Now spend a little time comparing the experience of the real melon with the experience of the thought-melon. Do you notice some differences between these?

Best wishes,

Jon.

Hi Jon,

(just to note, I had a problem with the forum today - the home page came up with 'hacked by Algerian hackers!? I did, however, follow a quick link on my computer so not sure if its actually my computer they have hacked!
Was able to access the site by following another link that took me straight to the gate page.)

Now spend a little time comparing the experience of the real melon with the experience of the thought-melon. Do you notice some differences between these?

Did this with an apple.

thought apple: image of me holding an apple appears but have to zoom in on the image of the apple itself to create detail.
Now seeing just apple, imagining the colours, trying to really see them, then noticing the shape and different view points. Then adding the texture, what it feels like in hand, the smoothness of skin as I rotate it.
as well as the image of an apple there is also a voice in head at times, commenting (i.e. imagine the apple in your hand, feel the texture)
focus on smell but not able to conjour up actual smell of apple, more of a general impression, like I imagine that I am smelling apple, even though cannot smell it.

actual apple: the first thing I notice when I get the actual apple is the temperature - it is cold, this was not at all present in the imagining.
The colour is clearer, richer. This was quite blurred in the imagining, again giving an impression.
the texture is smooth but also has loads of blemishes on the surface - none of this detail was in the imagining.
there is also loads of other colours running through out the apple, like light brown spots. - again, this detail omitted in thought only.
I put the apple against my nose and, surprisingly, find there is no smell, not to notice anyway.
('I' decide to eat the apple, then the smell appears.)

Italics highlight main differences. In general, thought appears to give an impression of physical reality, physical reality is much richer and detailed and, well .... there !

Please reveal more, thanks,
Mark