The Gate

Right now I know only the screen in front of me, the sounds around me. If I don't think about it I haave no way to answer. There is just this stuff I am aware of. It doesn't seem to have an end in time, it's just aware. As for limits in space I don't know. Indont really know how to answer without thinking. What I'm aware of right now is just what I'm aware of right now and the question of its limits seems strange.

I'm trying to be as direct and honest as possible. But my direct visual experience is a circle of vison, albeit with fuzzy boundaries. Things move across the edge and so it seems like an edge.

We are simply looking to see if there is a limit or a division anywhere in knowing this moment now. We have looked at knowing the body, knowing thoughts, and now we are looking at the whole experience of the environment we are aware of now. Look. Are you aware of stuff, things, objects? Is there any separation between awareness of the body and thoughts and the whole environment experienced now? Any response about past, future, how it may or may not be, is believing that the thought fluff is more real than the actual direct experience of vibrantly knowing now. What do you know now? Where does this knowing begin and end now?

Whatever is beyond the limits of our actual experience now is a fairy tale. Do you want to live in bondage to that which has no existence now? This realm of imagination is the only place you can find a self, and even then, the ideas, thoughts you are aware of about the self appear and disappear.

Ok. Sorry, I think I get it now. I'm very literal minded about this stuff and when you asked can I find limits I turn to the only limits I can find which are in space and time, however illusory. Can I find a separation betweeen things and awareness and thoughts? No. I understand that, as I understand the previous questions.

I don't want to pretend that I've got it all sorted out. Certainly, I spend much of the day thinking "about" all your pointers. When I just sit and try to be aware (which is not often at the moment) I cannot find a dividing line between my awareness of things and those things. But your latest questions have many facets. Are objects separate form each other? They seem to be, whatever I might "think." Thoughts, though they appear to awareness in much the same way as all else, seem a very different thing from other objects. I still feel there is something obvious you are asking me that I'm not getting.

I don't want to pretend that I've got it all sorted out.

Good. Taking up a new belief will not help.

When I just sit and try to be aware (which is not often at the moment) I cannot find a dividing line between my awareness of things and those things.

Yes. Awareness is not segmented or limited by any apparent form.

Are objects separate form each other? They seem to be, whatever I might "think."

Look. Does awareness of a form or object make it separate? Or is it a thought about an object that claims it is separate?

Thoughts, though they appear to awareness in much the same way as all else, seem a very different thing from other objects.

The most obvious difference would be that I know my thoughts and am not privy to your thoughts. However, from the standpoint of Direct Experience; seeing, tasting, hearing, smelling, touching... knowing, thoughts are not any different. Thoughts are known, like every other bit of sense data. By assigning a special significance to thought, we make a foundation to support our belief in a separate limited self.

Is knowing/awareness always present? or does knowing/awareness require a thought to be activated?

We are not here to add anything new to the picture, rather, it is like the sages point out, we are already liberated and need only to drop the ignorance that is separating our experience from the truth. What separates us? Believing the data we find encoded in our thought is more real than our DE.

The difference between self and no self is a thought.

If this was a science experiment, would we be allowed to present our thoughts as the only proof of a new hypothesis? The self is like this. It is a phantom whose only support is a thought.

I still feel there is something obvious you are asking me that I'm not getting.

Nothing is hidden. If our experience is not supported by DE, and a thought it's only proof, then it is a fairy tale.

Everything you say makes complete sense. I understand it, both intellectually and intuitively. Maybe I should be trying harder to throw away thoughts, or to ignore them. I look at the things before me, understand that they are a wash of color, but continue to see separate objects, conceptually separated even before they are labeled with verbal thought. I can try to ignore thoughts that say "that's your hand, it's always there, was there yesterday, will be there tomorrow" but ignoring the "keyboard" element of the black thing with squares in front of me is harder. And this ignoring doesn't feel like a taking away of a veil, but almost a veil on top of a veil. So ingrained are these concepts of separate objects, that to consider them as one seems like a concept.

Does awareness of a form or object make it separate? Or is it a thought about an object that claims it is separate?

I'm absolutely sure that awareness does not form or make objects separate. But it seems to be the result of a thinking that is so habitual that it does not even need to be thought.

Thoughts are known, like every other bit of sense data. By assigning a special significance to thought, we make a foundation to support our belief in a separate limited self.

I believe you totally, but it's very hard to make it a reality. Imaging that the words of thoughts are no different than read words helps, but, again, much thought seems to be nonverbal and I don't know how to see that as the same as visual impression.

Is knowing/awareness always present? or does knowing/awareness require a thought to be activated?

Certainly awareness is always present. Or, at least, if it's not there's no way to know it. Thoughts activate nothing but other thoughts. I've learned that much so far.

Believing the data we find encoded in our thought is more real than our DE.

I don't know how to put this in practice. Driving home I think "these are not cars, just patterns of colors moving toward me." But to ignore the data, and drive into oncoming traffic: I just can't put aside thought and prediction to do that. And this belief that thought is helping me navigate and understand where DE would not is very hard to throw off. And it reinforces all the subtler thoughts that are not determiners of life and death.

Everything you say about thought supporting the idea of self makes sense, but how I just drop the thought, I don't know.

Maybe I should be trying harder to throw away thoughts, or to ignore them.

Resisting thoughts create more thoughts. Just notice that thoughts are a small part of what is happening during the seamless experience of life knowing itself. Thought is not an enemy to be vanquished.

And this ignoring doesn't feel like a taking away of a veil, but almost a veil on top of a veil. So ingrained are these concepts of separate objects, that to consider them as one seems like a concept.

The only way to cross the gateless gate is through direct experience. Direct Experience is what is actually happening whether thoughts agree with our experience or not. This requires being willing to look from the stand point of DE regardless of what thoughts say about DE. A willingness to question the reality of our thoughts vs DE.

Describe thinking in Direct Experience.

But it seems to be the result of a thinking that is so habitual that it does not even need to be thought.

Really? Describe Awareness or knowing in DE. Describe how this idea works, the idea that awareness is the result of thinking works in actual Direct Experience.


ps - I am in the process of moving during the next 48 hours and may not be able to respond until New Years day.

Really? Describe Awareness or knowing in DE. Describe how this idea works, the idea that awareness is the result of thinking works in actual Direct Experience.

I didn't mean that thought gives rise to awareness. Only that objects seem different and separate before a verbal thought. I don't need to think the word "ball" to see the ball as a seperate object or even as a ball. Sorry my writing was ambiguous. Will get to you other question later.

Hope your move is stress free!

Describe thinking in Direct Experience.

Verbal thinking in DE is simple to write about. It's no different that what some call stream of consciousness. One thought follows from the last, or from sensory input that instigated it. The thoughts follow each other almost exactly the way sentences follow each other here as I write them (just with less editing, and no typos). In fact, the experience of thinking is quite similar to reading: Sentences, or things like sentences, arise in what appears to an orderly manner, and are understood by an awareness that is not the words themselves. That one thought seems to build on the last or use one from a minute ago is not unlike connecting a sentence to one in a previous paragraph when reading (even if it is only the understanding in the now that is really occurring in either case).

Presumably, non verbal thoughts occur the same way, but with less of a sense of one coming from the last. That is to say, I do not need to think "that is a mug" to see it as mug, do not need to think any sentences about its purpose to know its purpose, to use it in just that way. That's an unconscious understanding, it seems to me. If I'm tying a knot, or preparing a meal, I do not need to think the words of the objects I'm using, or sentences about what to do first for them to happen, but the concepts of separate objects, and of what to do, are still there. And it's this non-verbal thought that I have more trouble unseparating and viewing in DE.

I try to get to the "prior" feeling of DE, but again and again I feel flummoxed by the instantaneousness of understanding. I never feel that I hear a sound, then interpret it. (Almost ) never feel that I see shapes and color and then understand what they are. Never feel that I "hear" a thought, then understand it. When I read or listen to speech, I understand the words the very moment the occur.

And a happy New Year to you! Hope the new home is glorious.

“...the experience of thinking...arise in what appears to an orderly manner, and are understood by an awareness that is not the words themselves.”

and

“...I understand the words the very moment the occur.”

Ok. So thoughts are known the moment they arise. They are definitely not known prior to arising. Are you choosing what thoughts arise?

Additionally...

And it's this non-verbal thought that I have more trouble unseparating and viewing in DE.

Agreed. I do not need to think, "I just heard a sound" or think to pick up a mug and use it for its intended purpose. Just like having learned how to ride a bike, I no longer think about riding a bike when engaged in that action. We engage in all sorts of activities of this kind daily, effortlessly. Even still, each and every happening, is known immediately, whether it be a thought or an action... and this instantaneous knowing is an experience, a direct experience. Doesn't matter if verbal or pre-verbal. In fact, it is these thoughts *about* the direct experience, whether they are verbal or pre-verbal, that weave the fairytale of a separate self.

Without these thoughts *about* DE where can a separate individual self be found? If you can find it, describe that in DE.

Happy New Year. The new home is wonderful. Thank you.

Joseph ♥︎

Big day of traveling today so I won't post much till late tonight.

ok

So I must start with this:

this instantaneous knowing is an experience, a direct experience.

Do you mean to say that the instantaneous knowing of things, of seemingly separate objects, in the same way that we instantaneously recognize words, is also DE? That the very mistaken and instantaneuos understanding of what objects are in the conventional world is also DE? How can awareness itself be conditioned?

I've spent my life as a highly cognitive person, and the habits of turning over possibilites, trying to find ways to argue against them is very hard to ignore. Very hard to let happen but simultaeously keep in mind that it is not the thing that will get me to the truth.

So when you say

Without these thoughts *about* DE where can a separate individual self be found? If you can find it, describe that in DE.

many many arguments fill my head. I set them down here so you know where my mind goes throughout the day, even if they are quite obvious: 1) the fact that my thoughts are heard by me (or by a "here") and not heard by others proves some separation. It may not be inside, but it is private. The same can be said of all sensual expereince. It occurs just for this bit of awareness over here and not over there where you are. Can't we call these separated bits of awareness the self? 2) the body clearly is the aparatus for me. It lets sense arise to an awareness that is separate from others. So, isn't this body then mine? It may not BE the self, but I can't undesrtand how it does not belong to a self that is separate, since there are multiple bodies, multiple private experiences. In vision, no the body is not spearate from its surroundings, but it does give rise to sense where the other surroundings don't. So it seems special, and separate. 3) I cannot get beyond the fact that even if all sense simply arises to awareness, why that awareness isn't my self, and also separate since it is not privy to the same expereineces that arise to other people's awareness.

BUT I KNOW this does not answer your question. When I ignore, if only momentarily, all these cognitive frustrations, I do see that there is no inner self. Even with eyes closed, the darkness there seems outside me. My thoughts seem no longer in my head. So the only self I can point to is the very separatness that keeps me separate. I know that Rupert Spira explains that there can be gaps in space just as there are gaps in memory over time, and that makes sense, but its the gaps themselves that create the sense of separation. That, even more than the habitual look at the body as a priviate apparatus for sensation, seems to be what keeps my awareness a small, limited, private and separate awareness.

Still, I can hear you saying that these are thoughts about DE and not DE. The only thing I can say about DE right here right now is that these things are happening. I am experiencing the computer before me, snow out the window, sounds of traffic and radiator, fingeres typing. That there are others that may call or speak to me are merely experiences as well, so there's no sepearation there as long as I am not allowing a beleif that those others are real. I could accept that right there, but this leads to a solopsism that Spira has said is simply "not our experience." [Both these comments of Spira's are from preivous readings and watchings that occurred before I started here with you---I've been obedient in not reading anything else].

Again, I'm thinking, but I can't write without thinking. My actual DE is just a bunch of experience.

Are you choosing what thoughts arise?

I don't doubt that I'm not. They don't seem to come from anything beyond a previous thought or sensory input. But, of course, it's hard to doubt volition when I start the usual exercise, along the lines of "Ok, now I'm going to think about what every I want: a duck, a duck eating a hotdog, and shaking hands with Churchill, etc . . ." Of course I know that this abusrdity arose from the thigns that were there before it (the idea of testing the idea of controlling my thoughts brought about these thoughts, ducks and Churchill available for "absurdity" because of memories and conditioning). BUT this explanation seems like "thinkng about" the issue at hand.

Regardless, the short answer is "no."