The Gate

Nina,

So can you look at the image without any thought image involved?

yes

And what is an idea? Does it tell anything about the truth?
Where does the idea come from?

an idea is a thought, and thoughts/ideas come from nowhere. it cannot tell anything about the truth, or at least, i can never know because the only the only thing that could ever 'verify' a thought is more thought, which means thought cannot be verified at all

Just look for some time aimlessly into the mirror. Just look at the shapes and colours without referring to thoughts –
and notice just what can be seen. Spend some time with it.

And then look into the mirror throughout the day; randomly and/or intentionally.
When you return to the mirror each time, consider whether these 'body colours' have ever appeared before.
Is the appearance just appearing 'now' with only a thought-story claiming you've seen this body before?

In actual experience there is just the image in the ‘now’. Anything else, including ideas about having seen it before, are just thoughts. it can never be more than that. the appearance can only ever exist in the now.

Just give all your attention to the breath.
Natural breath, as it comes in and as it goes out just naturally.
You might also be aware of the belly expanding and constricting with each breath...

thoughts appear on their own. they even develop/build upon each other on their own. at times i'd been following a train of thought for about 30 secs before before i even realised i'd become distracted. it's impossible to stop thought from appearing, it just does


Beanstalk

Dear Beanstalk,

an idea is a thought, and thoughts/ideas come from nowhere. it cannot tell anything about the truth, or at least, i can never know because the only the only thing that could ever 'verify' a thought is more thought, which means thought cannot be verified at all.

Yes, that is correct.
However is this clear by experience or is it understood by inference?

In actual experience there is just the image in the ‘now’. Anything else, including ideas about having seen it before, are just thoughts.
it can never be more than that. the appearance can only ever exist in the now.

Perfectly right.
Do you see it also like this without referring to thought?
I know, it’s difficult to put something in words without referring to thought.
I’m hitting on this because it is just too easy to intellectualize here and come to fast conclusions.


Who are you without referring to thoughts while being with an experience?

thoughts appear on their own. they even develop/build upon each other on their own. at times i'd been following a train of thought
for about 30 secs before before i even realised i'd become distracted. it's impossible to stop thought from appearing, it just does

Yes, thoughts are there like sound to the ear or vision to the eye.
These sense impressions can’t be stopped and why should they?
Who could be there to stop them…?

This exercise didn’t aim to do something with thought.

Please try it again or even better make it into a daily routine:


Give all your attention to the breath. Look really closely.
Get really in touch with it.
Stay with the in-breath until it comes to a turning point.
For a short moment it seems to stop and then only the out-breath comes.
Again it seems to stop for a little while before the new in-breath comes.
Maybe you can even notice that the incoming breath is a little cooler
and the outgoing breath slightly warmer.

Warmly

nina

Nina,

And what is an idea? Does it tell anything about the truth?
Where does the idea come from?

an idea is a thought, and thoughts/ideas come from nowhere. it cannot tell anything about the truth, or at least, i can never know because the only the only thing that could ever 'verify' a thought is more thought, which means thought cannot be verified at all.

Yes, that is correct.
However is this clear by experience or is it understood by inference?

understood by inference. looks like i got caught in the thinking trap again. i tried it again without referring to thought and came up with: an idea is thought. there is no way of knowing if it tells anything about the truth. they arise out of nowhere.

In actual experience there is just the image in the ‘now’. Anything else, including ideas about having seen it before, are just thoughts.
it can never be more than that. the appearance can only ever exist in the now.

Perfectly right.
Do you see it also like this without referring to thought?
I know, it’s difficult to put something in words without referring to thought.
I’m hitting on this because it is just too easy to intellectualize here and come to fast conclusions.

Who are you without referring to thoughts while being with an experience?

it's so much simpler without referring to thought. i tried the mirror exercise again whilst trying to avoid referring to thought and it was so obvious that the image exists in the 'now' and any ideas about seeing it 'before' could only every be thoughts.

without referring to thoughts while being with an experience i am no-one. just experience itself


I tried the meditation exercise again, this morning and tonight. i noticed that there are just sensations related to breathing, such as those labelled 'breath entering/leaving nose', 'stomach constricting/expanding' and nothing else. however i feel there is more i'm missing. i will make it into a daily routine and let you know what else i find.


Beanstalk

Dear Beanstalk

it's so much simpler without referring to thought. i tried the mirror exercise again whilst trying to avoid referring to thought and it was so obvious that the image exists in the 'now' and any ideas about seeing it 'before' could only every be thoughts.

without referring to thoughts while being with an experience i am no-one. just experience itself.

Wonderful!

I tried the meditation exercise again, this morning and tonight. i noticed that there are just sensations related to breathing, such as those labelled 'breath entering/leaving nose', 'stomach constricting/expanding' and nothing else. however i feel there is more i'm missing. i will make it into a daily routine and let you know what else i find.

Yes, it is helpful to do the exercise regularly.
While doing so you can give your attention to the sense of felt presence:

Just be the experience in the present moment.
Leave all interpretations, memories and attempts to 'do it right'.
Just be in the moment.
Feel the aliveness inside you.
Feel how you and everything you perceive is filled with aliveness.
Get deeply in touch with it.

Is it a static kind of feeling?
Is there some sort of trembling in there?
Is a history involved here?
Is there a gender?
Is there a sense of age involved?
Is it pleasant?
Is it painful?
Can it be discribed?

Warmly

nina

Nina,

Is it a static kind of feeling?

yes, there is a stillness

Is there some sort of trembling in there?

There is also a sort of trembling, which might be called the ‘aliveness’ of being e.g. blood pumping around the body, pins and needles in the feet etc

Is a history involved here?

no, there's no past

Is there a gender?

no, there cannot be a gender

Is there a sense of age involved?

no, consciousness cannot age

Is it pleasant?

it is neither pleasant nor not pleasant, it just is

Is it painful?

no

Can it be discribed?

simply, no


Beanstalk

Dear Beanstalk,


very beautiful.



Now please take some time and get in touch with the nature around you:

Go out into nature and spend some time watching the movement of the whole.
See how clouds move, trees swing, leaves wiggle, grass moves, insects, birds –
all move all the time.
Then move focus to sensations and see how they too are in constant motion,
thoughts come and go, sounds, colours, sensations come and go.
Notice that everything is part of one movement.

Then close your eyes and see if there is a line between you and out there,
between you and life itself.

If yes, where is the boundary?
Is there an inside and an outside of Life?
Is there something which is not included in the movement of the whole?
Is there a witness that is watching life happening from a distance?
Is witnessing part of the one movement too?
Is there anything which is not just happening?

Go out, come back and tell me what you found.

Warmly

nina

Nina,

I will certainly do the exercise at the next opportunity, however it currently goes dark very early where I am, meaning it's dark by the time I finish work. So I will need to wait until my next day off on Friday to go out into nature and do it properly. Apologies for this. Are there any other exercises I could do in the meantime that don't require me to go outside?

Beanstalk

Dear Beanstalk,

Ok, we can have a closer look at memory.
Past and memory go hand-in-hand as almost everybody believes that a memory thought is referring to something that has happened; that a memory thought is a different thought than a non-memory thought.

Please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it.

What is memory exactly?
What is the memory ‘made of’?

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

WHEN does the memory actually appear?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?

WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

Look at what is actually going on and not what thoughts say… but what actually is.
Warmly

nina

Nina,

What is memory exactly?

A thought accompanied by the belief that what is being thought actually happened

What is the memory ‘made of’?

Colour/image and sound

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

The belief that what is being thought ‘actually happened’

WHEN does the memory actually appear?

In the ‘now’

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

It can’t be known, it’s just a thought

What is the future thought ‘made of’?

Image/colour and sound, same as the ‘memory’

WHEN does the future thought appear?

in the 'now'

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?

If the ‘general’ thought is one involving image/sound etc, there is no difference

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

there's no way of knowing

What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?

The belief that thoughts about past relate to something that actually happened. Other than that there’s no difference

If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

Just with more thought which can’t be trusted. In the ‘memory’ thought there is a concurrent thought saying it actually happened, in the ‘future’ thought there is a concurrent thought saying it hasn’t happened yet


Beanstalk

Dear Beanstalk,

If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

Just with more thought which can’t be trusted. In the ‘memory’ thought there is a concurrent thought saying it actually happened, in the ‘future’ thought there is a concurrent thought saying it hasn’t happened yet

you are beautifully clear about memory being just thought.




As we now have the weekend, might you find time – and hopefully some daylight –

to do the nature-exercise? ( :

Please take some time and get in touch with the nature around you:

Just be the experience in the present moment.
Leave all interpretations, memories and attempts to 'do it right'.
Just be in the moment.
Feel the aliveness inside you.
Feel how you and everything you perceive is filled with aliveness.
Get deeply in touch with it.



Then go out into nature and spend some time watching the movement of the whole.
See how clouds move, trees swing, leaves wiggle, grass moves, insects, birds –
all move all the time.
Then move focus to sensations and see how they too are in constant motion,
thoughts come and go, sounds, colours, sensations come and go.
Notice that everything is part of one movement.

Then close your eyes and see if there is a line between you and out there,
between you and life itself.

If yes, where is the boundary?
Is there an inside and an outside of Life?
Is there something which is not included in the movement of the whole?
Is there a witness that is watching life happening from a distance?
Is witnessing part of the one movement too?
Is there anything which is not just happening?

Go out, come back and tell me what you found.

Warmly

nina

Nina,


This exercise was great. I loved getting into nature and just being aware of it all. I know this wasn't the intention for the exercise but I felt an overwhelming joy at just experiencing everything doing its thing. it was very rejuvenating.

Then close your eyes and see if there is a line between you and out there,
between you and life itself.

If yes, where is the boundary?

I couldn't find a boundary

Is there an inside and an outside of Life?

no, there's just life happening

Is there something which is not included in the movement of the whole?

no, it wouldn't make any sense for anything not to be included

Is there a witness that is watching life happening from a distance?

no, there's no witness and no distance. everything is immediate and occurring within 'me'

Is witnessing part of the one movement too?

no, there's no witnessing and no witnesser. everything's just happening on its own

Is there anything which is not just happening?

no, everything's just happening on its own and there's no-one to do anything. whilst contemplating this I realised breathing had been happening the whole time without 'me' putting any effort into it whatsoever. maybe this was what you meant for me to realise with the meditation exercise


Beanstalk

Dear Beanstalk,

This exercise was great. I loved getting into nature and just being aware of it all. I know this wasn't the intention for the exercise but I felt an overwhelming joy at just experiencing everything doing its thing. it was very rejuvenating.

Very beautiful! Now it’s up to you to repeat it as many times as you wish…. ( :

Then close your eyes and see if there is a line between you and out there,
between you and life itself.
If yes, where is the boundary?

I couldn't find a boundary

Very nice.

Is there an inside and an outside of Life?

no, there's just life happening

Yes, lovely.

Is there something which is not included in the movement of the whole?

no, it wouldn't make any sense for anything not to be included

Nice.

Is there a witness that is watching life happening from a distance?

no, there's no witness and no distance. everything is immediate and occurring within 'me'

In ‘me’ as just awareness?

Is witnessing part of the one movement too?

no, there's no witnessing and no witnesser. everything's just happening on its own

Lovely.

Is there anything which is not just happening?

no, everything's just happening on its own and there's no-one to do anything.
whilst contemplating this I realised breathing had been happening the whole time
without 'me' putting any effort into it whatsoever.
maybe this was what you meant for me to realise with the meditation exercise.

Yes, breathing is happening all the time mostly unnoticed, but at the same time it can be noticed or brought into awareness.
Coming in touch with it you have an easy accessible tool to just stay as ‘awareness’.


Do you have any questions left?
Something you would like to clarify?

Is there something like a separate self, has there ever been?


Warmly

nina

Nina,

Is there a witness that is watching life happening from a distance?

no, there's no witness and no distance. everything is immediate and occurring within 'me'

In ‘me’ as just awareness?

yes, just meaning there is no 'out there', only awareness

Do you have any questions left?
Something you would like to clarify?

This question keeps popping up: There’s clearly no me to be found in direct experience, but what if there is a me that is not within direct experience? A 'soul' for example? When I look, though, that idea doesn’t make any sense - how could ‘me’ be something that ‘I’m’ not even aware of? How could a ‘me’ outside DE be the 'do-er' if I’m not even aware I’m doing it? Every time the question of a ‘me’ outside DE comes up, I look into it again and immediately see how ridiculous it is, yet it just keeps on popping up and I'm not sure why


I'm definitely getting closer, and if I stop doing everything and just allow myself to be there’s always a moment where I feel it – just everything as it is with no-one actually there at all, but then it fizzles away. I can see there is no 'me' to be found anywhere but it's like I'm still not fully 'getting it' for some reason. When I look at something, for example, it still feels like there is a 'me' looking at it from the centre of experience. And even if there is no ‘me’, isn’t there still a centre of experience? Somewhere where experience originates?


Also, I'm struggling with the idea that what can be seen, smelled, tasted, heard, felt and thought are all one. Even if there’s no ‘me’ involved, isn’t there a clear separation between these forms of experience, simply because they are all so different?

Is there something like a separate self, has there ever been?

Whenever I look, there isn't, and in general I'm pretty sure now that there is no separate self. but for some reason it still 'feels' like there is


Beanstalk

Dear Beanstalk,

This question keeps popping up: There’s clearly no me to be found in direct experience, but what if there is a me that is not within direct experience? A 'soul' for example? When I look, though, that idea doesn’t make any sense - how could ‘me’ be something that ‘I’m’ not even aware of? How could a ‘me’ outside DE be the 'do-er' if I’m not even aware I’m doing it? Every time the question of a ‘me’ outside DE comes up, I look into it again and immediately see how ridiculous it is, yet it just
keeps on popping up and I'm not sure why

This is pretty normal. There is quite a persistent momentum in the believe of an ‘I’.
Just continue looking again and again and try to verify.
Do not get trapped here. ( :

I'm definitely getting closer, and if I stop doing everything and just allow myself to be there’s always a moment where I feel it – just everything as it is with no-one actually there at all, but then it fizzles away. I can see there is no 'me' to be found anywhere but it's like I'm still not fully 'getting it' for some reason. When I look at something, for example, it still feels like there is a 'me' looking at it from the centre of experience. And even if there is no ‘me’, isn’t there still a centre of experience? Somewhere where experience originates?

Yes, a very good question.
Just think for a while being a newborn baby.
Or maybe you might have seen a baby recently – anyway.
Does the baby know anything about being a baby?
Does it know anything about the parents?
Does it know anything about its gender?
Now let us say the parents decide to call the baby John or Mary.
Does the term have any meaning to the child?

When it hears the name John, does it resonate?
How does this baby perceive through its senses?
Where or how does the experience originate?
Is it happening to a centre, or is the experience just the experience?

yes, just meaning there is no 'out there', only awareness

Here you give the answer.


After some time the child gets used to its name.
Someone might call ‘JOHN!’ while the child is half sleeping and some reaction might happen.
If someone calls ‘JONATHAN’ the child would not feel addressed.

Is this happening due to a ‘me’ who is resonating with the given name?
Or is it just a leaned pattern?

Also, I'm struggling with the idea that what can be seen, smelled, tasted, heard, felt and thought are all one. Even if there’s no ‘me’ involved, isn’t there a clear separation between these forms of experience, simply because they are all so different?

Yes, they are all separate.
Yet, at the same time they can be experienced together.
Look at it like many different colours in a picture.
The colours are all separate and at the same time all one within the picture.

Is there something like a separate self, has there ever been?

Whenever I look, there isn't, and in general I'm pretty sure now that there is no separate self. but for some reason it still 'feels' like there is

Whenever you notice the ‘feeling of the self’ just replace the term by ‘appearing as a self’.
Do you notice the difference?
Question all your believes and assumptions.

Even when it is clearly seen that the separate self is nothing but a unquestioned conviction there are
still lots of believes residing in the backyard.
Notice all those the believes, uncover them.
Look the tiger right into the eye.
Once seen and noticed the old believes cannot stay.
Once one is seen, another one might pop up, then again, look at it.

Stay with the sensation accompanied therewith.
When this is done deliberately you might even trace the hidden core believe.
Something like: ‘I’m not worthy of love’ , or ‘I’m different’ etc.

Just look at all this.
And keep on questioning:
Is it true?
Is it really true?

Warmly

nina

Nina,

Does the baby know anything about being a baby?
Does it know anything about the parents?
Does it know anything about its gender?
Now let us say the parents decide to call the baby John or Mary.
Does the term have any meaning to the child?

When it hears the name John, does it resonate?
How does this baby perceive through its senses?
Where or how does the experience originate?
Is it happening to a centre, or is the experience just the experience?

no, the baby doesn't know anything at all - not of itself, its parents, or its gender. The name wouldn't mean anything and wouldn't resonate at first. The baby doesn't really 'do' any perceiving because it doesn't know how to do anything, the experiencing is just happening on its own. The experience doesn't originate from a centre, it just appears wherever it appears. However when I look at my own experience it still feels like the 'seeing' begins where the eyes are. I don't mean to get too theoretical, but if some things can be further away than others doesn't that mean there has to be a centre/point of origination? But when I try to pinpoint the exact place where 'seeing' originates, I just can't. Anything that comes up, like 'it's where the eyes are', is just a thought.

After some time the child gets used to its name.
Someone might call ‘JOHN!’ while the child is half sleeping and some reaction might happen.
If someone calls ‘JONATHAN’ the child would not feel addressed.

Is this happening due to a ‘me’ who is resonating with the given name?
Or is it just a leaned pattern?

just a learned pattern/reaction

Whenever you notice the ‘feeling of the self’ just replace the term by ‘appearing as a self’.
Do you notice the difference?

yes, a small but noticeable sense of detachment occurs. I'll continue to refer to it this way

Even when it is clearly seen that the separate self is nothing but a unquestioned conviction there are
still lots of believes residing in the backyard.
Notice all those the believes, uncover them.
Look the tiger right into the eye.
Once seen and noticed the old believes cannot stay.
Once one is seen, another one might pop up, then again, look at it.

Okay, i'll do this. when doing so, am i supposed to think/reason my way through beliefs, or instead focus on DE and see what is really there, like we have been doing here? because i believe when i did this previously i thought too much and it didn't really feel like i was seeing through any beliefs at all


Beanstalk