The Gate

Hi Bert

Great to see you are wanting this and I will be delighted to check in again everyday. I appreciate it isn't always possible to post each and every single day so if there are times you are unable to please don't become anxious. As long as we have consistency we can get this.

I think a good place to continue is to develop Shell's last question:

Please tell me in your own words (not something you may have read or been told) what you believe direct experience is and how it works - also mention where any confusion lies.

Once I’ve got your answer we can see what needs to be developed further in order to move forward.

Chris

Hi Chris,

The weird thing is, when I try to find out what direct experience is, I find that everything is direct experience. I don't know anything outside of direct experience. The only thing I can find that is not direct experience is the content of thought. Thoughts point to fictional events in the future, to concepts, to past experience. But the thoughts are experienced.

Bert

Hi Bert

The weird thing is, when I try to find out what direct experience is, I find that everything is direct experience. I don't know anything outside of direct experience. The only thing I can find that is not direct experience is the content of thought. Thoughts point to fictional events in the future, to concepts, to past experience. But the thoughts are experienced.

Thanks for that Bert, I know what you are saying but to explore this a little further please answer the following:

So, if, as you say, everything is direct experience that must mean there isn’t anything (apart from the content of thought) that isn’t directly experienced. Is this the case?

Can you give me a couple of examples of what direct experience is and how it works?

What role do thoughts play in direct experiencing?

Chris

Hi Chris,

So, if, as you say, everything is direct experience that must mean there isn’t anything (apart from the content of thought) that isn’t directly experienced. Is this the case?

Well, everything I know is 'made' from direct experience. I am not completely sure if things exist outside my direct experience. For example, a physical object; I see the object. I then turn around. I can't see the object then, it is just a conceptual object. I then look back at the object and I see it again. Did this object exist on it's own, outside my direct experience, or is it 'made' from direct experience?

Can you give me a couple of examples of what direct experience is and how it works?

Sensations experienced in consciousness. Images, sounds, thoughts, feelings.
I don't know how this works. I believe they are perceived by my consciousness. There is a world and this world created my body and my consciousness with it. Then there are stimuli from this world that are perceived by the body and experienced by this consciousness living in my brain.

What role do thoughts play in direct experiencing?

Thoughts label direct experiences. Thought is like a sports commentator telling what is happening, why it is happening, what will happen next, what happened before. Thought is also judging, this is good, this is not good, change this, make sure it doesn't happen again.

Bert

Hi Bert

Thank you for your answers they are very clear and allow me the understanding I was looking for.

Well, everything I know is 'made' from direct experience. I am not completely sure if things exist outside my direct experience. For example, a physical object; I see the object. I then turn around. I can't see the object then, it is just a conceptual object. I then look back at the object and I see it again. Did this object exist on it's own, outside my direct experience, or is it 'made' from direct experience?

Although this is a philosophical debate in its own right it isn’t a necessary consideration in what we are doing.

Sensations experienced in consciousness. Images, sounds, thoughts, feelings.
I don't know how this works. I believe they are perceived by my consciousness. There is a world and this world created my body and my consciousness with it. Then there are stimuli from this world that are perceived by the body and yoexperienced by this consciousness living in my brain.

If “this world” created your body and your consciousness (the “consciousness living in your brain”) then who or what are you that these things belong to?

Thoughts label direct experiences. Thought is like a sports commentator telling what is happening, why it is happening, what will happen next, what happened before. Thought is also judging, this is good, this is not good, change this, make sure it doesn't happen again.

Now that is a better appreciation of what direct experience is, that is: when you see or hear something, it doesn’t matter what it may be, then any thought that accompanies this immediately ends the direct experience.

So if you were you look at a tree and not one single thought comes to mind then you are directly experiencing that tree. If you think or say “that is a tree”, then you have added a concept and that is no longer direct experience. And, as you say, any commentary is taking away direct experience.

So, what is the point of all this? Well, who you or anyone believes themselves to be is the concepts born out of language, conditioning, learning etc. But this is not the case.

I won’t go any further into this as the idea is for you to explore for yourself in order to see that the ‘I’ doesn’t exist.


Look at direct experience again in light of what you have answered and compare the difference in your first sentence –“Well, everything I know is 'made' from direct experience” with what you say in your last paragraph which says what prevents direct experience.

You already know you are not your thoughts and not your body and not even your “consciousness” as you say they belong to you. So who is this entity you refer to as ‘I ’or ‘me’?

If you need any clarification on any of this before you are able to answer then please ask.

Chris

Hi Chris,

If “this world” created your body and your consciousness (the “consciousness living in your brain”) then who or what are you that these things belong to?

It feels like this I is this consciousness in my brain. My brain creates the perceiver. I am this perceiver.

You already know you are not your thoughts and not your body and not even your “consciousness” as you say they belong to you. So who is this entity you refer to as ‘I ’or ‘me’?

I beleive that I am this entity of consciousness that is created by the activity of brain.

Bert

Hi Bert

It feels like this I is this consciousness in my brain. My brain creates the perceiver. I am this perceiver.
I beleive that I am this entity of consciousness that is created by the activity of brain

What we are looking to show here is the ‘I’ doesn’t exist in any way, shape or form. BUT what you FEEL is that the ‘I’ is the consciousness CREATED by your brain. AND your brain creates the perceiver which YOU are.

So how can this be?

Who does the brain belong to/who knows about the existence of the brain and claims it as MY brain?

Who knows about the existence of the consciousness?

If you are “this perceiver” then who is aware of the perceiver?

Bert, please give these questions some careful thought and consideration before answering. There is no rush to get the answers back as the reflection on them is very important. So if it means you can’t answer them today then that’s fine. The inner reflection and enquiry is paramount here.

Chris

Hi Chris

Who does the brain belong to/who knows about the existence of the brain and claims it as MY brain?

Who knows about the existence of the consciousness?

If you are “this perceiver” then who is aware of the perceiver?

The only answer I can come up with for now is that this consciousness is self aware. This answer just feels very intellectual, it doesn't feel like I have seen that this is the truth.

Bert, please give these questions some careful thought and consideration before answering. There is no rush to get the answers back as the reflection on them is very important. So if it means you can’t answer them today then that’s fine. The inner reflection and enquiry is paramount here.

I am still trying to see the truth of this. The current answer to this question is not satisfying. I have put time and effort in this, but apparently not enough.

Bert

Hi Chris,

Just checking in. Letting you know I'm still on this. I'm trying hard to answer you questions, but I cannot find any answers.

Bert

Hi Bert

Thanks you for giving this some consideration and you are right not to make this intellectual.

The point of this was to show how brilliant the mind is of creating and maintaining the illusion on an ‘I’.

What I was wanting you to see is that if the brain creates consciousness then the ‘I’ can’t be the brain. And neither can the ‘consciousness be the ‘I’ because the brain (which isn’t the ‘I’ created it. Same goes with the perceiver.
Remember the ‘I’ is a convenient concept, and we need this concept to navigate the world and make sense of everything. But it isn’t reality. We may call an oak tree an oak tree, but it isn’t really an oak tree, that is just a name we have given it to make understanding easier.

When you were first born and in the early stages of your life an ‘I’ didn’t exist within you. This was created by language, by conditioning, by education, by your surroundings, that is, you were repeatedly taught that you were an individual and that such-and-such was ‘mine’ belonged to ‘me’ etc.

You are a biological feedback system so any experience you have is fed back through your incredible central nervous system and neurological pathways of the brain. This leaves you feeling there’s an individual ‘you’/ ‘I’ that this is happening to, but as you know, the ‘I’ cannot be located within you as a controller/manager of the person we call bert.

In direct experiencing (where no thoughts, concepts, labels judgments, etc. exist at all) there is also no ‘I’ having the direct experience, although there is an individual experience, there is no individual ‘I’ having an experience. The ‘I’ only appears after these other things (thoughts, concepts etc.) come back in again, which is usually immediately.

I’ll just send this for now for you to read and see what you make of it. It may actually cause you even more confusion rather than lessen it, but don’t worry if that’s the case. Let me know what you think and we can develop any areas that need to be developed.

Just to recap, it is true an intellectual understanding isn’t any good after the initial stages and by further contemplation I am hoping it will ‘click’ into place foe you so that you will ‘know’ and will have seen for yourself that the ‘I’ is an illusion.

Chris

Hi Chris,

Thank you for your post. I'm working on it right now. I will post again soon.

Bert

Hi Chris,

....and you are right not to make this intellectual.

I'm completely convinced that intellectual answers to these questions will never satisfy.

What I was wanting you to see is that if the brain creates consciousness then the ‘I’ can’t be the brain. And neither can the ‘consciousness be the ‘I’ because the brain (which isn’t the ‘I’ created it. Same goes with the perceiver.

I don't understand what you are saying here. I get the first part; if the brain creates the 'I' then the brain can't be the 'I'. But I can't figure out what you mean in the second part.

Remember the ‘I’ is a convenient concept, and we need this concept to navigate the world and make sense of everything. But it isn’t reality. We may call an oak tree an oak tree, but it isn’t really an oak tree, that is just a name we have given it to make understanding easier.

I believe I understand this. Words are just labels. They point to things, but they can never capture the essence of what they are pointing to.

In direct experiencing (where no thoughts, concepts, labels judgments, etc. exist at all) there is also no ‘I’ having the direct experience, although there is an individual experience, there is no individual ‘I’ having an experience. The ‘I’ only appears after these other things (thoughts, concepts etc.) come back in again, which is usually immediately.

I can see that the 'I' is a concept, a concept that is used in a story after some direct experience(s). However the concept of the perceiver (the one that these experiences happen to) feels very real.

Bert

Hi Bert

I don't understand what you are saying here. I get the first part; if the brain creates the 'I' then the brain can't be the 'I'. But I can't figure out what you mean in the second part.

Because the brain isn’t the ‘I’, the individual manager/controller then nor can it create the ‘I’. What the brain does is act like a “hard drive” for running programmes it creates that feeling you get of there actually being a separate entity. But it isn’t an entity it’s a combination of programmes, learning, genetics, conditioning etc. that has in-built self-referral – self-awareness.

I can see that the 'I' is a concept, a concept that is used in a story after some direct experience(s). However the concept of the perceiver (the one that these experiences happen to) feels very real.

Yes I agree it does FEEL very real, otherwise there would be no illusion to break through. What isn’t real though is a separate, individual, entity that controls and managers you. The ‘I’, is not real, the feeling of there being an ‘I’ is real, but no ‘I’ can be found to actually exist.


Does this make more sense and are you able to find the ‘I’ other than in that described?

Chris

Hi Chris,

Because the brain isn’t the ‘I’, the individual manager/controller then nor can it create the ‘I’. What the brain does is act like a “hard drive” for running programmes it creates that feeling you get of there actually being a separate entity. But it isn’t an entity it’s a combination of programmes, learning, genetics, conditioning etc. that has in-built self-referral – self-awareness.

But I am only conscious of the programs that are running in Bert's brain, not the programs that run inside other brains. That makes me feel like I live inside Bert.

Yes I agree it does FEEL very real, otherwise there would be no illusion to break through. What isn’t real though is a separate, individual, entity that controls and managers you. The ‘I’, is not real, the feeling of there being an ‘I’ is real, but no ‘I’ can be found to actually exist.

I cannot find a manager inside me. It still feels very intellectual, but when I focus on it and search for the controller I must admit it is not there.

Does this make more sense and are you able to find the ‘I’ other than in that described?

It feels like I can't find the controller-'I', but I can still find the perceiver-'I' (see answers above).

Bert

Hi Bert

But I am only conscious of the programs that are running in Bert's brain, not the programs that run inside other brains. That makes me feel like I live inside Bert.

Yes, that’s true, but remember, we’re not saying there is no feeling of individuality, the human being is designed to feel this way. The function of the ego is to perpetuate the illusion. And, as I said, you are a biological ‘machine’ that has the inbuilt intelligence and capacity for self-referral. Even a modern washing machine has the capacity to ‘know’ when it has a malfunction, and display the appropriate code to let the owner/engineer know what the fault is.

So yes, if Bert stubs his toe on a piece of furniture then only Bert can feel the consequent pain and only Bert can form a direct memory of this experience. However, the reason Bert can do this is down to biological functioning. So, for this to happen you must, of course, first of all have a toe to stub, and you must have the necessary nerve endings to send the electrical impulses to register in an appropriate receptor in your brain. Now, if you were given a local anaesthetic in your toe then stubbed it, you wouldn’t feel the pain – because there is no ‘you’ as an individual entity to feel the pain, a pain inhibitor can be given to block the biological signal.

The essential point to all the verbiage is to say there is no ‘I’ needed for this to happen to, nor indeed is there an ‘I’ that this can happens to.

I cannot find a manager inside me. It still feels very intellectual, but when I focus on it and search for the controller I must admit it is not there.

Excellent, and you never will find a controller…because there isn’t one to be found.

It feels like I can't find the controller-'I', but I can still find the perceiver-'I' (see answers above).

WHO is it that "finds" the perceiver if the perceiver is the 'I''?

I would say you do not find a perceiver, rather, there is awareness, but this is not an ‘I’. If the perceiver was the ‘I’, that is, a separate individual entity that controls and manages the person known as Bert, then it would watch you sleep…you would witness yourself in deep sleep…but you don’t and can’t.


As a recap of expectations and our aim what we are looking for at this stage of liberation, is only to show there is no ‘I’ that exists in reality in any way shape or form. We are not looking here for any fireworks, any sudden explosions of enlightenment that will change who you are. We just need you to know and see for yourself there is no ‘I’, ‘me’ that exists. Once you have done this then you have entered the stream of awakening and can develop and deepen this further.

Let me know if this helps in any way, but beware the ego which will come in always with counter arguments as it fears it will be denied and lost by such enquiry and its job is to fight for survival.

Chris