The Gate

Thread Title (full)
Intellectual seeker tired of seeking, burdened by 'knowledge', fed up with delusion, desires truth and an inner knowing that can only come from first-hand experience. Then I'm done.

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
As an intellectual concept, I understand that what we refer to as a 'self' is illusory in nature. As babies, we had no concept of separation from our parents or the world around us until we were taught about this 'self' we supposedly are. Our identity with this false self has been reinforced over time as has our perceived disconnect from others.

What are you looking for at LU?
I need to know truth with a certainty that is beyond any conceivable doubt and with a sense of finality that renders any further seeking futile and surplus to requirement. I hope that with the right guidance, my efforts can be channeled more effectively to achieve this goal without distractions resulting from ego or delusion.
What do you expect from a guided conversation? Someone who is able to ask the right questions to take me out of my head and into first-hand experience, challenging me whenever ego-based delusion (perceived or otherwise) is masquerading as progress. This is the only way I can ever hope to know truth so I'm not precious about being called out (tactfully or directly) should the need arise - there's simply too much at stake and I have no desire to waste anyone's time, not least the people who give theirs so generously as LU guides.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
As a self-confessed Intellectual Seeker, much of my spiritual journey has been an accumulation of 'knowledge about' rather than 'knowing' so I won't flatter myself by calling it 'experience'. While I'm immensely grateful to the masters and guides I've encountered on each carriage of the 'spiritual train' (and don't doubt their sincerity or truth contained in their teachings), none were able to convey truth in a way I fully understood that resonated deeply in my personal experience. Here are some teachings I've gone back and forth between over the last 20 years, most of which offered momentary inspiration but nothing definite and final, so a (reluctant) seeker I remained:

Teachers and Guides: Hazrat Inayat Khan, Stylianos Atteshlis, Rudolf Steiner, Osho, Eckhardt, Tolle, Krishnamurti, Bob Frissell, Drunvalo Melchizedek, too many others to mention

Practices: Heart Rhythm Meditation, Vipassana Meditation, Meta Meditation

While I was almost ready to give up seeking altogether (having a daughter was a convenient distraction from spiritual matters), there have been some developments over the past few months which have reignited my desire to have another go. These events led me here so I feel they warrant an explanation:

- Using Sam Harris's Waking Up app, I was able to experience non-duality based meditation for the first time (beyond an intellectual construct). Sam was able to conceptualise what it means to meditate in words I understood and challenged me to question the existence of self through conscious enquiry, rather than theoretical speculation.

- Through Sam Harris, I learnt about Douglas Harding, Richard Lang and the Headless Way. While I've come to despise books and the accumulation of 'dead' knowledge in the pursuit of truth, 'On Having No Head' may turn out to be the one that changed my life, or at least pointed me in the right direction (time will tell). Douglas's experiments were simple and enabled me to experience non-duality awareness at a deeper level. While these moments were fleeting at first, they are gradually getting longer with further practice.

- On Richard Lang's recommendation, I also read 'The Book on the Taboo against knowing who you are' by Alan Watts. This was incredibly powerful and answered a number of questions preventing me from seeing beyond our tangible separateness to the oneness behind it. Some residual questions still remain (that's why I'm here!) but far less than before I read this book.

- I learned about Direct pointing (through Jackson Peterson and Dzogchen teachings on YouTube) and found they complemented Douglas Harding's experiments by focusing on direct experience through intellectual enquiry.

- YouTube algorithms being what they are, it wasn't long until Elena showed up on my daily feed and I'm so glad she did! I read 'Buddha on a Bull' immediately and it resonated with me deeply. Through Elena's website, I discovered the LU movement and having watched and read the various accounts from Elena, Ilona, Lisa and other LU guides, you all share that same inner peace and certainty that only truth can bring. I want this same certainty so that's why I'm here.

- Taking inspiration from Elena's journey in Buddha on a Bull, I recently read Jed McKenna and only wish I'd done so 20 years ago. I found it incredibly liberating, particularly his emphasis on the importance of un-learning redundant 'knowledge' until only the truth remains.

As someone who has accumulated more than their fair share of spiritual 'wisdom' in the futile pursuit of truth, I share all of the above not as trophies in a cabinet but superfluous crap that needs to be cleared away. My only dilemma is being able to discern the 'real crap' without throwing out the truth by mistake!

This is where I'd be grateful for the support of an LU guide to navigate through the minefield that remains and push me over the edge if needed.

I just want to be done.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?
11

Hi,

Welcome to Liberation Unleashed. My name is Vivien and I can assist you with your inquiry.

This is going to be your inquiry. I will not be giving you new ideas and beliefs; only assisting you in examining and questioning the ones that you already have. We can have a conversation and see where it takes you.

The purpose of which would be for there to be a realisation, more than just intellectually, that there never was and never will be a separate self, as, such. All our efforts will focus on that.

I will tend to ask many questions. That's my job here. These, will be pointers towards no self. It will be for you to examine your experience to find out what's true or not.

I would like to ask you to write only from your experience as you see it, what feels true, with whole honesty.
And also post daily. If you cannot post, or need more time, please let me know.
Can we agree on these?

Could you please tell me what are you really looking for? How would your life change if you find that?
What are you hoping for to change?
What do you hope that should happen?
Do you have an image in mind how seeing through the self-illusion would be like or feel like?

Vivien

Welcome to Liberation Unleashed. My name is Vivien and I can assist you with your inquiry.

Nice to meet you Vivien, my name is Tom. Thank you for responding so quickly and agreeing to take me on.

I would like to ask you to write only from your experience as you see it, what feels true, with whole honesty.
And also post daily. If you cannot post, or need more time, please let me know.
Can we agree on these?

Yes we can. While I intend to post every day, what is the best way to contact you if I need more time to respond to specific questions?

Could you please tell me what are you really looking for?

I am looking for absolute truth - whatever shape or form that takes - and the feeling of certainty that comes with experiencing that truth beyond any conceivable doubt.

How would your life change if you find that?

I would live from a place of genuine acceptance for things as they really are rather than how they should be and become less resistant to life's setbacks and adversities which would have caused considerable distress in the past.

What are you hoping for to change?

I hope this would bring about a new perspective to experience reality (whatever that may be) free from the illusion of separation and identification with my own thoughts. With any luck, it would also help to make sense of other questions regarding the nature of our existence that would bring all seeking to an end.

What do you hope that should happen?

I bring no expectations this time around as to what should or shouldn't be. My only hope is that once seen, I will know it to be truth and won't be able to convince myself otherwise. I have heard that some people have a really good laugh at the absurdity of what they missed once they find it, I would love to be one of those people :)

Do you have an image in mind how seeing through the self-illusion would be like or feel like?

Years ago, I would've imagined being in a constant state of euphoria, immune to earthly suffering and the trappings of ego and self-delusion. Nowadays, I believe awakening is more about a change in perspective and gradual revealing of reality as and when I start to live from this new place of consciousness.

Hi Tom,

While I intend to post every day, what is the best way to contact you if I need more time to respond to specific questions?

Just post here, on this thread.

Thank you for getting through these questions about expectations. It’s important, because every expectation is in a way of seeing what is here, right now.

Every expectation is a ‘hindrance’ in realizing what IS. Expectations result in comparison. Comparison between what is happening, and the imagined expectation. Thus what has been seen can be thrown out or ignored, since it doesn’t match the expected outcome.

I am looking for absolute truth - whatever shape or form that takes - and the feeling of certainty that comes with experiencing that truth beyond any conceivable doubt.

Yes, our aim will be to be able to see that the self or you is not a real entity, it’s a concept, nothing else. And to see this without any doubt. However, it doesn’t mean that there will be an absolute knowing the truth of everything.

It’s important to mention that seeing through the self illusion is just the first step, just the beginning and not the end.

I would live from a place of genuine acceptance for things as they really are rather than how they should be and become less resistant to life's setbacks and adversities which would have caused considerable distress in the past.

“I would live from a place of genuine acceptance…” – what if there is no you whatsoever, who is living life, and as the result of this inquiry could live from a different place?

What if seeing no self means seeing that there is literally nothing living life? That life just happens, but to no one?

Seeing through the self is not equal with no resistance and thus a continuous acceptance of how things show up.
Realising no self does not mean resistance is off. It means seeing that resistance is too part of life, and it is happening.

When there is resistance or any form of distress, it’s not just because there is a belief in a self. Distress and unpleasant emotions happen when certain stimuli poke or touch our ‘wounds inside’. Those wounds are not a person/self. The self is just an added on narrative.

And the personality stays almost completely intact when the self is seen through. All the conditionings from childhood, all the traumas, all the gathered emotional pains won’t dissolve in an instant just because the self is seen through. These most likely will stay, however, they are much more accessible and easier to work with after seeing through the illusion. This is just the first step, just the beginning, and not the end. The falling away of conditioning can last at the end of the organism.

I hope this would bring about a new perspective to experience reality (whatever that may be) free from the illusion of separation and identification with my own thoughts.

And what if thoughts are not yours? What if there is no owner of thoughts at all? What if thoughts are just happening on their own, effortlessly, just as digestion is just happening?

I have heard that some people have a really good laugh at the absurdity of what they missed once they find it, I would love to be one of those people :)

Some people laugh, some don’t. It’s different for everyone. The thing is that it cannot know in advance how it will be. Why? Because all expectations come on behalf of a separate self, who is always in a search for peace, happiness, lack of fear and suffering. We simply cannot imagine it, since we cannot step outside form the separate self’s perspective. We can only imagine within the dream of me. The illusionary me is simply unable to imagine how it would be if it were discovered to be just a fictional character, and not a reality. It can only imagine what it wants for itself.

Years ago, I would've imagined being in a constant state of euphoria, immune to earthly suffering and the trappings of ego and self-delusion.

It’s definitely not a constant state of euphoria, that’s for sure.
Happiness or peace is a state, and no states are permanent, they are all subject to change. Seeing through the separate individual is not about not having any ‘bad’ or uncomfortable feelings any more. Rather it’s about seeing that emotions don’t belong to anything. They are free floating without being tied to or anchored to anything.

Many seekers believe that seeing through the separate individual is a completely different state that they are currently having, with some special qualities (happiness, bliss, constant peace or whatever). However, this is not the case. Seeing through the illusion that there is a separate entity (self) is not a state. When it is SEEN it, the knowledge becomes factual. Many seekers have the impression that seeing there is no self is a state to ‘abide in’. It's not.

Nowadays, I believe awakening is more about a change in perspective and gradual revealing of reality as and when I start to live from this new place of consciousness.

But what if there is no you at all, who could live from a new place of consciousness? What if the one that wants this, IS the illusionary self itself?

Please ponder on my comments to see your expectations from a different perspective. Because what I can say for sure, it won’t be how you imagine it to be. Since it cannot be known in advance. It’s never how one imagines it to be.

So it would be the best, if you could drop all your expectations, and just to be a clean slate.

Please, put all the books and videos aside, we are going to be focusing on what you see, rather than what you have learned. Can we agree on this?

Before starting, please read my above comments carefully a few more times and tell me what comes up by reading the comments about the expectations.
Is there any resistance to any of it?

Do you feel ready to start the investigation?

Vivien

So it would be the best, if you could drop all your expectations, and just to be a clean slate.

Thank you Vivien for bringing to light these expectations I was previously unaware of. Reading back through 'my' responses to your questions, you have highlighted clear examples of thoughts, feelings and actions ('living') being appropriated by a 'self' on the assumption it already exists. Your explanation of how expectations arise and why they are a hindrance to realizing 'what is' makes a lot of sense so will be more cognizant of this in future.

Please, put all the books and videos aside, we are going to be focusing on what you see, rather than what you have learned. Can we agree on this?

Yes we can, I'm also refraining from reading other threads for this reason.

Before starting, please read my above comments carefully a few more times and tell me what comes up by reading the comments about the expectations.

The main thing which comes up reading your comments is that my expectations are predicated on an 'I' being around to experience 'no-self' and how that 'I' will feel, think and act when it happens. This is oxymoronic by definition - entertaining the existence of a self (intentionally or otherwise) will only reinforce the illusion of self and my attachment to it.

Is there any resistance to any of it?

Very little actually. What little resistance there is relates to the nature of thought, which you touch on below...

And what if thoughts are not yours? What if there is no owner of thoughts at all? What if thoughts are just happening on their own, effortlessly, just as digestion is just happening?

I accept all of the above - in particular, thoughts just 'happening' (rather than being orchestrated by a thinker) explains the random appearance of thoughts in our head and how futile our attempts are to control thinking (e.g. replacing 'bad' thoughts with good).

The only question I have struggled to get beyond is the nature of ideas, in particular those ideas which 'come up' as solutions to specific individual challenges in our subjective experience. By way of example, my job (just like everyone else's) requires me to 'come up with' ideas to solve problems of a specific nature as they relate to my (narrow) area of expertise. If thought just 'happens' on its own, what else is going on to (a) inspire the perfect idea as a solution for this very specific problem (of no interest to anyone else) and (b) extract this one idea from the 'sea' of random thought and miraculously transport it to the localized expression of life called 'Tom' exactly when it is needed? I can definitely believe that 'I' falsely appropriate these ideas once they arise but the question is, how do they get to 'me' in the first place? If there's any way I can investigate this further in direct experience, please let me know :)

Do you feel ready to start the investigation?

Yes Vivien, I feel ready thanks.

Being mindful of the pitfalls of language and how it could potentially undermine our progress (particularly usage of 'you', 'me' and 'I' when referring to direct experience), do you have any suggestions on how to use pronouns in our correspondence so their context is understood? Alternately, if there are some basic ground rules or assumptions we could establish, that would be helpful!

Hi Tom,

Being mindful of the pitfalls of language and how it could potentially undermine our progress (particularly usage of 'you', 'me' and 'I' when referring to direct experience), do you have any suggestions on how to use pronouns in our correspondence so their context is understood? Alternately, if there are some basic ground rules or assumptions we could establish, that would be helpful!

Good point. Please always write in a way the FEELS the truest for you in that moment. Never try to intentionally leave out the words of I/me/my/mine, that won’t help. That would just give more confusion and a false impression that you can seem something, while actually not.

And since it’s an experiential investigation, it’s very important that you don’t write what you can understand intellectually. Please always write what you can SEE experientially in the moment of writing it.

So in this sense it’s very important that you communicate what you can see and what you can’t as clearly as you can, since there is only your written words I can work with and respond to.

So if in any moment if FEELS that ‘I am the thinker’, but you understand that there is no thinker, then please tell me that you are just intellectually understanding it, but not actually seeing it experience.

I hope this explanation helps.

I accept all of the above - in particular, thoughts just 'happening'

The thing is that accepting it not enough. We have to go much further than that. This is something what you have to see as a first-hand experience.

The only question I have struggled to get beyond is the nature of ideas, in particular those ideas which 'come up' as solutions to specific individual challenges in our subjective experience. By way of example, my job (just like everyone else's) requires me to 'come up with' ideas to solve problems of a specific nature as they relate to my (narrow) area of expertise. If thought just 'happens' on its own, what else is going on to (a) inspire the perfect idea as a solution for this very specific problem (of no interest to anyone else) and (b) extract this one idea from the 'sea' of random thought and miraculously transport it to the localized expression of life called 'Tom' exactly when it is needed? I can definitely believe that 'I' falsely appropriate these ideas once they arise but the question is, how do they get to 'me' in the first place? If there's any way I can investigate this further in direct experience, please let me know :)

The thing is that this is a thought-based, intellectual question, and any answer could be only just intellectual. Any answer would be a theory or speculation only.

But you will see that this inquiry is doing the opposite. No amount of theory, thinking, analizing or speculating will make you see the simplicity of experience as it is, here now.

So I understand that you have some questions that you are eager to get an answer to them, but please put them aside. Your questions will be ‘answered’ by you own experiential seeing.

You might not going to like what I’m about to say, but your intellect is not needed.
It’s actually in the way. The intellect is utterly useless in this inquiry. You don’t need it. Put it aside.

This investigation will be very simple. You won’t need your intellect to figure out anything.

We are only ever looking for experiential facts of reality, but NOT intellectual knowledge about reality.

We are going to strip away as much intellectualization as possible. We are going down to bare bones. To the simplest simplicity.

Intellectual understanding is what moves the needle the wrong way on the dial. We're going to move it back to the simplest position possible.

You have to look at each questions with the eyes of a little child, who has no intellectual knowledge about how things work.

I will at times ask things repeatedly, or in very simple language. If that happens, trust the process as it's meant to stop the intellectualizing an allow exploration of the experiential.

This is very simple. I cannot emphasize the simplicity enough, actually. Have you heard phrases like, "It's right here" or "It's so simple"? It's a good idea to take that very literally.

So let’s start with very simple exercises. The aim is to see the difference between experience (reality) and thoughts (fiction).

Do you drink coffee or tea? Next time when you drink it, please investigate what is the difference between thinking about coffee and experiencing the coffee.

Is it possible to look at the coffee without thinking “this is a coffee, and I’m going to drink it”? Is it possible to EXPERIENCE it only by looking at it and SEEING it without thinking about it?

And when you take a sip, is it possible to just FEEL the warmth of it, without analysing and thinking why it’s warm, and how long will it stay warm?

And is it possible just to experience the TASTE of it, without analysing it, or thinking how bitter it is, or whether it needs some sweetener or not?

Is it possible to EXPERIENCE the SMELL of the coffee, without thinking “this smell reminds me of his or that”?

I would like to ask you to really try this out in reality, and not just think it through. In other words, not just think about it.
But of course, thoughts about it might happen! But that’s all right. You just ignore the thoughts, and you turn your attention to experiencing.

Do you see, I’m asking you the same thing: not just to think it through what I wrote above, but actually do it in experience. Do you see the difference?

This difference will be the basis of our investigation.

You cannot experience (see, feel, taste, smell) the coffee by thinking. You literally have to experience it.

Do you see clearly the difference between thinking and experiencing?

Please experiment throughout the day with all sorts of things. Like having dinner, washing your hands, going up a staircase, ect.
Let me know what you find.

Vivien

Please always write in a way the FEELS the truest for you in that moment. Never try to intentionally leave out the words of I/me/my/mine, that won’t help. That would just give more confusion and a false impression that you can seem something, while actually not.

Thank you Vivien, understood. This was coming up quite a bit and attempts to avoid using I/me/my/mine at this early stage of investigation feel forced and possibly motivated by some desire to seek validation that I'm on the right track. As you suggest, I will continue to these words as I feel them until they no longer have a place in first-hand experience

So if in any moment if FEELS that ‘I am the thinker’, but you understand that there is no thinker, then please tell me that you are just intellectually understanding it, but not actually seeing it experience.

Understood - I will do my best to explicitly state any gaps between understanding and felt experience as they arise.

You might not going to like what I’m about to say, but your intellect is not needed.
It’s actually in the way. The intellect is utterly useless in this inquiry. You don’t need it. Put it aside.

Thank you Vivien, I really appreciate this! Intellect hasn't got me anywhere so far so please don't hesitate to call me out whenever it manifests. I will continue to discard it as much as possible in the meantime.

Do you drink coffee or tea? Next time when you drink it, please investigate what is the difference between thinking about coffee and experiencing the coffee.

Coffee is a good one :) Here's my initial findings:

Is it possible to look at the coffee without thinking “this is a coffee, and I’m going to drink it”? Is it possible to EXPERIENCE it only by looking at it and SEEING it without thinking about it?

Yes - there is the sensation of seeing a coffee as it is, before labels ('my coffee') or thoughts ('I really need this', 'I'm going to drink it' etc.) start to come.

And when you take a sip, is it possible to just FEEL the warmth of it, without analysing and thinking why it’s warm, and how long will it stay warm?

Yes - there is the sensation of heat, before thoughts ('I like mine extra hot', 'Is that the right temperature?', 'Yes it is, god I love that espresso machine!') start to come.

And is it possible just to experience the TASTE of it, without analysing it, or thinking how bitter it is, or whether it needs some sweetener or not?

Yes - there is the sensation of taste, before labels ('bitter', 'creamy') and thoughts ('what does this taste like?', 'how does this coffee compare to the one I usually have?', 'Is the extra price worth it or is it all a bunch of hipster crap?') start to come

Is it possible to EXPERIENCE the SMELL of the coffee, without thinking “this smell reminds me of his or that”?

Yes - there is the sensation of smell, before labels ('strong', 'chocolatey') and thoughts ('this will wake me up!', 'thank god for coffee') start to come.

I played golf today, this is what I found in terms of direct experience:

- The sensation of pressure between feet and the ground; softer on grass, harder on gravel
- The sensation of heat from the sun
- The sensation of cold and wetness from the rain
- Feeling gusts of wind, sometimes calm, sometimes strong
- The sensation of breathing
- The sensation of a heartbeat
- Distant trees approaching, getting larger and larger then disappearing from view
- The sound of birds singing
- The smell of freshly-cut grass
- The feeling 'I' disappeared (fleeting moments only)

Do you see clearly the difference between thinking and experiencing?

Experiencing is reality and is all about direct sensations. Thinking is not reality because it labels and conceptualizes but does not experience sensations directly.

Hi Tom,

You did a nice investigation :)

Experiencing is reality and is all about direct sensations. Thinking is not reality because it labels and conceptualizes but does not experience sensations directly.

Just to avoid confusion, when we investigate experience we can use these terms.

Experience = sound, color, taste, smell, sensation

So what you called direct sensation is what we usually call as experience.
I’m just making this difference to not mix the words experience with sensation (bodily sensations).
So when I say sensation I mean the bodily sensations, not the whole experience (not the other senses).

Here is another exercise for you.

Imagine that you are holding a spoon. Imagine its shape, size, weight, temperature, color. Now keep it there, close your eyes, and feel the imaginary spoon.

Then, open your eyes:
Is there a spoon here, in real life?
So how did you see that there is no spoon?
What happened to the spoon?
Did it disappear or it never existed?

Now go and get a spoon from the kitchen and hold it in the same way that you imagined it.
Feel the spoon’s form, its size, its weight, its temperature. Close your eyes and feel the spoon for a while.
Now open your eyes ... is there a spoon here, in real life?
Are a visual thought of the spoon and the experience of the spoon the same?
How does imagining and experiencing differ?

Please experiment with other objects throughout your day.
Let me know what you find.

Vivien

Hi Vivien :)

Just to avoid confusion, when we investigate experience we can use these terms.

Experience = sound, color, taste, smell, sensation

So what you called direct sensation is what we usually call as experience.
I’m just making this difference to not mix the words experience with sensation (bodily sensations).
So when I say sensation I mean the bodily sensations, not the whole experience (not the other senses).

Thank you Vivien, this is much easier to work with!

Imagine that you are holding a spoon. Imagine its shape, size, weight, temperature, color. Now keep it there, close your eyes, and feel the imaginary spoon.

Then, open your eyes:
Is there a spoon here, in real life?

No, there isn't.

So how did you see that there is no spoon?

The spoon was not where I imagined it would be (in my hand) when I opened my eyes. There was no colour, shape or sensation (weight, temperature) of the spoon in direct experience.

What happened to the spoon?

All imagined thought of the spoon (colour, shape, weight, temperature, movement etc.) disappeared when I opened my eyes, nothing of the spoon remained in actual experience.

Did it disappear or it never existed?

It never existed.

Now go and get a spoon from the kitchen and hold it in the same way that you imagined it.
Feel the spoon’s form, its size, its weight, its temperature. Close your eyes and feel the spoon for a while.
Now open your eyes ... is there a spoon here, in real life?

Yes, there is.

Are a visual thought of the spoon and the experience of the spoon the same?

No - the experience of the spoon is 'felt' directly through its colour, shape, weight, temperature, motion in the hand etc; the visual thought of the spoon is not 'felt' directly and exists only in imagination.

How does imagining and experiencing differ?

Experiencing involves direct interaction with sound, colour, taste, smell or sensation; Imagining does not. Experiencing deals with reality as it is; Imagining resides in thought only and is not real.

Please experiment with other objects throughout your day.
Let me know what you find.

I tried the same experiment on these objects and actions:
- Holding my phone, turning it on
- Holding a glass of water, drinking it
- Holding my headphones, putting them on

Findings
- Imagined thought of the object or action can describe or conceptualise the anticipated experience, but it does not constitute present experience.
- Imagined thoughts can vary in strength depending on familiarity with the object or action, however the strongest visualisation (however convincing) still does not constitute present experience and falls away once eyes are opened. No thought survives the scrutiny of what is.
- When experiencing the object or action, there is a brief period of being present with what is seen, heard, felt, tasted, smelled before thought interrupts to label it (as bright, loud, rough, sweet etc.). This period feels like the only true 'now'. Once experience is labelled, it becomes past and 'now' moves on.

Hi Tom,

You did an excellent investigation :)

Experiencing involves direct interaction with sound, colour, taste, smell or sensation; Imagining does not. Experiencing deals with reality as it is; Imagining resides in thought only and is not real.

Exactly.

So there are two options. We either directly experience what is here now through the 5 senses, OR we imagine and think about something that is not here now. Can you see this?

There are the 5 senses (color, sound, taste, smell, sensation)
+
the imagined / thought versions of these.

There could be imagined colors, which is a visual thought, right?
There could be imagined sound, which is an auditory thought, isn’t it?
An imagined sensation, imagined taste, imagined smell.

All the five senses can be imagined. Is this clear?

So what is a verbal thought, like the word ‘table’, or the word ‘elephant’?

Is there any other option than:
- EXPERIENCE (reality – color, sound, taste, smell, sensation)
- THOUGHT (imagination – the imagined version of reality / experience)
Is there a third option?

Please be very careful not to go to thinking and analysing, rather check it in your immediate experience.

Vivien

Hi Vivien :)

So there are two options. We either directly experience what is here now through the 5 senses, OR we imagine and think about something that is not here now. Can you see this?

Yes I can.

There are the 5 senses (color, sound, taste, smell, sensation)
+
the imagined / thought versions of these.

There could be imagined colors, which is a visual thought, right?
There could be imagined sound, which is an auditory thought, isn’t it?
An imagined sensation, imagined taste, imagined smell.

All the five senses can be imagined. Is this clear?

Yes, this makes complete sense.

So what is a verbal thought, like the word ‘table’, or the word ‘elephant’?

The word 'elephant' triggers the visual thought of an elephant. This visual thought is the sum-total projection of learned associations used to make sense of the world and how they translate to the imagined experience of an elephant. Various judgements were made along the way, some of which include:

- What makes up this visual thought of an elephant? It is big (imaginary form), has large ears (imaginary form), a long trunk (imaginary form) and grey in colour (imaginary colour) - [thought]
- What are meant by the labels 'big' 'large' and 'long'? (they are learned sounds to express the size of large objects) - [thought]
- How do these labels translate to the visual thought? (they are conceptualised relative to their opposites 'little', 'small' and 'short' - learned sounds to express the size of small objects) - [thought]
- What is an 'ear'? What distinguishes it from a 'leg' or a 'tree'? (it is a learned sound that refers to a compound of skin and muscle on the top or side of an organism's 'head' and used for hearing purposes) - [thought]
- What is a trunk? (another learned sound that refers to an appendage some organisms have between their eyes that performs the function of a nose) - [thought]
- What is meant by the colour 'grey'? How is it conceptualised? (relative to other colours that are 'not grey') - [thought]
- How is my concept of 'grey' formed? (a learned sound used to associate with objects of a particular colour) - [thought]
- Is it possible to explain the colour ‘grey’ to a blind person in a way they would understand? (not likely, since colour would not be accessible to a blind person in direct experience) - [thought]

So a verbal thought gives rise to an imaginary thought, but it remains a thought so is not real.

Is there any other option than:
- EXPERIENCE (reality – color, sound, taste, smell, sensation)
- THOUGHT (imagination – the imagined version of reality / experience)
Is there a third option?

Yes - a third option could be seen as 'THOUGHT projected onto EXPERIENCE', for example:

- Coffee: Experience (Has a form, colour, taste, smell, temperature) + Thought (It is brown, bitter, aromatic, hot etc.)
- Our cat Coco: Experience (Has a form, colour, temperature, smell and sensation; makes sounds) + Thought (It is a 'she', she is a cat, her name is Coco, she belongs to us, she is in good shape/not a fat bastard, she is a black straight-haired moggy, her fur is soft, she meows and purrs)

Based on this experiment, it seems that two separate experiences (Coffee and Coco for example) cannot be explained in words without overlaying thought to distinguish one from the other. In first-person however, it would be possible to experience the full reality of Coffee and Coco directly but only if all labels and thoughts are dropped until both become 'that'.

Hi Tom,
I can see that you are looking, however you are still relying on thought interpretations of what has been seen. Please put aside all interpretation, and just observe what is here now (including the presence of interpretation as thoughts).

The word 'elephant' triggers the visual thought of an elephant.

But the question wasn’t about if the word ‘elephant’ triggers a visual thought or not.

Rather look at the verbal thought ‘elephant’. What is it? Is the verbal thought ‘elephant’ an experience?
Or is it a an imagined sensation? Or an imagined sound? Or an imagined image?

Again, don’t go to investigating the visual thought of it. Rather stay with the verbal thought, and investigate that.

This visual thought is the sum-total projection of learned associations used to make sense of the world and how they translate to the imagined experience of an elephant.

This is highly conceptual, it’s an intellectual analysis, which is true in everyday sense, but has no real value in this investigation.

- What makes up this visual thought of an elephant? It is big (imaginary form), has large ears (imaginary form), a long trunk (imaginary form) and grey in colour (imaginary colour) - [thought]
- What are meant by the labels 'big' 'large' and 'long'? (they are learned sounds to express the size of large objects) - [thought]
- How do these labels translate to the visual thought? (they are conceptualised relative to their opposites 'little', 'small' and 'short' - learned sounds to express the size of small objects) - [thought]
- What is an 'ear'? What distinguishes it from a 'leg' or a 'tree'? (it is a learned sound that refers to a compound of skin and muscle on the top or side of an organism's 'head' and used for hearing purposes) - [thought]
- What is a trunk? (another learned sound that refers to an appendage some organisms have between their eyes that performs the function of a nose) - [thought]
- What is meant by the colour 'grey'? How is it conceptualised? (relative to other colours that are 'not grey') - [thought]
- How is my concept of 'grey' formed? (a learned sound used to associate with objects of a particular colour) - [thought]
- Is it possible to explain the colour ‘grey’ to a blind person in a way they would understand? (not likely, since colour would not be accessible to a blind person in direct experience) - [thought]

This is a good explanation (although the question wasn’t about this).

But I would like to ask you to investigate if you actually can SEE EXPERIENTIALLY what you wrote above, or rather you just thought this through, so you have a good intellectual understanding of it? Or is there a deep experiential recognition of it?

Yes - a third option could be seen as 'THOUGHT projected onto EXPERIENCE',

Can a thought actually projected into experience, so the thought becomes an experience?
Or what do you mean exactly by ‘projected into experience’?
How could a thought be projected anywhere?

Based on this experiment, it seems that two separate experiences (Coffee and Coco for example) cannot be explained in words without overlaying thought to distinguish one from the other.

We use words (symbols) to communicate, there is no problem with that. But there is a big difference between using words that simply and clearly communicate the raw immediacy of experience, and the thought-story about the experience.

In first-person however, it would be possible to experience the full reality of Coffee and Coco directly but only if all labels and thoughts are dropped until both become 'that'.

Do the labels and thoughts have to stop in order to experience coffee or the cat?
Is that necessary?

And what do you mean by “labels and thoughts are dropped until BOTH BECOMES ‘THAT’”? Becomes what?

Can labels and thoughts turn into something else? Or become something else?

Vivien

Hi Vivien :)

I can see that you are looking, however you are still relying on thought interpretations of what has been seen. Please put aside all interpretation, and just observe what is here now (including the presence of interpretation as thoughts).

You're right Vivien, thanks for calling me out on this and your patience in explaining. Probably trying too hard to articulate experience and switching to thought interpretations as a result. Keep smashing me with the Zen stick as needed :)

Rather look at the verbal thought ‘elephant’. What is it? Is the verbal thought ‘elephant’ an experience?
Or is it a an imagined sensation? Or an imagined sound? Or an imagined image?

Its an imagined sound so not a direct experience, not real.

"This visual thought is the sum-total projection of learned associations used to make sense of the world and how they translate to the imagined experience of an elephant."

This is highly conceptual, it’s an intellectual analysis, which is true in everyday sense, but has no real value in this investigation.

Understood - its an attempt to make sense of an experience or thought process, not experience itself.

- What makes up this visual thought of an elephant? It is big (imaginary form), has large ears (imaginary form), a long trunk (imaginary form) and grey in colour (imaginary colour) - [thought]
- What are meant by the labels 'big' 'large' and 'long'? (they are learned sounds to express the size of large objects) - [thought]
- How do these labels translate to the visual thought? (they are conceptualised relative to their opposites 'little', 'small' and 'short' - learned sounds to express the size of small objects) - [thought]
- What is an 'ear'? What distinguishes it from a 'leg' or a 'tree'? (it is a learned sound that refers to a compound of skin and muscle on the top or side of an organism's 'head' and used for hearing purposes) - [thought]
- What is a trunk? (another learned sound that refers to an appendage some organisms have between their eyes that performs the function of a nose) - [thought]
- What is meant by the colour 'grey'? How is it conceptualised? (relative to other colours that are 'not grey') - [thought]
- How is my concept of 'grey' formed? (a learned sound used to associate with objects of a particular colour) - [thought]
- Is it possible to explain the colour ‘grey’ to a blind person in a way they would understand? (not likely, since colour would not be accessible to a blind person in direct experience) - [thought]

This is a good explanation (although the question wasn’t about this).

But I would like to ask you to investigate if you actually can SEE EXPERIENTIALLY what you wrote above, or rather you just thought this through, so you have a good intellectual understanding of it? Or is there a deep experiential recognition of it?

Having tried this experiment again, here's my findings:
- The verbal thought 'elephant' did not automatically trigger the visual thought of an 'elephant'; there was an imagined sound first and a connection made with the visual thought later.
- What I wrote above was an intellectual analysis of the visual thought of an elephant and introspection around how I arrived at that imaginary picture (thinking about thinking!)
- Everything was the product of thought so not real; nothing was experienced in reality.

Yes - a third option could be seen as 'THOUGHT projected onto EXPERIENCE'

Can a thought actually projected into experience, so the thought becomes an experience?
Or what do you mean exactly by ‘projected into experience’?
How could a thought be projected anywhere?

Probably not the best use of words here :) To clarify:
- Thought cannot become reality (as experienced by the senses), nor can it be physically 'projected' onto it; thought remains thought.
- Thought can distort or dilute the perception of reality; while reality itself (as experienced by the senses) remains unchanged, 'seeing' reality through the lens of thought can prevent it from being experienced fully.
- For example, wearing sunglasses would make the colour of objects appear darker but the objects themselves remain unchanged.

Is there any other option than:
- EXPERIENCE (reality – color, sound, taste, smell, sensation)
- THOUGHT (imagination – the imagined version of reality / experience)
Is there a third option?

Based on further investigation, I don't see any third option here.

We use words (symbols) to communicate, there is no problem with that. But there is a big difference between using words that simply and clearly communicate the raw immediacy of experience, and the thought-story about the experience

Thank you Vivien, this is a helpful distinction to make. Reading through earlier responses, my communication has been too focused on thought-story, not enough on raw experience.

In first-person however, it would be possible to experience the full reality of Coffee and Coco directly but only if all labels and thoughts are dropped until both become 'that'.

Do the labels and thoughts have to stop in order to experience coffee or the cat?
Is that necessary?

This was the extension of an incorrect assumption that Thought could be projected onto Experience (more thinking!) so I'd lost my way at this point. Upon further investigation, labels and thoughts do not have to stop to experience coffee or the cat.

And what do you mean by “labels and thoughts are dropped until BOTH BECOMES ‘THAT’”? Becomes what?

Another thought-story, another rabbit hole - this one resulted from earlier introspection around how labels are formed (where does the label 'cat' come from?) and the presumption labels and thoughts somehow dilute the full experience of reality (more thinking!). Please discard everything I've said here since I'm obviously not ready to make such an inquiry :)

Can labels and thoughts turn into something else? Or become something else?

No, labels and thoughts they remain - not real.

Hi Tom,

It’s good that you are starting to see the difference between the raw experience (and communicating the raw experience) and the fictional thought story ABOUT experience.

Now as this gets clear, let’s embark on a different journey. We are going to investigate the thought phenomenon itself.

What do you do exactly in order to think?
How do you make (or birth) thoughts into existence?

Please be careful not to think about these questions, but actually sit and NOTICE how you think, how you do it exactly. So don’t go to theories, speculations, philosophy, or any learned information. Just notice what is happening here now in the immediacy of your own experience.

Please spend a whole day investigating these questions. Look again and again and again. Even if the answer seems to be clear, look more.

This investigation is about persistent repetition. Looking at the same thing again and again in experience, what brings about the realization.

Vivien

Hi Vivien :)

It’s good that you are starting to see the difference between the raw experience (and communicating the raw experience) and the fictional thought story ABOUT experience.

Thank you as always for your guidance, I have tried to keep my responses brief to minimise potential for thought story creeping in. Will keep working on it (old habits die hard).

What do you do exactly in order to think?

I don't feel like I 'do' anything to think, thought just happens.

- Different thoughts come and go
- Some thoughts are 'sticky' and hang around; other thoughts are fleeting and disappear almost immediately
- Some thoughts arise from immediate experience ("I feel hungry, I'd better eat something")
- Some thoughts appear randomly from the past (My first day at school as an exchange student in Japan)
- 'Sticky' thoughts seem to get bigger when I resist or indulge them
- Some thoughts give rise to new ones

How do you make (or birth) thoughts into existence?

Two different situations I came across here, so have included each below:

When 'birthing' thoughts as ideas.

- I focus attention on a particular situation or problem requiring an idea to solve
- I wait for ideas to come
- I scrutinise every idea that arises, looking for holes in each one to determine a 'winner'
- If I find a 'winner', I feel relaxed and thought about the situation gradually subsides
- If I don't find a 'winner', I feel agitated and thought about the situation (and problem) escalates. Alternately, I give up my search (for the time being) and resolve to resume it later

When 'birthing' thoughts as a reaction to events.

- A verbal thought of an unpleasant conversation comes up.
- I recall the exact words a person said to me and the exact words I said to them. At this stage, they are only words.
- I repeat this conversation in my mind, each word becoming clearer every time it is repeated.
- At some point, the verbal thought of the conversation develops into visual and emotional thoughts (Did they look upset/angry? Why did they speak to me that way? What do they mean by X? What does that say about me?)
- I try to resist the visual and emotional thoughts and they intensify
- I re-run the conversation in my mind focusing on what I should have said if I had the same opportunity again
- I feel tired, frustrated, misunderstood and sorry for myself
- I feel controlled by these visual and emotional thoughts which have resulted from this experience.