Hoping to start a dialogue.

[bowlington]

Vivien,

What is this ‘I’ that doing the thinking?

The only 'I' that is ever found appears as a thought.

How this ‘I’ does the thinking?

'I' *is* a thought, nothing more than that. It's a thought that is "believed" so to speak. When it is believed, a deeply held conviction in some kind of vague self is created.

The moments of seeing are precious few. Believing still happens. Suffering still happens.

Where is the 'I' that controls thoughts?

There isn't one. The 'I' that is conceived of as the controller of anything, or having any existence whatsoever beyond a thought, does not exist. The 'I' is a thought, and has the same characteristics as other thoughts, is not special (except in the erroneous belief of it), and arises without having been chosen.

Where is the 'I' that has ownership of thoughts?

There is no 'I' that owns, controls, chooses, or dismisses thoughts. To the extent that the thought "My thoughts" arises, it arises strictly as thoughts about thinking.

What do the thoughts belong to? What owns them?

There is no owner that can be found. Thoughts, just like sensations, have no controller, or chooser. There is no entity (that can be found) that is manipulating or operating on them in any way.

Do you think thoughts or you are just being thought?

All selves arise as the misperception of the true nature of thoughts.

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?

No, not possible. They're never chosen. They just do arise, including the 'I' thought. Even this would not be a problem if it were clearly seen for what it is.

But, is there any link between the sound and the sight, meaning that the sound is coming from that sight (the other) or only thoughts and mental constructs link them?

Logically I can get to this place. I know it's not seeing. I don't see this.
There's a lot of fear surrounding this idea.

What are others in direct experience?
How others are experienced?

Mostly seeing and hearing. Experiences of the five senses.

Are there others independently from ‘my’ interpretation?

I need more time with it. I can see that others in direct experience are sensory information. The "person" part of the person is added with thoughts. And the content of thought is always a fantasy.



I hope I don't sound terse. I'm trying to keep my answers to the point in order to avoid straying into typing out my thoughts.

[Vivien]

Dear Brian,

'I' *is* a thought, nothing more than that. It's a thought that is "believed" so to speak. When it is believed, a deeply held conviction in some kind of vague self is created.
The moments of seeing are precious few. Believing still happens. Suffering still happens.

Good LOOKing

There isn't one. The 'I' that is conceived of as the controller of anything, or having any existence whatsoever beyond a thought, does not exist. The 'I' is a thought, and has the same characteristics as other thoughts, is not special (except in the erroneous belief of it), and arises without having been chosen.

Very good LOOKing

There is no owner that can be found. Thoughts, just like sensations, have no controller, or chooser. There is no entity (that can be found) that is manipulating or operating on them in any way.

Good LOOKing

They just do arise, including the 'I' thought. Even this would not be a problem if it were clearly seen for what it is.

When the ‘I’ thought is not clearly seen only as a thought, is this REALLY a ‘problem’, or is ‘problem’ just a mental label attached to other thoughts or experiences?

In the actual immediate experience what is doubt?

Vivien: But, is there any link between the sound and the sight, meaning that the sound is coming from that sight (the other) or only thoughts and mental constructs link them?

Brian: Logically I can get to this place. I know it's not seeing. I don't see this.
There's a lot of fear surrounding this idea.

Fear is just a protective mechanism, and it does its job well. It highlights that there is a story there about pain or negative consequences to this investigation.

What I’d like you to do is to investigate this fear. Examine it closely. Ask the fear as it were a some kind of entity:
What do you want to protect me from?
What is the ‘negative’ story?

Don’t spend time on the content of the story, we are not interested in the content.
So don't buy into the content of the story, rather observe how it operates.
Observe what images and stories come up ‘justifying’ its right to fear.

If you ignore the stories (thoughts) and mental images what is BEHIND the fear?
If all mental stories and images are ignored, is there a fear at all, or is there just pure sensation?

Please describe the components of fear and how it emerges. (like thoughts, stories, labels, sensations, etc)
I’m not interested here about the content of the story, but about the structure, about how the illusion is built up.

I hope I don't sound terse. I'm trying to keep my answers to the point in order to avoid straying into typing out my thoughts.

No, you don’t sound terse. You’re doing very well.

Investigate this:

Is there a hearer of sounds, or just hearing?
Is there a see-er of sights, or just seeing?
Is there a smeller of smells, or just smelling?
Is there a taster of tastes, or just tasting?
Is there a feeler of sensation, or just sensation?
Is there a thinker of thoughts or just thinking?
Is there an experiencer of experience (this life)...or just life?

Please go through these questions one-by-one. Not just think of them, but actually eat some food and taste it; so when about smelling, actually smell something (same with the other senses).

[bowlington]

Vivien,

When the ‘I’ thought is not clearly seen only as a thought, is this REALLY a ‘problem’, or is ‘problem’ just a mental label attached to other thoughts or experiences?

A mental label. More thinking.

In the actual immediate experience what is doubt?

Sensation without qualities.

If you ignore the stories (thoughts) and mental images what is BEHIND the fear?
If all mental stories and images are ignored, is there a fear at all, or is there just pure sensation?

Just sensation.

Please describe the components of fear and how it emerges. (like thoughts, stories, labels, sensations, etc)

Sensation happens in the body all the time. As far as I can tell it can't actually be described. Or rather, it has nothing actually to do with the labels we call it. So sometimes a mental story takes place in the mind, like fear. The fear story combines with what sensation arises in the body at that moment, and together the two are called "the feeling of fear" or sometimes just "fear", where fear is thought of as being a thing with an inherent nature that exists beyond the experiencer, or the parts that comprise it. If that makes sense.

Is there a hearer of sounds, or just hearing?

There is the hearing of sounds, and there are self thoughts that occur during and about the hearing. The hearing happens, the thinking is fantasy with no ultimate connection, that I can see, to the hearing.

Is there a see-er of sights, or just seeing?

Seeing happens. The only see-er are the thoughts about seeing, which arise the same as seeing does, on it's own, without someone bringing it about, without a thinker.

Is there a smeller of smells, or just smelling?

There is smelling. There is no one who is smelling.

Is there a taster of tastes, or just tasting?

There is tasting, the only taster is the thought which thinks about tasting, which has no relation to the occurrence of tasting.

Is there a feeler of sensation, or just sensation?

There is sensation, and there are thoughts about sensation which claim ownership of sensation. If the process is never observed to happen, it is believed to be true (the thoughts). The reality is that sensation is sensation, direct and immediate and without qualities, and thoughts are thoughts, separate and distinct from sensation.

Is there a thinker of thoughts or just thinking?

Thinking arises just as sensation arises, seeing, hearing, etc, all arise, that is, without volition, without a doer of the things. Just as no one controls the arising or changing of the experience of the senses, there is no one choosing which thoughts to arise, nor is there anyone to stop them or alter them.

Is there an experiencer of experience (this life)...or just life?

No experiencer. Only direct experience of senses, thoughts, and the belief in the truth of the thoughts, as well as the belief that the thoughts and the direct experience are the same, or at least closely related, when in reality they aren't.

[Vivien]

Dear Brian,

Vivien: In the actual immediate experience what is doubt?

Brian: Sensation without qualities.

Doubt is a sensation. – Are you sure about this?

Doubt is nothing more than the contents of arising thought. When it is not seen only as a thought, but it is believed, then associated sensations arise that is labelled as such-and-such emotion.

So the sensation is just the result of believing ‘doubting’ thoughts. But doubt is just a thought, not a sensation.
Can you see this?

So sometimes a mental story takes place in the mind, like fear.

Is there REALLY a ‘mind’, a container of thoughts, where thinking happens?
Or is there only appearing thoughts, and ‘mind’ is nothing more than another thought, a label?

There is tasting, the only taster is the thought which thinks about tasting

“Thought which thinks about tasting” – can a thought think or do anything?

There is sensation, and there are thoughts about sensation which claim ownership of sensation. If the process is never observed to happen, it is believed to be true (the thoughts). The reality is that sensation is sensation, direct and immediate and without qualities, and thoughts are thoughts, separate and distinct from sensation.

Very good looking.

Thinking arises just as sensation arises, seeing, hearing, etc, all arise, that is, without volition, without a doer of the things. Just as no one controls the arising or changing of the experience of the senses, there is no one choosing which thoughts to arise, nor is there anyone to stop them or alter them.

Very good looking.

No experiencer. Only direct experience of senses, thoughts, and the belief in the truth of the thoughts, as well as the belief that the thoughts and the direct experience are the same, or at least closely related, when in reality they aren't.

Yes, good looking.

OK, let’s go back now to the questions that we dismissed a couple of days ago.

Has it been clearly seen that there has never been an ‘I’ that could control or own life or anything?
Is there an 'I' of any kind whatsoever that could be responsible for anything at all?
Do others have responsibilities?

Is there a 'you' that started this investigation?
Has there ever been a 'you' doing anything?

Are you ready for the final six questions?

Love, Vivien

[bowlington]

Doubt is a sensation. – Are you sure about this?

The immediate experience of anything is sensation and thought. The doubtingness comes from the mental story. The feeling is sensation.

Is there REALLY a ‘mind’, a container of thoughts, where thinking happens?
Or is there only appearing thoughts, and ‘mind’ is nothing more than another thought, a label?

No, not really a mind. Just thoughts whose content is "mind".

“Thought which thinks about tasting” – can a thought think or do anything?

No, thoughts can't do anything. Perhaps I could have said "thoughts about thoughts".

Has it been clearly seen that there has never been an ‘I’ that could control or own life or anything?

It's been clearly seen that the self only arises as thought, as all stories or labels or descriptions do, and that the experience of the senses and arising thoughts are totally unrelated. The the combination of the two arising together at the same time gives rise to the false appearance of something that isn't really there.

Is there an 'I' of any kind whatsoever that could be responsible for anything at all?

No, all experienced things arise without having been chosen or created or altered by a self. The "I" only arises as a thought and thoughts arise on their own without having been chosen.

Do others have responsibilities?

"Others" are collections of parts combined with a thought label of "person". The label is a thought, and the direct experience of them is just the experience of the parts, colors, sounds, etc. So no.

Is there a 'you' that started this investigation?

No, what occurs just happens, and thoughts also just arise, and some of those are "I" thoughts and story. There is only the illusion of personal experience.

Has there ever been a 'you' doing anything?

No, only thoughts and sensations arising at the same time which give rise to the belief that the two together are related to each other and that they are more than they appear to be.

Are you ready for the final six questions?

Yes.

[Vivien]

Dear Brian,

Thank you for answers. Here are the final six questions. Please answer as clearly as possible and with as much detail as needed. Don’t forget to add everyday examples from your experience for question 5.


1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

6) Anything to add?

Love, Vivien

[Vivien]

Hi Brian,

How things are going?

Love, Vivien

[bowlington]

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

No. Where it's looked for it isn't found. It can only be found as a belief. When the belief is investigated it falls apart.

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

Thoughts arise whose content is "I" or "self" or "mine." These thoughts (incorrectly) seem to be combined with the sensations that occur in the body at that time. When unexamined, this gives rise to the incorrect belief in the thoughts as having a reality they don't have. A being called "I" who is the thoughts plus the sensations seems to exist.

In reality, all things that arise arise without being willed into existence by a self (that can be found). As colors, shapes, sensations, sounds etc arise, so do thoughts... that is, without the aid of a self. The thoughts whose content is a self are the same as the rest, but are mistakenly believed.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

There's not much of a difference for me. Sometimes it feels like a lightening of a heavy load, sometimes it's unpleasant to dwell on. Mostly things are just the same. It's possible that suffering is relenting very slowly over time but, I really can't tell at this point.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

I'm not sure I completely understand the question. What has motivated me throughout is a desire to lessen suffering and to know truth. To the extent that these things become clear to me, it seems to happen suddenly and at seemingly random moments. For instance, one day I was out walking and the illusion just seemed to diminish until it was gone. I had the perception that personal experience is an illusion and that everything that is happening is just happening. This lasted for a few moments, then passed. What specifically prompted it I have no idea. It's probably the culmination of this investigation, but how it came about is beyond me.

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control.

I don't know what these things are beyond mental constructs. Direct experience is direct experience and thoughts are thoughts. Thoughts have no bearing on what is experienced directly, although the content of thought is often that thought accurately describes reality, when in reality the two have no relationship of any kind.

What makes things happen? How does it work?

I have no idea. Every insight I've had has demonstrated that things just happen. It's been clearly seen that sensations that arise come into existence, persist, change, and go out of existence without the aid of any consciousness (that can be found). So it is with everything else that gets investigated. What arises just arises, and I can't really say more about it than that. All I can say is how it doesn't work, which is that there is no self (that can be found) that can control anything or will anything into or out of existence.

What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

If there's no self, then there's no one to be responsible. Those things that are called responsibilities are just mental formulations based on things that have been seen in the past combined with a false belief in a personal entity. But those things (to the extent that they exist and aren't just mental formulations) just arise and then go of their own volition, like all other things.

6) Anything to add?

Not much, other than this has been different than I expected. Not much of anything worth noting has happened. I guess I was expecting more... something. Anything. I'm a little confused honestly.

[Vivien]

Dear Brian,

Thank you for answering the questions. I'm happy to say that the guides are satisfied that you have seen through the illusion of a separate self and none of them has any further questions.

I'm sending you a private message, so please check your inbox.

Love, Vivien