The Gate

Hi Ben,

All right. Thank you for letting me know.

Vivien

Dear Vivien,

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘peaceful’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’?
Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, are just mental labels on the pure sensation?

Indeed, these are just mental labels.

Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?

No attributions are innate to pure sensation.

Is there REALLY ‘sadness’ or ‘sorrow’ or ‘suffering’, or are there only thoughts about ‘sadness’ or ‘suffering’?

Thoughts only.

So if you look very closely, you’ll see that there is neither sufferer, nor suffering. There are only thoughts ABOUT a sufferer and suffering. Can you see this?

Yes, I can see this.

Ben

Hi Ben,

No attributions are innate to pure sensation.

Nice looking.

Now let’s examine the pure sensations without the labels. In reality, there are only 3 types of sensations. Pleasant, unpleasant and neutral. But usually the neutral ones are ignored, we hardly notice them. All the negative emotions generate unpleasant sensations, and in reality there is no difference in sensation of ‘sadness’, ‘anger’, ‘fear’, etc. There might be differences of the location and the intensity of the sensations, but the ‘feeling’ is the same. All these sensations feel contracted (actually the muscles are contracted). That’s why they are unpleasant.

The pleasant sensations are just the opposite of contraction, they feel open, expanded (because the muscles are relaxed) That’s why they feel pleasant. ‘Love’, ‘peace’, ‘calmness’, ‘gratitude’… these are all expanded sensations. The pure sensations of them are the same. There might be difference in location and intensity, but that’s all.

For the exercise you’ll have to bring up certain emotions, both pleasant and unpleasant ones. You don’t have to dive deeply into the unpleasant ones, you just bring up them lightly, just enough intensity that you can observe the underlying sensations.

So bring up the memory of ‘sadness’. When the sensation is present, don’t pay attention to the thought story, just stay with the pure sensation for a minute.
After about a minute let go of the sensation labelled ‘sadness’, and try to slightly feel ‘fear’ (just gently). Let go all thoughts, and just feel the pure sensation.
Now try to feel the sensation of ‘anger’ for a little while. Then let it go. Let your body calm down.
So, could you see that all the negative emotions felt very similar, contracted and unpleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?

Now bring up the feeling of ‘love’, and pay attention only to the pure sensation. Let it be there for a while.
Then bring up the feeling of ‘peace’, observe the sensation carefully.
Now bring up the feeling of ‘gratitude’, and stay with a sensation as long as you like.
So, could you see that all the positive emotions felt very similar, expanded, pleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?

And now the last step. Bring up just the feeling of an unpleasant sensation. You don’t even have to label it, just feel it. When the sensation is present observe it very carefully.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘unpleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY unpleasant?

Now, bring up a pleasant sensation, stay with it for a while, and observe it carefully.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘pleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY pleasant?

Vivien

Dear Vivien

I experienced it just as you described:

So, could you see that all the negative emotions felt very similar, contracted and unpleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?

Yes, the sensations feel the same, indistinct.

So, could you see that all the positive emotions felt very similar, expanded, pleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?

Same sensations. They are hardly different.

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘unpleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY unpleasant?

No. It's just sensations that are quite unremarkable when looked at this say. Nothing really pleasant or otherwise.

Ben

Hi Ben,

It's just sensations that are quite unremarkable when looked at this say. Nothing really pleasant or otherwise.

Nice looking.

The illusionary self’s main concern is the pleasant and unpleasant sensations. It ‘wants’ to avoid all unpleasant/uncomfortable sensations at all cost, and longs for and clings to the pleasant sensations. It ignores the neutral sensations. Almost all thoughts when taken seriously (as reality) accompanied by pleasant or unpleasant sensations, and thus decisions on behalf of the self is based on these sensations, about wanting and not wanting these sensations. The sensations sometimes can be subtle, but even with the subtle ones, thoughts of wanting and not wanting follows them. Although, it might seem that there is a resistance (not wanting) to a thought, or an idea, or a situation, but actually the resulting sensation is being resisted, not the thought itself, since the sensation gives the quality of pleasantness or unpleasantness of the situation or other person or thought, etc.

A ‘negative’ thought is not unpleasant by itself. It’s just a thought. Just words. And thoughts/words cannot be felt. Only the accompanying sensations gives the impression of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the verbal or visual thought or even a situation. Can you see this?

Observe this during the day and let me know how it goes.

And when staying with the sensation, it can be seen that they are not as bad as thoughts suggests so. And that in reality there is no actual ‘wanting’ or ‘not wanting’. There are only thought ABOUT ‘wanting’, but ‘want’ as such cannot be found. Can you see this?

As soon as we ignore labels, verbal and visual thoughts, and stay only with the sensation, the sensation gradually lessens or even dissipates since it’s no longer fuelled by the thoughts and images. So, if in the future when something triggers a strong reaction, and lots of thought proliferation about ‘me’ occur, you can focus on the pure sensation, so the intensity can lessen, so it will be easier to see that the ‘me’, that the whole story revolves around, is fictionary. That the whole thought-image proliferation is just like a movie. It’s not real. It’s not really there. It’s just empty, transparent verbal and visual thoughts, nothing more. Like a hologram. And what they are about are simply not happening.

Vivien

Dear Vivien,

A ‘negative’ thought is not unpleasant by itself. It’s just a thought. Just words. And thoughts/words cannot be felt. Only the accompanying sensations gives the impression of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the verbal or visual thought or even a situation. Can you see this?
Observe this during the day and let me know how it goes.

Yes, I can see he interaction between thoughts and sensations, almost like a ping pong between the two reinforcing each other at each return. Without thought, the sensation is indistinct, unqualified.

There are only thought ABOUT ‘wanting’, but ‘want’ as such cannot be found. Can you see this?

Yes.

That the whole thought-image proliferation is just like a movie. It’s not real. It’s not really there. It’s just empty, transparent verbal and visual thoughts, nothing more. Like a hologram. And what they are about are simply not happening.

I get that lately. Even by just looking at who is supposedly looking or talking, it is as if thought was eating itself up or neutralize to reveal no bearing on reality whatsoever.

Ben

Hi Ben,

You did a great looking.

We looked at awareness before, but we are going to investigate it a bit more since the notion of awareness/knower/consciousness/watcher/noticer/looker is an excellent hiding place for the self.

In English, awareness is a noun, not a verb. Nouns imply agencies, or entities.
But can such thing be found as an independently existing awareness?

Stop for a moment now and take a thought. Be aware of the presence of the thought.
Can a thought be separated from the knowing or awareness of it?
Try your best to separate the two from each other. What happens?

Is there a dividing line between the thought and the knowing or awareness of it?
Can you find the line where the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?

Can you find a thought without the knowing of it?
Can you find knower or awareness without any object (like thought, sensation, color, sound, taste, smell)?

In other words, can there be a knowing without a known?

Repeat this exercise many times during the day. Experiment not just only with verbal thoughts, but also with visual thoughts, sounds, taste, etc. Let me know how it went.

Vivien

Dear Vivien,

Nouns imply agencies, or entities.
But can such thing be found as an independently existing awareness?

Awareness cannot be found as such.

Can a thought be separated from the knowing or awareness of it?

There is thought. When there is also a label "thought" that's another thought, not the awareness of it.

Try your best to separate the two from each other. What happens?

Separation, if it were, is but further thought, which is what happens. Like touching a bubble made of soap and making two conjoined ones out of what used to be one. A game of reflections, essentially. (It's also how the illusion of time comes about.)

Is there a dividing line between the thought and the knowing or awareness of it?

No. There is a thought. Then there is another thought the content of which refers to the previous thought as if it were being observed. In reality, there is only perception of thoughts.

Can you find the line where the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?

Not really, they coincide. Thought isness = thought knowing.

Can you find a thought without the knowing of it?

no way

Can you find knower or awareness without any object (like thought, sensation, color, sound, taste, smell)?

No. As said, they coincide. For example, there is color. Full stop. Then there is the labels/thoughts/narration/awareness.

In other words, can there be a knowing without a known?

No. Knowing-known is one or none.

Repeat this exercise many times during the day. Experiment not just only with verbal thoughts, but also with visual thoughts, sounds, taste, etc. Let me know how it went.

I'm not having enough opportunities for experimenting these days. I feel I would benefit from repeating these exercises (and yesterday's) for another few days. Would that be okay? :)

Ben

Hi Ben,

I'm not having enough opportunities for experimenting these days. I feel I would benefit from repeating these exercises (and yesterday's) for another few days. Would that be okay? :)

Yes, of course, but there are some things I would like to point out for you.

V: Can you find the line where the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?

B: Not really, they coincide. Thought isness = thought knowing.

Yes, since as soon as a thought is present, its presence is automatically known.

V: Can a thought be separated from the knowing or awareness of it?

B: There is thought. When there is also a label "thought" that's another thought, not the awareness of it.

With the previous question, it seems that you can see it clearly that the thought and the knowing of the presence of the thought is the one and the same, right?

But it seems that with the word ‘awareness’ you mean something else? You mean the thought that follows it with the label ‘thought’?

What I tried to ask with my question in the above quote is whether the thought can be separated from the knowing of its presence.

I didn’t refer to the thought that follows it and labels it.

Knowing = awareness (just different labels on the same phenomenon of the knowing of the presence of a thought)

The thought that labels is as ‘thought’ is not the awareness of it, it’s just a thought label.
The awareness of the thought is the same as the knowing of the presence of the thought.
Can you see this?

So the question is: Can a thought be separated from the knowing/aware-ing of its presence?

V: Try your best to separate the two from each other. What happens?

B: Separation, if it were, is but further thought, which is what happens. Like touching a bubble made of soap and making two conjoined ones out of what used to be one. A game of reflections, essentially. (It's also how the illusion of time comes about.)

With this question it’s the same.

Can the knowing/awareness/aware-ing of the presence of the thought be separated from the thought itself?

V: Is there a dividing line between the thought and the knowing or awareness of it?

B: No. There is a thought. Then there is another thought the content of which refers to the previous thought as if it were being observed. In reality, there is only perception of thoughts.

Same as above.

Is there a dividing line between the thought and the knowing/awareness/aware-ing of its presence?

Feel free the repeat the exercises as many times as you would like.
Let me know how it goes.

Vivien

Dear Vivien,

V: Can a thought be separated from the knowing or awareness of it?

B: There is thought. When there is also a label "thought" that's another thought, not the awareness of it.

V: With the previous question, it seems that you can see it clearly that the thought and the knowing of the presence of the thought is the one and the same, right?
But it seems that with the word ‘awareness’ you mean something else? You mean the thought that follows it with the label ‘thought’?

Yes, I see that the thought and the knowing of its presence are the same.
What I also see is that there is only knowing, but not knowing of thought. The label "thought" (a thought about thought) is what provides the semblance of a separate awareness but which is not.

The thought that labels is as ‘thought’ is not the awareness of it, it’s just a thought label.
The awareness of the thought is the same as the knowing of the presence of the thought.
Can you see this?

Yes. But knowing of the presence of the thought is actually only the presence of thought. Put differently, presence is knowing, or knowing is in the presence, or the presence knows, or however one would express it.

Is there a dividing line between the thought and the knowing/awareness/aware-ing of its presence?

No line.

Feel free the repeat the exercises as many times as you would like.
Let me know how it goes.

Regarding sensations and thoughts, I keep observing that thoughts bring about the body contractions or sensations, not the other way round. Once started, the two are linked and feed on each other. Focus on the sensation alone, or on the related thoughts, leads to the same release eventually.

Ben

Hi Ben,

Regarding sensations and thoughts, I keep observing that thoughts bring about the body contractions or sensations, not the other way round. Once started, the two are linked and feed on each other. Focus on the sensation alone, or on the related thoughts, leads to the same release eventually.

Yes, nice looking.

Please look very carefully one-by-one with the following questions. Spend a few minutes with each. Literally scan through the whole body from head to toe, with particular attention on the head. Look behind the eyes, into the forehead, the top of the head, the throat, look everywhere. Also scan through all aspects of experience.

Is there a you?
Has there ever been a you?

Is there an experiencER?
Is there anything having the experience of whatever is happening?
Is there anything what the experience is happening TO?

Is there a ‘doer’ of any kind which performs activities and movements?

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

Is there a self that is inside the body, perceiving a world that is outside?

Is searching/seeking still going on?

Did you experience any shift in perspective, even if it didn’t last?
If yes, could you please write a bit about it?

What has changed since the start of conversation, what hasn’t? – please talk about your feelings

Is there anything that is not totally clear and you would like to look at?


Vivien

Dear Vivien,
I'm looking through your questions slowly and will be posting answers when done.
Ben

Hi Ben,

All right, thank you for letting me known.

Have a nice day,
Vivien

Dear Vivien

Is there a you?

Not really

Has there ever been a you?

Never really

Is there an experiencER?

No, but there's experience/ing.

Is there anything having the experience of whatever is happening?

No

Is there anything what the experience is happening TO?

No. There is but experience.

Is there a ‘doer’ of any kind which performs activities and movements?

Not really

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

No

Do others have responsibilities?

No

Is there a self that is inside the body, perceiving a world that is outside?

Not really

Is searching/seeking still going on?

Not much.

Did you experience any shift in perspective, even if it didn’t last?
If yes, could you please write a bit about it?

My perspective shifted mainly as regards the concept of witness/awareness, which is not met in reality. This did away with a key aspect of sense of self, and with concerns about it. Of course, there is still the mind spinning its stories, usually quite mildly so, and those have no bearing on reality.

What has changed since the start of conversation, what hasn’t? – please talk about your feelings

My feelings have been muted lately. This process towards no-self is quite sobering, and focus on actual experience diverts attention away, among others, from some of the more blissful states otherwise encountered. Realization, however gradual, can appear to be quite brutal (not really) but there's no alternative and it's not a matter of choice, not to me for sure. It's a matter of acceptance, really, and the fuller and faster, the better. By comparison to the earlier months and years of 'awakening', this has been a soft ride, thanks also to your kind and expert guidance.

Is there anything that is not totally clear and you would like to look at?

It's all so simple, really. The less 'I' do the better :)

Thank you!
Ben :)

Hi Ben,

V: Is there a you?

B: Not really

V: Has there ever been a you?

B: Never really

V: Is there a ‘doer’ of any kind which performs activities and movements?

B: Not really

V: Is there a self that is inside the body, perceiving a world that is outside?

B: Not really

I’m not 100% convinced by your replies. Since you say: ‘not really’, and not just simply ‘no’.

Is there a little bit of hesitation or doubt with ‘really’?

Can you say NO with 100% EXPERIENTIAL certainty to those questions?

V: Is searching/seeking still going on?

B: Not much.

Not much searching/seeking or not at all?
What is it that you are still searching/seeking for?
What is missing?

Realization, however gradual, can appear to be quite brutal (not really) but there's no alternative and it's not a matter of choice, not to me for sure. It's a matter of acceptance, really, and the fuller and faster, the better.

“it’s a matter of acceptance” – acceptance by what?
What is it that has no choice, but can accept this?

Vivien