looking for guide

[Vivien]

Dear Kat,

Kat: So the thought is 'real' but the contents are not. I have no idea what you mean! I will ponder on that one with the chair example.

When there is a thought, it is obvious that it is there. (So the arising thought is ‘real’), but what it is ABOUT (its contents) is not. The content of thoughts is always imaginary. That we have thoughts is clearly true; but their content is pure imagination.

There are two types of thoughts:
(1) Thoughts with words, like “Here is a cup”
(2) Visual mental images of a ‘cup’

I invite you to do this exercise:
Think of a cup. Get a very clear picture in your mind. See clearly the size, shape, colour and volume of the cup. Notice whether it is decorated or plain. Notice whether it has a handle. Notice whether it is heavy or fragile. Do you have a clear picture in mind?

Now, can you physically grasp that image of a cup?
Can you pour tea into it?
Can you drink from it? In Reality?

Over the course of the next few days, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever a thought arises, whenever you have an image of something in mind, check whether it is a physical reality or imaginary.

Kat: Same thing, though it is an odd thought there's nobody there!... Still, I wonder if 'I' am just fooling 'myself'.

These are just thoughts, nothing serious. :) Thoughts always try to interpret what is happening.

Kat: so thoughts actually distort the direct experience by interpreting what is happening?

I would rather say; thoughts label the current experiencing.

Look around the room (or wherever you’re right now) and observe how thoughts label everything. “This is a table”, “This is a chair”, “This is my IPad”, “This cup is red”. Observe this for a few minutes.

Now chose an object, let’s say a table. Observe it carefully. Now call it to something else, call it ‘chair’. Look at the table and while you’re looking at it, label it as ‘chair’. Do it several times. Then, say it out loud “This is a chair”.

Can the thought label ‘chair’ have any effect on the seeing?
Can the thought label ‘chair’ distort the direct experience of seeing?
Can the mental label ‘table’ have any effect on the seeing?
Can any mental labels have an effect on the actual experience of seeing?

Vivien: Does the thinker of the thought appear in the experience? Can it be found?

Kat: Dont quite get that one. Pondering...

In other words:
Is there a ‘thing’ (a thinker) that generates the thought?
If yes, how is it appear in the actual experience, how is it experienced?

Can 'you' choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?
Is there an 'I' that controls thoughts?

Is there an 'I' that has ownership of thoughts?
What do the thoughts belong to? What owns them?

Do you think thoughts or do thoughts think you?
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?

Love, Vivien

[Kat]

Hi Vivien,

Having had a glimpse of something free and happy a few days ago; it made me laugh, I had a day of feeling bleak and disengaged yesterday, finding life somewhat pointless.
Not sure how much it has to do with the enquiry. There is a fear that this process will lead to alienation.
And that's what I was in touch with yesterday.
Today things are fine again. I have been looking at my experience, sensing it and still trying to locate 'me'.
It's interesting when I'm walking; there is less of a sense of 'I'. Maybe because thee is more of a flow; my body moving, the wind moving, nothing is static.

Vivien: the content of thoughts is always imaginary. That we have thought is clearly true; but their content is pure imagination.

Kat: I think I get that now, thanks. The only thing is: it sounds like there are two things; a thought and its contents. But is a thought, whatever it is, not just insubstantial; i.e there is no sunstance to it, like a cloud? The thought and its contents are one and the same arent they?

Vivien: there are two types of thoughts:
(1) Thoughts with words, like "Here is a cup"
(2) Visual mental images of a "cup"

Kat: I get both at the same time. I usually see a visual image and see how it is spelled in my mind.
Vivien: Can you physically grasp that image of a cup?
Can you pour tea in it?
Can you drink from it? In reality?

Kt: I can grasp the image, nice and clear easily, but no, I cannot drink from it. It's not real.

Vivien: Whenever a thought arises, whenever you have an image of something in mind, check whether it is a physical reality or imaginary.

Kat: ok, I've been doing that. It is imaginary, all of it.

Vivien; now choose an object, let's say a table. Observe it carefully. Now call it something else, call it 'chair'. Look at the table and while you're looking at it, label it as 'chair'. Do it several times. Then say it out loud "This is a chair".

Kat: I did this. The chair which I called a table in this case, became a 'thing'.

Vivien: Can the thought label 'chair' have any effect on the seeing?

Kat, no I see the same thing but differently. I see what is there more clearly actually.

Vivien: Can the thought label 'chair' distort the direct experience of the seeing?

Kat: No. I see the same, whatever I cal it, but if it is not the lable that goes with it, I see it more clearly somehow. Without the expectation of what it should look like.

Vivien: Canthe mental label 'table' have any effect on the seeing?

Kat: No guess not. It is still what it is, no different.

Vivien: Can any mental labels have an effect on the actual experience of seeing?

Kat: The only thing I notice is that when it has a lable that is different from the usual, it makes the seeing sharper.


Vivien: Is there a 'thing' (a thinker) that generates the thought?
If yes, how does it appear in the actual experience, how is it experienced?
Kat, No I cant find a thinker. Not there.

Vivien: Can 'you' choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?

Kat, Yes, certainly, I can choose to think of other things that do not generate pain or negativity. Perhaps not initially and not always, but when my mind goes down a certain track I can notice and change it.

Vivien: Is there an 'i' that controls thoughts?
Kat: maybe there is no 'i', but still 'i' can change 'my' mind.

Vivien: Is there an 'I'that has ownership of the thoughts?
Kat: no. Clearly not. Thoughts can not be owned. they just come and go.

Vivien: What do the thoughts belong to? Who owns them?
Kat: they don't belong anywhere, they just are. No 'one' owns them.

Vivien: Do you think thoughts or do thoughts think you?
Kat: Neither. But yet 'I' can change the course of 'my' thoughts.

Vivien: Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?
Kat: no, not possible. They just appear, even or especially the thought 'I'. That seems to be the main one!

Cheers,
Kat

[Vivien]

Dear Kat,

Kat: There is a fear that this process will lead to alienation. And that's what I was in touch with yesterday.

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.

If it happens again, check if you can welcome the fear, comfort it, ask it what message it has for you. Fear is my kind friend much of the time; it keeps me from walking off cliffs or otherwise putting the body in mortal danger. BUT fear also is often mistaken! I notice I feel fear sometimes when there is no actual danger, just thoughts that set off the alarm bells. When I can look directly at what is believed to be the source of fear, I can respond reasonably to them. If I am in genuine danger, escape may be a good plan. If the only danger is in my thoughts, then investigating those thoughts carefully may be a better plan.

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, what would happen if the illusion of the self is seen through?

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?

Kat: The only thing is: it sounds like there are two things; a thought and its contents. But is a thought, whatever it is, not just insubstantial; i.e there is no sunstance to it, like a cloud? The thought and its contents are one and the same arent they?

Yes, thought and its content are inseparable, they are not two ‘things’. This distinction is totally artificial. And yet, it is useful to see the difference between an arising thought and its content. The whole point is to SEE what is ‘real’ and what is not.

An arising thought it is ‘real’, but its content, what it is about, is not. So, when there is an arising thought about a cup, the thought (and/ or mental picture) is there, this cannot be denied. However, what is the thought about, its content (the cup) is not ‘real’, it is just an imagination.

Kat: I can grasp the image, nice and clear easily, but no, I cannot drink from it. It's not real.

How can the image of a cup be grasped?
Can the image of a cup be grasped at all?
Or just thoughts suggest this?

Kat: The only thing I notice is that when it has a lable that is different from the usual, it makes the seeing sharper.

OK, now ignore ALL labels.
What is left?
What happens if all labels are ignored?

Vivien: Can 'you' choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?

Kat, Yes, certainly, I can choose to think of other things that do not generate pain or negativity.

OK, here is an interesting exercise.

Set for a timer for 10 minutes. Sit still and alone during this time.

The task is to have ONLY positive thoughts for 10 minutes. Not a single negative, and not even a neutral, just positive.
If a negative or neutral thought come up at any time, don’t stop the exercise before the alarm ring. Rather stick with your intention to have only positive thoughts.

Please let me know how it went.

Vivien: Is there an 'i' that controls thoughts?

Kat: maybe there is no 'i', but still 'i' can change 'my' mind.

What is this ‘I’ that could change its mind?
Where is it located exactly?
Are 'you' doing the 'changing', or does the 'changing the mind' happen by 'itself', without an owner (you)?

Love, Vivien

[Kat]

Hi Vivien.

Re fear: will ask what's behind it when it comes up.

Vivien: Howcan the image ofa cup be grasped?
Kat: it cant. I took it metaphorically.

Vivien: ignore all labels. What is left? What happens if all labels are ignored?
Kat: Whats left is just what is there in the seeing, no more no less.

Vivien: exercise for 10 minutes. The task is to have ONLY positive throughts for 10 minutes. Not a single negative, and not even a neutral, just positive.

Kat: ok, I did that. I sat for 10 minutes and had positive thoughts with the focus on someone I care about.
From your question I gather that you think this is not possible?
Sure that is true when there is just random thought. But if there is a focus, thought becomes intentional. I'm not saying that other thoughts may not come up as well, but not necessarily so. That is my experience.

Can you explain to me where intentional thought comes in?
When I give my thoughts a direction, and there is no I to do so, no 'one' who controls or steers this, where does intention come from and how is it formed? Where does discipline come from?

Vivien: What is this 'I' that could change its mind? Where is it located exactly? Are you doing the 'changing'. or does the 'changing the mind' happen by 'itself', without an owner (you)?

Kat: There is no 'i' that can be found anywhere inside or outside the body/mind. The changing is initiated by a thought which triggers an emotion, which may trigger an action or train of thought. So yes, the mind can change triggered by a thought. There does not appear to be an owner.

cheers,
Kat

[Vivien]

Dear Kat,

Kat: ok, I did that. I sat for 10 minutes and had positive thoughts with the focus on someone I care about.

And did you have ONLY positive thoughts for the whole duration of 10 mins, or there were some neutral (or even negative) thoughts as well?
Were you able to keep focus CONSTANTLY for 10 mins on the person you care about without straying away (not a single thought that is not about him/her)?

Kat: Can you explain to me where intentional thought comes in?
When I give my thoughts a direction, and there is no I to do so, no 'one' who controls or steers this, where does intention come from and how is it formed? Where does discipline come from?

These are very good questions. But I cannot answer them for you, because it wouldn’t help you at all. That would be a second-hand ‘knowledge’ only. ‘You’ have to see this for ‘yourself’. However, I can help you to point where to LOOK.

For today, I’d like to ask you to observe ‘intentional thoughts’. Wherever you are, whatever you do, there is a good opportunity to observe how a decision is made. When it is noticed that ‘here is an intentional thought’ try to thread back:

- Where it came from?
- What triggered it?
- What is the difference between an ‘intentional thought’ and a ‘non-intentional thought’?
- What makes a thought ‘intentional’ or ‘non-intentional’?

How intention is actually experienced?
Can intention be experienced at all, or just content of thoughts suggest this?
How it is known that ‘this is intention’ and ‘this is not’?

Here is a very interesting exercise on decision.
Go and make a cup of tea or coffee. As you do this notice whether a 'self' does it. Also notice if there are many or any moments in the whole procedure of going to the kettle, switching it on, getting the cup (etc) when 'you' control the process?

How the decision is made what to make a cup of tea or coffee?
Do ‘you’ choose putting or not putting milk into the tea?
Is there a moment of choice or it happens automatically?
Do ‘you’ make the cup of tea (or coffee) happen, or it just happens?
Can a chooser 'thing' be located?

Kat: There is no 'i' that can be found anywhere inside or outside the body/mind. The changing is initiated by a thought which triggers an emotion, which may trigger an action or train of thought. So yes, the mind can change triggered by a thought. There does not appear to be an owner.

Very good LOOKing.

Love, Vivien

[Kat]

Hi Vivien,

Vivien:
And did you have ONLY positive thoughts for the whole duration of 10 mins, or there were some neutral (or even negative) thoughts as well?
Were you able to keep focus CONSTANTLY for 10 mins on the person you care about without straying away (not a single thought that is not about him/her)?

Kat: Sure, other thoughts drift in, like; fancy a coffee or something like that. But the intention to have positive thoughts can be maintained for 10 minutes and longer. Even if 'I' dont generate the thoughts, the intention has a purpose, a direction and that can be a positive one.

Vivien:
For today, I’d like to ask you to observe ‘intentional thoughts’. Wherever you are, whatever you do, there is a good opportunity to observe how a decision is made. When it is noticed that ‘here is an intentional thought’ try to thread back:

- Where it came from?

Kat: it still comes from seemingly nowhere, as with any thoughts.

- What triggered it?

Kat: a thought triggered it, preceded it.

- What is the difference between an ‘intentional thought’ and a ‘non-intentional thought’?

Kat: Hm, not sure. The thought is just a thought, regardless of it being intentional or non-intentional. they are the same. It still comes from nowhere.

- What makes a thought ‘intentional’ or ‘non-intentional’?

Kat: It looks like a thought itself cannot be intentional or non intentional. There can be a positive mental state, and that can be cultivated, but exactly what thought will come up is still a surprise. Or it can be the same old thing, a repetetive thought pattern that is familiar. The pattern can be the same, but the actual precise thought is not predictable.

Vivien:
How intention is actually experienced?
Kat: As a sense of direction. There are the dishes; my intention is to wash up. The seeing of the dishes triggers a thought which triggers the intention to wash up, which triggers the action of washing up.


Can intention be experienced at all, or just content of thoughts suggest this?

Kat: It's a label. I cannot experience 'intention' as such. But the train of thoughts suggest there is an intention behind (my actions). If there was no intention or sense of continuity, I might just wash up one cup, then drift off to whatever next grabs the attention.

Vivien; How it is known that ‘this is intention’ and ‘this is not’?

Kat: if an action is intentional, there is awareness present. There's something to be said for spontaneous action!. But there is a difference from what state of mind action/thought springs from. Positive or negative. The outcome would be very different.

Vivien: Here is a very interesting exercise on decision.
Go and make a cup of tea or coffee. As you do this notice whether a 'self' does it. Also notice if there are many or any moments in the whole procedure of going to the kettle, switching it on, getting the cup (etc) when 'you' control the process?

How the decision is made what to make a cup of tea or coffee?
Do ‘you’ choose putting or not putting milk into the tea?
Is there a moment of choice or it happens automatically?
Do ‘you’ make the cup of tea (or coffee) happen, or it just happens?
Can a chooser 'thing' be located?

Kat: Yes, interesting exercise.
The initial decision stems from a desire for coffee or tea. My body indicates it wants either one or the other. There is s desire for tea or coffee. A thought arises: coffee. There is a visual image of it. There is physical pleasure already with that thought, even though the coffee is not real at that moment. The thought already makes 'me' feel better.
The process happens automatically, there is no noticeable choice in whether I take milk or not; the programming is already there, so the process follows the conditioning. It seems to be a flow of actions that go easily. It is a ritual that does not require 'me' as such to 'do' it. It's a chain of events. This chain of events follows the way of least resistance; the easy flow that requires no effort.
No chooser or 'I' can be located, yet 'I'm making it. 'My' body is doing it. There is awareness in action.

cheers,
Kat

[Vivien]

Dear Kat,

Kat: As a sense of direction. There are the dishes; my intention is to wash up. The seeing of the dishes triggers a thought which triggers the intention to wash up, which triggers the action of washing up.

Kat: It's a label.I cannot experience 'intention' as such. But the train of thoughts suggest there is an intention behind (my actions).

Good LOOKing.

Kat: if an action is intentional, there is awareness present. There's something to be said for spontaneous action!. But there is a difference from what state of mind action/thought springs from. Positive or negative.

Are there really positive and negative thoughts or ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ are just thought-labels attached to other thoughts?

There is a general or widespread belief that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ or ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ are inherent in their labels. There is a belief that labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’. But there isn’t.

Where labels come from?
How a judgment is made?
Are judgements are true or just judgements (just mental labels)?

Look at these colours with labels.

BLACK GREEN PINK
ORANGE YELLOW
BLUE BROWN GREY
TURQUOISE WHITE
PURPLE RED CYAN

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN’, what is the actual experience?
Is red colour experienced or is green colour experienced as the label suggests it?
Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?
Or the labels suggest something else than what is here and now (red colour)?
Is green-ness inherent attributes of the experience of the red colour, or green is just a word label on the experience of the red colour?

If we change the label ‘GREEN’ into ‘POSITIVE’ or ‘NEGATIVE’ does the redness (the actual experience) change into ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ as the labels suggest?

Kat: The process happens automatically, there is no noticeable choice in whether I take milk or not; the programming is already there, so the process follows the conditioning. It seems to be a flow of actions that go easily. It is a ritual that does not require 'me' as such to 'do' it. It's a chain of events. This chain of events follows the way of least resistance; the easy flow that requires no effort.
No chooser or 'I' can be located, yet 'I'm making it.

Good LOOKing.

Kat: ‘My’ body is doing it.

Observe the ‘next’ action that the ‘body is doing’ (walking, washing teeth, doing the dishes, eating, talking, get dressed). Go directly to the actual experience.

Is there something in the body that initiates the actions (or decisions)?
If yes, where is it located?
Is the body doing the actions or acting just happens?
In other words, is there a subject (body) that is doing the actions (object) or there is just acting?

Next time, we will examine the body more closely.

There is awareness in action.

Where is this ‘awareness’ located exactly?
How awareness experienced with the 5 senses?
What is awareness in the actual, direct experience?

Love, Vivien

[Kat]

Hi Vivien,

Vivien:

There is a general or widespread belief that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ or ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ are inherent in their labels. There is a belief that labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’. But there isn’t.

Where labels come from?
How a judgment is made?
Are judgements are true or just judgements (just mental labels)?

Kat: I can see that 'negative' and 'positive' are mere labels. Whatever is, is just as it is. Calling it negative or positive is a judgment on whatever is there, which is just what it is.
Where do labels come from? No idea! Is it a language thing? As a baby, you just see and don't label. But then you're told that whatever you're looking at is a 'cat' or a 'tree' or whatever label they have.
It seems impossible not to label however, it is just instant. I like it sometimes when I see something that I can't identify immediately and notice how my mind tries to make sense of the object, tries to put it in a category. It causes tension not to be able to identify and box it in your minds filing cabinet.

How a judgment is made; it seems pretty instant. There is a pre-programmed mind; it tries to fit everything in what it knows at that time. The judgment seems to come from that, the pre-conceived ideas.
They are mental labels and therefore not true as such.

Vivien: Look at these colours with labels.

When you look at the word label ‘Green" what is the actual experience?

Kat: its just a word, a label. Initially I didn't clock instantly that they were the 'wrong' colours. Then there is an adjustment happening. Oh it's a label, thats all.

Vivien:Is red colour experienced or is green colour experienced as the label suggests it?

Kat: What is experienced is what I see or what is in the seeing; the actual colour.
It is clear that the label isnt IT.

Vivien: Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?
Kat: no. the labels are not what is seen. The labels dont reflect reality. reality is what is seen.

Vivien: Or the labels suggest something else than what is here and now (red colour)?
Kat: yes, the labels say something else; it's like a brain thing that gets in the middle of what is experienced and the experience happening.

Vivien: Is green-ness inherent attributes of the experience of the red colour, or green is just a word label on the experience of the red colour?

Kat: the latter; green is a word label on the experience of the red colour.

Vivien: If we change the label ‘green' into ‘positive' or ‘negative' does the redness (the actual experience) change into ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ as the labels suggest?

Kat: no. the red is just what it is, it doesnt change.

Vivien:
Observe the ‘next’ action that the ‘body is doing’ (walking, washing teeth, doing the dishes, eating, talking, get dressed). Go directly to the actual experience.

Is there something in the body that initiates the actions (or decisions)?

Kat: cant find it but then what drives the action..?

If yes, where is it located?
Kat: not located anywhere.

Is the body doing the actions or acting just happens?

Kat: action just seems to happen. No apparent driver anywhere.

In other words, is there a subject (body) that is doing the actions (object) or there is just acting?

Kat: just the acting. Through the body rather than from the body.

Vivien:
Where is this ‘awareness’ [in action] located exactly?

Kat this is slightly maddening but it is not there.

How awareness experienced with the 5 senses?

Kat: ??? It is seen, heard, felt or smelt or tasted. thats it. thats all.

What is awareness in the actual, direct experience?

Kat: experience

love, Kat (somewhat exasperated)

[Vivien]

Dear Kat,

Kat: It seems impossible not to label however, it is just instant.

Yes, but there is no ‘problem’ with this labelling. It is enough to see that these are just mental labels that have not one-to-one correspondence with reality.

I like it sometimes when I see something that I can't identify immediately and notice how my mind tries to make sense of the object, tries to put it in a category. It causes tension not to be able to identify and box it in your minds filing cabinet.

Good observations.

What is this 'I' that has a 'mind'?
What is ‘mind’ in the actual experience?
How ‘mind’ is experienced with the five senses?

Vivien: Is there something in the body that initiates the actions (or decisions)?

Kat: cant find it but then what drives the action..?

Thought is based in language and language can be very confusing as it presumes a subject at all times. Does the habit of referring back to thoughts about ‘me’ indicate an entity, or a ‘driver’ of any kind in ‘reality’? Or have you merely accepted the apparent implication that language produces that if there is an action then there must be a doer or a driver? Go to the actual experience and check it.

Vivien: Where is this ‘awareness’ [in action] located exactly?
Kat: this is slightly maddening but it is not there.

Vivien: How awareness experienced with the 5 senses?
Kat: ??? It is seen, heard, felt or smelt or tasted. thats it. thats all.

Vivien:What is awareness in the actual, direct experience?
Kat: experience

So is there ‘awareness’ in the actual experience or is ‘awareness’ just a label on the experience?

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; when about smelling, actually smell something (same with the other senses).

Love, Vivien

[Kat]

Dear Vivien,

Vivien:
What is this 'I' that has a 'mind'?

Kat: There is no such thing. No 'one' to 'have' a mind.

What is ‘mind’ in the actual experience?

Kat: nothing. It is a concept. Helpful as a reference point though.

How ‘mind’ is experienced with the five senses?

Kat: There is no sense of 'mind', it is an idea, a mental concept. The five senses just sense, through the body. The body is the medium.

Vivien:

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?

Kat: Yes to all of these; there is just seeing and the seen. Just hearing and the heard. Sounds 'pass through' as it were.
Going through all the senses, each is just that; a sense. There appears to be no 'hearer' or 'seeer' etc. No 'one' 'doing' it. Sounds, feelings, smells etc just come into being, just arise and then just pass away into nowhere.
So it appears to be with life. Just here, not inside or outside, just everywhere through the senses.
It gets harder to put it into words at this point. There is no 'definite'. Don't really know how to put it. Life is life and it is as it is and thats how it is. Sounds simplistic and it really is not like that either. Experience is a concept too.
Is there more to say?

love,
Kat

[Vivien]

Dear Kat,

Kat: The five senses just sense, through the body.

OK, let’s examine the body a bit more closely.
Here is an interesting exercise on the body.

With the eyes closed, sitting still, notice the other sensations: hearing, smelling, tasting, touching. With only the input from those four senses, and without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does it have a weight or a volume of the body?
Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
Is there an inside or outside?
What is the body in the actual experience?

Kat: Yes to all of these; there is just seeing and the seen. Just hearing and the heard. Sounds 'pass through' as it were.

In language it is assumed that there is an ‘I’ (subject) that is hearing the sound (object). ‘You’ have already seen that there is no ‘you’ (subject) that is hearing. So, the question is:

In the actual experience is there an object (sound) or just hearing happening (without any subject and object)?

Put one of the hands onto the table. Close the eyes. Pay attention only to the felt sensation.
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that there is a hand or only thoughts and mental labels suggest this?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that there is a table or only thoughts and mental labels suggest this?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that anything being touched/felt (object) or there is only touching/feeling?

Same with hearing.
Does the hearing itself suggest in any way that a sound is heard, or there is only hearing?

Kat: Is there more to say?

For this question let me reply with some other questions :)

Has it been clearly seen that there has never been an ‘I’ that could control or own life or anything?
Is there any chooser or decider of any kind?
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?

Love, Vivien

[Kat]

Hi Vivien,

Vivien:

With the eyes closed, sitting still, notice the other sensations: hearing, smelling, tasting, touching. With only the input from those four senses, and without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?

Kat: no, not really.
If there is a sense of tallness it is because there is an image, so a mental concept.

Does it have a weight or a volume of the body?

Kat: there is a sense of heaviness in places, but not of weight or volume.

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?

Kat: There is no boundary to be felt. Just a sensation of clothes against skin, but again; that is the image, the mental concept. there is just a sensation of softness or pressure.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

Kat: No. Just a feeling, but without the image of chair and body, there is only a sensation.

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

Kat: No. It can feel very different at different times, so it bears no relation to what the actual shape or form is like.
When sitting or lying still, there is no sense of shape or form.

Is there an inside or outside?

Kat: no!

What is the body in the actual experience?

Kat: it is just what I feel when in contact with something else like clothing, chair, bed or something inside, like food just eaten. It is not a sense of the whole body at any time.

Vivien:
In language it is assumed that there is an ‘I’ (subject) that is hearing the sound (object). ‘You’ have already seen that there is no ‘you’ (subject) that is hearing. So, the question is:

In the actual experience is there an object (sound) or just hearing happening (without any subject and object)?

Kat: there seems to be no distinction, but without the sound there is no hearing, so in effect it is the same thing,
No subject or object in effect. Just whatever is there in the hearing.

Vivien:
Put one of the hands onto the table. Close the eyes. Pay attention only to the felt sensation.
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that there is a hand or only thoughts and mental labels suggest this?

Kat: The sensation is just a sensation of touch or warmth against cool, but without the image of 'hand' or 'table' there is only sensation, it is one and the same thing, same sensation.

Vivien:
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that there is a table or only thoughts and mental labels suggest this?

Kat: clearly, mental images suggest this. there is no boundary between hand and table.

Vivien:
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that anything being touched/felt (object) or there is only touching/feeling?

Kat: There is just touching and feeling, one and the same sensation.

Vivien: Same with hearing.
Does the hearing itself suggest in any way that a sound is heard, or there is only hearing?

Kat: There is only hearing when there is a sound. I guess its one and the same. Without hearing no sound, without sound no hearing.

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

Kat: Yes.

Is there any chooser or decider of any kind?

Kat: No.

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

Kat: If there is no 'i', how can there be an 'i' responsible? No!

Do others have responsibilities?

Kat: There seems to be no clear distinction between 'i' and 'others'. How can there be?
Same applies; No!

Is there a 'you' that started this investigation?

Kat: It seemed that way at the time, but it now appears to have been an illusion. Is it different conditions that have lead up to the point of investigaton? Or indeed, up to anything at all?

Has there ever been a 'you' doing anything?

Kat: No. clearly not. !! No 'I' 'doing'.

Love, Kat

[Vivien]

Dear Kat,

Vivien: Can it be known how tall the body is?

Kat: no, not really.
If there is a sense of tallness it is because there is an image, so a mental concept.

So there are sensations with simultaneously arising mental images. So the “sense” part is ‘coming from’ the sensation, the “tallness” part is ‘coming from’ the image and when they are ‘welded together’ the “sense of tallness” emerges. Can you see this?

Kat: there is a sense of heaviness in places, but not of weight or volume.

Same as above.
Does the sensation itself imply in any what that “this is heaviness” or only mental labels suggest this?

Kat: There is no boundary to be felt. Just a sensation of clothes against skin, but again; that is the image, the mental concept. there is just a sensation of softness or pressure.

Does the sensation itself imply in any what that “this is softness” or “this is pressure” or only mental labels suggest this?

Kat: The sensation is just a sensation of touch or warmth against cool, but without the image of 'hand' or 'table' there is only sensation, it is one and the same thing, same sensation.

Does the sensation itself imply in any what that “this is warmth against cool” or only mental labels suggest this?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that there is warmness or coolness?


As a next step, there are further six questions to ask as part of this guiding process. The response is then shared with other guides. They may or may not have further questions.

Once it is confirmed by other guides that seeing through the illusion of the self has happened, our conversation in this thread will come to an end, however you won’t be left alone. There is a whole community of others on FB, who have also seen through the ‘self’. Actually, there are several groups to join.

So here are the 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) Do you decide, intend, choose, control events in Life? Do you make anything happen? Give examples from your experience.

6) Anything to add?

Love, Vivien

[Kat]

Dear Vivien,

Back on laptop, lets see if the quote function works!

So there are sensations with simultaneously arising mental images. So the “sense” part is ‘coming from’ the sensation, the “tallness” part is ‘coming from’ the image and when they are ‘welded together’ the “sense of tallness” emerges. Can you see this?

Kat: yes, I can see that. 'welding' is a good word, it is seamless until it's properly investigated.

Does the sensation itself imply in any what that “this is heaviness” or only mental labels suggest this?

Kat: This is where language can be an obstacle. The sensation is one of heaviness, density, fullness. I is not light. If there is just sensation, well, what is it apart from that? Everything felt is sensation? With no further labels to get clearer on what kind of sensation it feels like? Just feeling? But there are different kinds of feelings and sensations.

Does the sensation itself imply in any what that “this is softness” or “this is pressure” or only mental labels suggest this?

Kat: Yes, they are mental labels, and they help to discern the kind of sensation. Both are true.

Does the sensation itself imply in any what that “this is warmth against cool” or only mental labels suggest this?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that there is warmness or coolness?

Kat: There is a difference in temperature when I put my hand on the table. Initially, there is sensation or feeling in the hand, although 'hand' is a label and mental image, so there is just sensation. Once in contact with the table, there is a contrast in feeling warm 'hand' and 'cool surface'. Then it becomes one sensation, there is no boundary between the two.'Warm' and 'cool' are labels, but again; is all that is left then 'sensation' ? Is that not also a label? What to say to describe anything? Solely 'feeling'?

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

Kat: No.none detected.Not in any way shape or form, not even subtle. No, there never was, though it seemed so.

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.

Kat: When it starts is hard to know, but it seems bound up in language and "i' and 'You' separation, which must happen quite early on in life, when learning whatever is around is 'other', not an extension or part of the same experience. This is theory. In terms of direct experience:
Now it seems clear that there is no-one 'driving' 'me', that there are just conditions leading to ever changing conditions. It is endless. It is like an ever moving organism that just changes all the time and there is no fixed identity to it, no core of 'self' that is controlling the process.
The experience is one of sensing life or life force or movement. That's what it feels like; movement, ongoing movement without a fixed 'me'. It feels very fluid.
When "i' move or act, it appears this is a result of preceding conditions; thoughts to 'do' something. But thoughts just come and go from nowhere. They are like air, can't hold on or control them.
'I' is not anywhere in or outside the body. Just sensations.

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.

Kat: It feels very free! There is no 'i' to criticise or berate. It's pointless. Before the dialogue, there was a pretty definite 'I' looking to 'get somewhere' with this inquiry. Now it feels there is nowhere to get to or achieve. Who would achieve it, haha, it's like a big cosmic joke. Experimenting with direct experience through the senses has been illuminating. It became very clear how mental concepts in the shape of images mainly distort the actual experience and give 'meaning' to it. The labelling is endless and not stoppable, but to SEE that is what is happening all the time has been an eye opener. So nothing has really changed in a funny way; everything is still the same. Its just the way everything is now perceived that is different. As if a film with stories has been made transparent. The stories are still there; but it is clear that they are just that: Stories. Mental concepts. Not what is really being experienced.

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

Kat: What made a big difference and was an eye opener was to feel that without mental images there is no sense of where 'I' and other things start. There is just the experience, it is ONE experience, ONE sensation. Body on chair: one sensation. Mental images suggest there are two things, but it FEELS like one.There is just what is happening. It is simple. Much more simple then how it felt with all the mental projections firmly believed in.
This is what is different; mental concepts are still very much there, but it is clear that that is what they are. They are not the actual experience.

5) Do you decide, intend, choose, control events in Life? Do you make anything happen? Give examples from your experience.

Kat: No, there is really no "I' deciding or choosing anything. It comes about as a result from various conditions. An emotion, sensation or a thought that just wafts by leads to the next thing that is happening. It can look like 'I' make things happen, like do the laundry. But it doesn't work like that. 'I' find myself doing things, just as part of a flow. No decision was made by 'me'. It is like being in the flow without effort. Nice feeling.
'I' do not control anything. But that was clear before the discovery there really is no-one driving 'me'.

6) Anything to add?

Kat: Its very relaxing. It creates space in which there is more to laugh about!

Love,
Kat

[Vivien]

Dear Kat,

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