The Gate

Dear Mitch,

As the illusion of self, past/future, choice/free will, and all other cherished conceptions arise now as thought -- all they have "ever" been, no special state -- no enlightened shock or heavenly cloud-parting happens. Nothing special other than merely what always only IS. Questions for the guide/Vivien arise and pop before fully forming in the light of no special state -- no future great awakening to be had, grasped for.

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

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

To help the insight to sink even deeper would suggest doing some investigation 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?

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).

Do you have anything further to add right now?
Any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?

Love, Vivien

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

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

No "me"/"I" beginning this process . . . Just an unfolding now. No "I" to own or be "responsible," and no "ownership"/"responsibility" for "others." Just now.

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?

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?

Interesting that without thought/mental image none of these "boundary conditions" exist . . . No body, shape -- no experiencer. Just the "ing" now. No boundaries except what arises in thought, which is itself an "ing"

Do you have anything further to add right now?
Any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?

thinking now about the difference between expectation of realizing and what is in seeing no boundaries . . . No special experience. No glorious state. Just tapping, hearing, and realizing labels rise in mind and popping upon realizing

Questioning . . . What of compassion? Is it mere thought/label? If no responsibility, then how does love arise? If the response is that these are mere thoughts, aren't these thoughts to be held, experienced? Aren't some "illusions" "better" than others?

"I" teach others about mindfulness and the focus is generally on realizing raw sensation without judgment, labels. What of the interactions, dynamics, interconnections between "us" and "the world?" Even if these are simply images/thoughts arising now, is there not value in holding/acting on such images/thoughts as long as realized as mere thoughts -- as long as the illusion is seen through? As long as no "self" sticks to these?

Gratefulness here for you, Vivien . . . Just thinking?

Dear Mitch,

What of compassion? Is it mere thought/label?

Is compassion only thought label?

OK, let’s examine a situation when compassion (or empathy) arises. Let’s say that we have a conversation and you are telling me that your wife has just left you. As I hear your words, some memories arise when I was left by a loved one. As the memories arise, they can trigger some associated emotions. So now, ‘I’ can feel the ‘emotional pain’ and ‘disappointment’ as a reaction to ‘my’ memories (thought stories). So there are some bodily sensations, that are labelled as ‘such and such’ emotions.

Normally, we don’t recognise this whole process. What we recognise is that we feel compassion to the other. But can I ever feel your ‘pain’, your feelings, or can I only feel ‘my’ pain that has arisen due to the triggering memory?

So am I feeling compassion (empathy) towards you or am I just feeling ‘my’ own pain, and then this pain is projected onto ‘you’?

Let’s go a bit further. What happens if all this process is noticed? If this whole process noticed a totally different type of compassion can arise. There is a seeing that both ‘your’ and ‘my’ story is just stories, appearing thoughts here and now. It is also seen that the bodily sensation that is labelled as ‘such-and-such emotion’ is the result of believing the story and not seeing it only as an arising thought.

In this case ‘real compassion’ can arise. Compassion can arise towards you that ‘you’ believed a story and not see it only as a story, and maybe I can help you to show to see how all of this process works (of course only, if you have a desire to see it). I can be with you without being lost in ‘my story’, ‘my suffering’.

In the first scenario, I’m not really compassionate with you because I support your belief in the story. We both believe our own stories and lament over them, as if they were ‘reality’. In the moment, when my own feeling is triggered by a story and not seen for what it is, I lost all connection with you, I stopped listening to you, because I am concerned about my story, my pain (that is projected onto you, so here comes the illusion that I feel empathy towards you). And generally this is what most call as compassion. But actually, we both are lost in storyland, in our suffering.

If no responsibility, then how does love arise?

What is the connection between responsibility and love?
I see no connection between the two.

I wrote a blog post about love, here it is, if you’re interested:
http://fadingveiling.com/2014/09/02/what-is-love/

If the response is that these are mere thoughts, aren't these thoughts to be held, experienced?

Examine this question thoroughly.
How can a thought be experienced?

There are only two options:

• (1) Either seeing a thought as an arising thought and thus not being lost in its content
  (2) Or believing it (= being lost in its content) and not seeing as an arising thought only

When the thought is believed and not seen only as an arising thought, associated emotions can arise. Only the emotion can be felt, not the thought.

Let’s see how an emotion arises.
In the actual direct experience (in this moment) there are:

• (1) Arising thoughts stories like: “I’ve made a mistake”. This is nothing more than an arising thought. Just a thought. However, when this is not seen only as a thought, but it is believed it can trigger some emotions to arise
  
  (2) But the ‘emotion’ like ‘fear’ or ‘happiness’ has two components:
  
  • (a) a pure bodily sensation, like contraction or relaxation
    
    (b) a mental label stick to (layered over) the bodily sensation, like “this is fear” or “contraction in the stomach”
    
    (c) and simultaneously arising mental images (pictures) about a certain body parts, like picture about the stomach

So, what we have to do is to separate:
- the thoughts story
- the pure bodily sensation
- mental labels stuck to the sensation
- mental images about certain body parts

(Mental images can also arise accompanying the story itself. Like when you remember about the conversation with your wife, there could be an arising mental image of her sitting in a chair.)

So, if you ignore all thought stories, the mental labels and mental images and you pay attention ONLY to the PURE sensation, then what is left?

Does the pure sensation is ‘bad’ or ‘uncomfortable’ or ‘unpleasant’ or ‘pleasant’?
Or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘unpleasant’, ‘pleasant’ are just mental labels that are stuck to the pure sensation?
Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?

Aren't some "illusions" "better" than others?

This is the same question I asked above.
Does anything have any innate attributes and characteristics or all attributes and characteristics are projected onto the ‘thing’ by believing the mental labels, like ‘better’ or ‘worse’ that are layered over the experience?

What of the interactions, dynamics, interconnections between "us" and "the world?" Even if these are simply images/thoughts arising now, is there not value in holding/acting on such images/thoughts as long as realized as mere thoughts -- as long as the illusion is seen through? As long as no "self" sticks to these?

There is nothing wrong with stories and mental images. They don’t need to be avoided and not even possible to do so. It is enough to see them for what they are, and at the same time they can be enjoyed.
Liberation doesn’t mean that we don’t take part in the stories any more. The movie (stories) goes on. The only difference is that it is seen as a movie, thus not being identified with the main character, ‘me’.

Love, Vivien

Is compassion only thought label?

OK, let’s examine a situation when compassion (or empathy) arises. Let’s say that we have a conversation and you are telling me that your wife has just left you. As I hear your words, some memories arise when I was left by a loved one. As the memories arise, they can trigger some associated emotions. So now, ‘I’ can feel the ‘emotional pain’ and ‘disappointment’ as a reaction to ‘my’ memories (thought stories). So there are some bodily sensations, that are labelled as ‘such and such’ emotions.

Normally, we don’t recognise this whole process. What we recognise is that we feel compassion to the other. But can I ever feel your ‘pain’, your feelings, or can I only feel ‘my’ pain that has arisen due to the triggering memory?

So am I feeling compassion (empathy) towards you or am I just feeling ‘my’ own pain, and then this pain is pprojected onto ‘you’?

Let’s go a bit further. What happens if all this process is noticed? If this whole process noticed a totally different type of compassion can arise. There is a seeing that both ‘your’ and ‘my’ story is just stories, appearing thoughts here and now. It is also seen that the bodily sensation that is labelled as ‘such-and-such emotion’ is the result of believing the story and not seeing it only as an arising thought.

In this case ‘real compassion’ can arise. Compassion can arise towards you that ‘you’ believed a story and not see it only as a story, and maybe I can help you to show to see how all of this process works (of course only, if you have a desire to see it). I can be with you without being lost in ‘my story’, ‘my suffering’.

In the first scenario, I’m not really compassionate with you because I support your belief in the story. We both believe our own stories and lament over them, as if they were ‘reality’. In the moment, when my own feeling is triggered by a story and not seen for what it is, I lost all connection with you, I stopped listening to you, because I am concerned about my story, my pain (that is projected onto you, so here comes the illusion that I feel empathy towards you). And generally this is what most call as compassion. But actually, we both are lost in storyland, in our suffering.

All of this makes sense . . . If "I" get lost in thought/story in response to your thought/story than this falls short of compassion. True compassion would be a loving holding of both of our/all beings suffering in identifying with story AND . . . I'm aware of brain research about "mirror neurons" in the brains of primates whereby we are automatically prompted by others' emotional displays to being experiencing similar/parallel emotional experiences WITHOUT and/or PRIOR to the brain accessing memory. While I agree that compassion based on self-reference is less than compassion, I do wonder whether we indeed can "feel" each other without thought/story interceding . . .

If no responsibility, then how does love arise?

What is the connection between responsibility and love?
I see no connection between the two.

I wrote a blog post about love, here it is, if you’re interested:
http://fadingveiling.com/2014/09/02/what-is-love/

I continue to have confusion here . . . If there's no responsibility as a result of our inevitable interconnectedness, then what is the difference between an "awakened sniper" who because of no responsibility and seeing through the illusion of self, picks up a weapon and shoots others? Isn't there simultaneously a seeing through of the illusion of self AND a seeing of the intersubjectivity/inter-being that indeed makes us responsible for all of life and therefore precludes an "awakened sniper?"

Does anything have any innate attributes and characteristics or all attributes and characteristics are projected onto the ‘thing’ by believing the mental labels, like ‘better’ or ‘worse’ that are layered over the experience?

No, there are no innate attributes to raw experience. I see that we project "good" and "bad" onto raw experience and then believe these labels to be innate

Dear Mitch,

While I agree that compassion based on self-reference is less than compassion, I do wonder whether we indeed can "feel" each other without thought/story interceding . . .

Look, all of the scientific explanation is just a story. A thought story appearing here and now. Nothing more. This whole topic of compassion is quite out of the focus of our conversation here. This is just an intellectual discussion. Can you see this?

Rather the main point is here, what others are in the actual experience.
What are others in DE?
How others are experienced?
Are there others independently from ‘my’ interpretation?

Next time when you talk to someone you can observe this:

There is a sound (voice of the other) and a sight that is labelled as the 'other body'. 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?

Your questions about responsibility are also asked on the level of thinking.
So I ask these questions again:

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

When it is clearly seen that there has never been a ‘me’ that could control or govern life or anything, 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.

Are you ready for the six questions?

Love, Vivien

Dear Mitch,

Look, all of the scientific explanation is just a story. A thought story appearing here and now. Nothing more. This whole topic of compassion is quite out of the focus of our conversation here. This is just an intellectual discussion. Can you see this?

Rather the main point is here, what others are in the actual experience.
What are others in DE?
How others are experienced?
Are there others independently from ‘my’ interpretation?

Next time when you talk to someone you can observe this:

There is a sound (voice of the other) and a sight that is labelled as the 'other body'. 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?

Your questions about responsibility are also asked on the level of thinking.
So I ask these questions again:

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

When it is clearly seen that there has never been a ‘me’ that could control or govern life or anything, 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.

Are you ready for the six questions?

Love, Vivien

I do see this . . . In actual, raw experience, there is no "I" to perceive the "others." There are only labels/thoughts/images arising of "I" and "others." It is all one, simultaneous inseperable happening. Others are only thoughts. Others in actual experience are the raw sensations which are "me" and "them."

Though "Mitch" resists in thought, in experience there is no "I" now responsible for anything past, present or even now. No "I" to do anything, be anything -- no "I" becoming. You/Vivien have no responsibilities to me or others because "you" are them and not distinct from them. There in no responsibility when everything just is as it is all at once.

Yes re: the 6 questions . . .

Dear Mitch,

All right, 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

Hi Vivien,

Here are my responses . . .

Warmly,

Mitch

6 Questions:
1. Is there a separate entity “self,” “me,” “I,” at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

No. Mind “wants” to rationalize and explain this, but in all investigating, no “Mitch” arises outside of thought NOW. No self to choose and direct the flow of events in life. There has been conditioned patterning arising and unfolding amid thoughts of “Mitch” but everything in and around “me” has been without separation of self. No “me” to ultimately pinpoint in brain, body, or biography. There never was “Mitch” apart from everything that always is – other than thoughts of “I” which are themselves part of all else. There is no “past” or “future” other than in thoughts now to bookend the chapters of my life. There is just this live moment.

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.
Self is thought, and therefore begins when thought emerges. “I” arises when WHAT IS triggers reactions in the body that are conditioned as aversive or pleasant and “I” gets conditioned alongside these bodily sensations.

Right now vision gives me images of trees in the distance out this “barrier” of a window and conditioned Mind tells me “window separating trees out there to ME in here,” and in actuality there is only fingers on keys and humming air vent and various shades of juxtaposed green and bird flapping by and voices down the hall and stomach growl IN HERE . . . All together ALL AT ONCE.

I had struggled in an earlier thread about “responsibility” and how of course “I” am responsible for “others” via compassion. “I” am no more “responsible” for the unfolding now that is “my four month old son” than the tree in the distance is “responsible” for the fruit it bears. Mind tells me that a tree and it’s fruit are basically aspects of ONE OVERALL THING without one part being “responsible” for another (in terms of deciding/causing it). And yet, just as the “tree” out there bears its fruit, “I” bear the care of my son – who is none other than ME and ALL ELSE


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/during this investigation?
It’s not anything that was expected. No cloud-rending moment. The clouds right now out the window are doing just what they’re doing without any impact from “revelation” on “my” part. I could think this at the beginning based on reading I’d done prior to this process, but now there’s a more convincing “of course.” The thought of a future “enlightenment” that will be deific and glorious is seen as mere thought.
4. What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?
The suffering of incessant seeking; clamoring after the horizon never arriving. The seeking is still here, but there’s a more gentle felt knowing of it being “ok” – another ripple of conditioned pattern that will wind its way forward as it will.
5. Do you decide, intend, choose, control events in life? Do you make anything happen? Give examples from your experience.
No . . . Ergo the “tree” analogy above. Here/Now cursor blinks with no chooser of the next word other than patterns playing out based on many conditioned “writing experiences.” The conditioning is writing, not some “I” that decides. The “I” shows up as I write, but as the fingers keep moving, “I” (somehow not “Mitch” as I write) abates – recedes and words “just appear.”
There is no “I” to make things happen. There is only seeing of whatever is.

My wife and I did not “choose” to have a second child. Child arose in the unfolding confluence of all that was. I did not “choose” this investigation. Conditions rose up to meet it. “I” am telling myself a burrito is in “my future” as I prepare to leave my office. Either I will eat the burrito or will not, but the difference NOW is the seeing that even if a burrito is eaten, “I” won’t be choosing it. Prior to this investigation, “Mitch” would have owned the decision.

6. Anything to add?
No . . . Just gratitude. There’s peace here now in between identity “pop ups” of “I”

Dear Mitch,

Thank you for answering the questions. It looks good, but a few questions have arisen here around the mind.

Mind “wants” to rationalize and explain this,

How is this known that the “mind wants to…”?
What is the ‘mind’ in the actual experience?

conditioned Mind tells me “window separating trees out there to ME in here,”

How is this known that "the conditioned mind tells me..."?
With which of the 5 senses the ‘conditioned mind’ is experienced?

No “me” to ultimately pinpoint in brain, body, or biography.

What is the brain in the immediate experience?

The conditioning is writing, not some “I” that decides.

With which of the 5 senses the conditioning is experienced?
How is it known that “conditioning is writing”?

Love, Vivien

Thank you for answering the questions. It looks good, but a few questions have arisen here around the mind.

Mind “wants” to rationalize and explain this,
How is this known that the “mind wants to…”?
What is the ‘mind’ in the actual experience?

conditioned Mind tells me “window separating trees out there to ME in here,”
How is this known that "the conditioned mind tells me..."?
With which of the 5 senses the ‘conditioned mind’ is experienced?

No “me” to ultimately pinpoint in brain, body, or biography.
What is the brain in the immediate experience?

The conditioning is writing, not some “I” that decides.
With which of the 5 senses the conditioning is experienced?
How is it known that “conditioning is writing”?

Hi Vivien,

There is no raw experience of Mind . . . There is no sensory touchpoint for "conditioned mind," "brain," or "conditioning." These are all stories/thoughts. Strange to see that "brain" cannot be seen except as thought. Even if looking at an MRI scan, this is still merely a visual sensation that then thought overlays as "brain" and the story of "mine" enters in.

Thanks so much,

Mitch

Dear Mitch,

One of the guide has a question:

"I could think this at the beginning based on reading I’d done prior to this process, but now there’s a more convincing “of course.”

'a more convincing...' Does this mean Mitch could still be 'convinced' that there is a "self", given another set of arguments?

Love, Vivien

"Convincing" is experience labeled by thought ... Any set of arguments is also thought ... This investigation is "differently convincing" in that it's not thought or argument -- it's the lack thereof that "convinces."

No - no other "arguments" can claim this seeing. "Mitch" keeps popping up but he can never be more than thought again

Dear Mitch,

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