The Gate

Dear Ivy,

I will be careful not to let thoughts interpret experiences.

“I will be careful not to let thoughts interpret experiences.” – Is there a control over this?

Or thoughts just appear on their own, including the interpreting thoughts, and they are either seen as for what they are – simple thoughts appearing -, or they are ‘taken seriously’ and ‘mistaken as reality’?

I interpreted “ heavy movements in my head” as the proof of "thoughts come from the head.", but it's just my own interpretation.

Do you do the interpretation or there are only appearing thoughts about interpretation?

What is this ‘you’ exactly that is doing the interpretation?

In the meanwhile, thoughts try to explain and label the sensations. For example, I am cut by a knife. Sensations happen without any definitions. Thoughts come in quickly and label the sensation as "hurt".

Yes, exactly! Nice looking :)

Vivien: Yes. But are you doing it?
Are you 100% sure that you are doing it ‘intentionally’?
Or just a thought appear (without you doing it) “let’s pay attention to the breath” and after, the attention automatically goes to the breath (without you doing it)?

Ivy: I am not sure about this. I can't see which one is truer.

Then look further.

What is this ‘I’ exactly that is supposedly can do things ‘intentionally’?

Please don’t buy into what thoughts say about this, but go to the actual experience.

Love, Vivien

Dear Vivien,

“I will be careful not to let thoughts interpret experiences.” – Is there a control over this?

Or thoughts just appear on their own, including the interpreting thoughts, and they are either seen as for what they are – simple thoughts appearing -, or they are ‘taken seriously’ and ‘mistaken as reality’?

Thoughts arise and interpret everything automatically by themselves no matter I want it happens or not. Thoughts can be seen as for what they are and can be taken seriously and mistaken as reality as well, it depends on if I can tell the difference between them and not to be drawn into thoughts.

Do you do the interpretation or there are only appearing thoughts about interpretation?

There are only thoughts about interpretation arising.

What is this ‘you’ exactly that is doing the interpretation? What is this ‘I’ exactly that is supposedly can do things ‘intentionally’?

I treat everything happens around me as "I do them""I make them happen". Thoughts arise, breathe, eyes blink, etc. Actually they happen by themselves without my interruption. But I can't find out what is this "I" exactly.

Regards,
Ivy

Dear Ivy,

Thoughts arise and interpret everything automatically by themselves no matter I want it happens or not.

“…no matter I want it happens or not.” – What is this ‘I’ exactly that wants?
Where is this ‘I’ localized exactly?

Actually they happen by themselves without my interruption. But I can't find out what is this "I" exactly.

Please sit for at least 30 minutes (or more) with these questions, and please answer ALL one-by-one, don’t miss any.

Can an 'I' be found that generates thoughts?
“I think” - Where is this 'I'? Where is the one that thinks?
What is the thinker of thoughts?
Does the thinker of the thought appear in experience? Can it be found?
Or could it be that the 'I' that thinks is also just a thought?

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 there only thoughts about you?
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?

I’ve asked lots of questions, so please take your time, don’t rush.

Love, Vivien

Dear Vivien,
Those questions are hard to answer so it takes me longer time to reply. Thank you for the patience.

“…no matter I want it happens or not.” – What is this ‘I’ exactly that wants?
Where is this ‘I’ localized exactly?

It's a sense of being. Sometimes I treat my self-image as me especially when I get along with people, but I know self-image is not real, it is made up by mind. I treat this body as me from time to time, it's just a little weird to say "this body" is me when I treat it as an object.

Can an 'I' be found that generates thoughts?

The body generates thoughts. Thoughts are always about what this body sees, feels, experiences. For example, when the weather is cold, the body senses it and generates the thought:"I feel cold." "I need a jacket." etc.

“I think” - Where is this 'I'? Where is the one that thinks?

This body generates thoughts. Whatever this body experiences, relative thoughts arise. I am just not sure if this body is me or not. Sometimes I treat it as me, sometimes not.

What is the thinker of thoughts?

This body causes thoughts to happen but the body doesn't do the thinking. Thoughts arise automatically according to what this body feels, sees, etc.

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

Thoughts arise. The body is a channel for thoughts to arise, but no thinkers do the thinking.

Or could it be that the 'I' that thinks is also just a thought?

Yes, thoughts arise automatically without anyone thinking. I may put this body in different circumstance to arouse different thoughts, but it's not "I think", thoughts just appear automatically. For example, I can see a horror movie or a comedy to arouse different thoughts, but it's not "I think", thoughts just appear automatically according to what this body contacts.

Is there an 'I' that controls thoughts?

As what I mentioned above, I may put this body in different circumstance to arouse different thoughts, but thoughts just appear automatically without being controlled.

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

Thoughts arise without being owned. I just don't know if there is an "I". When I say "I", it's more like a concept which is created by mind.

Do you think thoughts or there only thoughts about you?

The body arouses different thoughts and all the thoughts form what I think I am as what I really am, so there are only thoughts about me.

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

Focus on breath and then thoughts can disappear, including the thought "I". But it can't last for a long time because there is always something else distracts me from focusing on breath.

Regards,
Ivy

Dear Ivy,

Those questions are hard to answer so it takes me longer time to reply. Thank you for the patience.

That’s all right :)

Vivien: “…no matter I want it happens or not.” – What is this ‘I’ exactly that wants?
Where is this ‘I’ localized exactly?

Ivy: It's a sense of being.

Now, I’d like to ask you to explore this SENSE of being very-very thoroughly. Not by thinking about it, but by FEELING it.

Keep the focus of attention on the sense of being and inquire…

Does the sense of being have a location?
Does the sense of being have a shape or a size?

Does the sense of being tell or communicate anything?
If the answer is yes, how the sense does this exactly?

Does the sense of being has any characteristics or attributes?

What the sense of being is ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?

Thoughts arise without being owned. I just don't know if there is an "I". When I say "I", it's more like a concept which is created by mind.

Very nice looking :)

I am just not sure if this body is me or not. Sometimes I treat it as me, sometimes not.

What is this ‘I’ EXACTLY that is not sure if it’s the body or not?

WHERE is this ‘I’ EXACTLY that could treat the body as if it were itself?

Focus on breath and then thoughts can disappear, including the thought "I". But it can't last for a long time because there is always something else distracts me from focusing on breath.

“… there is always something else distracts me from focusing on breath” – What does the word ‘me’ refer to in this sentence?

WHERE is this ‘I’ that can be distracted? Find it! Look everywhere! Where is it?

Love, Vivien

Dear Vivien,

Does the sense of being have a location?

It is sensed around and in upper part of the body. From the head to the chest.

Does the sense of being have a shape or a size?

No, it is invisible and no shapes, like gaseous matter.

Does the sense of being tell or communicate anything?
If the answer is yes, how the sense does this exactly?

No, it doesn't tell or communicate anything.

Does the sense of being has any characteristics or attributes?

No.

What the sense of being is ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?

No, it's just a feeling that the sense of being exists. Actually it's invisible and no substance.

What is this ‘I’ EXACTLY that is not sure if it’s the body or not?

WHERE is this ‘I’ EXACTLY that could treat the body as if it were itself?

“… there is always something else distracts me from focusing on breath” – What does the word ‘me’ refer to in this sentence?

WHERE is this ‘I’ that can be distracted? Find it! Look everywhere! Where is it?

If the sense of being is not "I", then I can't find it and I don't know where it is, either.

Regards,
Ivy

Dear Ivy,

Vivien: Does the sense of being have a location?

Ivy: It is sensed around and in upper part of the body. From the head to the chest.

OK, let’s have a deeper look here what is being SENSED exactly.

sense = sensation

A thought say that there is a ‘sense of being’ in the upper part of the body. But is this really the case?

The sense (= sensation) is undeniably there. But thoughts suggest this is not just simply a sensation, but a sense of being. But is this REALLY?

Let’s break the expression ‘sense of being’ into 2 parts:

• (1) the sense, the sensation itself
  (2) and the ‘being’

We want to find both, (1) the sensation and (2) being.

For the (1) sense (sensation) part we don’t have to look much, because it is actually experienced as a sensation.
But what about the ‘being’ part of the ‘sense of being’? How ‘being’ is ACTUALLY experienced?

If you say that the ‘being’ is sensed, then we are back to the sensation.
But the sense (sensation) is NOT the actual experience of ‘being’, but the actual experience of a sensation.
What is the actual experience of ‘being’?

Vivien: What the sense of being is ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?

Ivy: No, it's just a feeling that the sense of being exists.

and

If the sense of being is not "I", then I can't find it and I don't know where it is, either.

Does this feeling (sensation) has any characteristics or attributes?
Does this feeling (sensation) say or communicate anything?

Does the feeling (sensation) itself suggest in any way that “it is being”?
If not, what is ‘saying’ that “it is being”?

Does this sensation itself suggest in any way that “it is I” or “it is me”?
If not, what is ‘saying’ that “it is I” or “it is me”?

Love, Vivien

Dear Vivien,

But what about the ‘being’ part of the ‘sense of being’? How ‘being’ is ACTUALLY experienced? What is the actual experience of ‘being’?

The sensations exists, but I can't tell what it is. Thoughts label this sensations as "being". Actually I don't know how "being" is actually experienced, and I don't know the actual experience of "being", either.

Does this feeling (sensation) has any characteristics or attributes?
Does this feeling (sensation) say or communicate anything?

No.

Does the feeling (sensation) itself suggest in any way that “it is being”?

No.

If not, what is ‘saying’ that “it is being”?

Thoughts interpret this sensation as being.

Does this sensation itself suggest in any way that “it is I” or “it is me”?

No.

If not, what is ‘saying’ that “it is I” or “it is me”?

Thoughts say the sensation is me.

I am drawn to thoughts again, sorry for that I am not able to see through it.

Regards,
Ivy

Dear Ivy,

Very nice looking :)

The sensations exists, but I can't tell what it is. Thoughts label this sensations as "being". Actually I don't know how "being" is actually experienced, and I don't know the actual experience of "being", either.

Nice :)

“The sensation exist, but I can’t tell what it is.” – Yes, because a sensation is just a sensation. It has NO inherent attributes. Only thoughts label the sensation ‘this’ or ‘that’. Do you see this?

“Thoughts label this sensation as ‘being’.” – Yes, so being is just a thought label on the raw sensation.
So the sensation is the actual experience of a sensation.

But ‘being’ as such cannot be experienced, because ‘being’ is a thought label ‘applied’ to the raw sensation.
But, the thought ‘being’ is actually experienced as a thought, but what the thought is about ‘being’ is not actually experienced.
Do you see this?

So a thought is ‘real’ as an appearing thought, but what the thought is ABOUT (what is its ‘content’) is not.
Do you see this?

Vivien: Does this sensation itself suggest in any way that “it is I” or “it is me”?
Ivy: No
Vivien: If not, what is ‘saying’ that “it is I” or “it is me”?
Ivy: Thoughts say the sensation is me.

OK. Just because a thought appear “this sensation is me”, does this thought CHANGES or MAKES the raw, pure ‘attributeless’ sensation into ‘me’? If yes, how exactly?
In other words, does the thought “this sensation is me” have ANY effect on the raw sensation?

Observe this:
Say out loud the word ‘I’ several times. At the same time try to trace back where the word ‘I’ point to. Try to localise where is the ‘I’ exactly.

You can observe that whenever the word ‘I’ is said or even thought about the focus of attention goes automatically to the bodily sensations (usually somewhere to the upper body or head or both). So there is a direct, automatic association between the word ‘I’ and the felt sensations ‘of the body’.

So the word ‘I’ and the bodily sensations are welded together, creating the SENSE of ‘me’. The ‘sense’ part is coming from the felt sensations, and ‘me’ part is coming as a thought. When this is not seen, BUMMM! The illusion of ‘me’ is created. Can you see this?

So, can the ‘I’ be found in the actual experience other than a thought?


Love, Vivien

Dear Vivien,

“The sensation exist, but I can’t tell what it is.” – Yes, because a sensation is just a sensation. It has NO inherent attributes. Only thoughts label the sensation ‘this’ or ‘that’. Do you see this?

Yes.

But ‘being’ as such cannot be experienced, because ‘being’ is a thought label ‘applied’ to the raw sensation.
But, the thought ‘being’ is actually experienced as a thought, but what the thought is about ‘being’ is not actually experienced.
Do you see this?

Yes.

So a thought is ‘real’ as an appearing thought, but what the thought is ABOUT (what is its ‘content’) is not.
Do you see this?

Yes. Whenever thoughts arise, thoughts are experienced, but the content of the thoughts are not experienced. For example, the image of drinking water appears, what is experienced is the thought, not the experience of "drinking water".

Just because a thought appear “this sensation is me”, does this thought CHANGES or MAKES the raw, pure ‘attributeless’ sensation into ‘me’? If yes, how exactly?
In other words, does the thought “this sensation is me” have ANY effect on the raw sensation?

No. Thoughts arise, but things are as they are. Thoughts try to interpret everything, but nothing will change because of it. What thoughts can change is the way we look things.

So the word ‘I’ and the bodily sensations are welded together, creating the SENSE of ‘me’. The ‘sense’ part is coming from the felt sensations, and ‘me’ part is coming as a thought. When this is not seen, BUMMM! The illusion of ‘me’ is created. Can you see this?

Yes.

So, can the ‘I’ be found in the actual experience other than a thought?

No. "I" is a concept that thoughts try to label "something". If I replace "I" with "he","she","cat", etc, what is changed is the label, but that "something" won't change.

Regards,
Ivy

Dear Ivy,

Vivien: So a thought is ‘real’ as an appearing thought, but what the thought is ABOUT (what is its ‘content’) is not.
Do you see this?

Ivy: Yes. Whenever thoughts arise, thoughts are experienced, but the content of the thoughts are not experienced. For example, the image of drinking water appears, what is experienced is the thought, not the experience of "drinking water".

Yes :)

Vivien: Just because a thought appear “this sensation is me”, does this thought CHANGES or MAKES the raw, pure ‘attributeless’ sensation into ‘me’? If yes, how exactly?
In other words, does the thought “this sensation is me” have ANY effect on the raw sensation?

Ivy: No. Thoughts arise, but things are as they are. Thoughts try to interpret everything, but nothing will change because of it. What thoughts can change is the way we look things.

“What thoughts can change is the way we look things” – What do you mean by this? Could you please give an example?

There is a generally accepted belief that labels like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inherent characteristics of ‘things’. There is a belief that labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’. But there isn’t.

Here is an interesting exercise in how labels do not have a one-to-one correspondence with reality:

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 the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, does the redness be affected in any way as the labels suggest it?
Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’ or the labels have no effect whatsoever on what IS?

Love, Vivien

Dear Vivien,

“What thoughts can change is the way we look things” – What do you mean by this? Could you please give an example?

For example, a man breaks his legs so he doesn't need to join the army. Some people think it's a good thing because the man can have more time on doing what he wants to do instead of joining the army. Some people think it's bad because the man needs to get his legs cured and he loses an opportunity to be mature. Everyone has different interpretations to the reality according to their own thoughts. But thoughts won't change the reality, what's changed is people's interpretations about reality.

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?

Red colour is experienced.

Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?

No. When I look at those words, what I experience is the colours on the screen, not the colours that the labels suggest.

Or the labels suggest something else than what is here and now (red colour)?

No.

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?

Green is just a word label on the experience of the red colour.

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, does the redness be affected in any way as the labels suggest it?

No, the redness isn't affected by changing the labels.

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’ or the labels have no effect whatsoever on what IS?

Redness doesn't change. Labels have no effect on what IS.

Regards,
Ivy

Dear Ivy,

Vivien: “What thoughts can change is the way we look things” – What do you mean by this? Could you please give an example?

Ivy: For example, a man breaks his legs so he doesn't need to join the army. Some people think it's a good thing because the man can have more time on doing what he wants to do instead of joining the army. Some people think it's bad because the man needs to get his legs cured and he loses an opportunity to be mature. Everyone has different interpretations to the reality according to their own thoughts. But thoughts won't change the reality, what's changed is people's interpretations about reality.

Thanks for explaining.

“Some people think…” – let’change the word ‘people’ to ‘I’.
“I think it’s a good thing because…” – What is this ‘I’ that thinks?

“Everyone has different interpretation…” – again, let’s use ‘I’ instead of ‘everyone’.
“I have an interpretation about…” – What is it EXACTLY that supposedly has an interpretation?

Think of something, and while thinking happens try to find and localize the thinker itself.
Where is it EXACTLY? Where is the thinker of thoughts? – don’t go to theories, but to the actual experience of a thinker.

When I look at those words, what I experience is the colours on the screen, not the colours that the labels suggest.

“…what I experience is…” – where is this ‘I’ that supposedly can experience?

WHERE is the experiencer?
WHAT is the experiencer?

Love, Vivien

Dear Vivien,

“I think it’s a good thing because…” – What is this ‘I’ that thinks?

When this question arises, attention always goes to the sensation between the head and upper part of the body automatically. Thoughts label the sensation as "I" immediately. Sensation is only sensation, not "I" which thoughts try to label with. "I" is more like a concept which is built by self-image, memories, experiences, personality and so on.

“I have an interpretation about…” – What is it EXACTLY that supposedly has an interpretation?

Thoughts interpret everything. The difference is thoughts can be seen as thoughts or be mistaken as reality.

Where is it EXACTLY? Where is the thinker of thoughts?

It can't be found.

“…what I experience is…” – where is this ‘I’ that supposedly can experience?

WHERE is the experiencer?
WHAT is the experiencer?

It can be found, either.

Regards,
Ivy

Dear Ivy,

When this question arises, attention always goes to the sensation between the head and upper part of the body automatically. Thoughts label the sensation as "I" immediately. Sensation is only sensation, not "I" which thoughts try to label with. "I" is more like a concept which is built by self-image, memories, experiences, personality and so on.

Very nice looking :)

Vivien: “…what I experience is…” – where is this ‘I’ that supposedly can experience?
WHERE is the experiencer?
WHAT is the experiencer?

Ivy: It can be found, either.

The experiencer CAN or CANNOT be found?
(I assume you accidentally left out the word not, but please correct me if I’m wrong :)

Let’s have a deeper look on control.

1. First, choose one of your arms - It doesn't matter which.
2. When you have done that, rest for a moment and then when you want to, raise that arm into the air.
Don't go to thoughts, examine the actual experience. Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire…

What is controlling the arm?
Can a controlling ‘thing’ be located?

What moves the arm?

What is choosing which arm to raise?
Can you find the ‘thing’ that is doing the choosing?

How is decision made which arm to raise?
How is decision made when to raise the arm?

Love, Vivien