The Gate

OK good to see all this -- thought isn't in fact in control -- it just says it is! We can see this in direct experience through this simple exercise -- give it a go and let me know what you find.

Tap with two or three fingers on the leg. Tap, tap, tap. Then, hold the fingers poised ready to tap. Just waiting in the air for a command to tap.

Looking at the fingers in the air, it’s not quite known when they will tap. In fact, the thought “tap now” can quite happily show up and yet the fingers remain in the air.

See if you can notice the moment when the command is issued and from whence it comes SUCH THAT the fingers simply have to obey. Notice if other commands to tap can be issued which have no affect on the fingers, leaving them remaining in the air.

Is it true that in direct experience there is no command that can be issued to make the fingers tap?
What causes the finger to tap? Anything? See what can be discovered in experience rather than thought.

There were two thoughts simultaneously, "tap" and "don't tap". Yes, neither of those thoughts was in control. In fact you were more in control, or at least the words you had typed and which had appeared on my screen, because the actions and non actions came from that stimulus. Of course, "I" had a choice as to whether or not to react to that stimulus. Meaning that upon receiving the stimulus the thought arose "ok let's do this exercise"

At no stage could a thought absolutely command my fingers to tap. Ultimately another thought came along which said "ok this is getting boring, for gods sake do the tap!" But then of course yet another which said "hold on, what'll happen if you don't? Look a bit longer".

And so on. I couldn't find the time or the process by which the final decision to tap again was made.

Mark, please would you tell me how to use the quote function on the forum?

Thanks, and Happy New Year!

Hello George, Happy New Year!

Here's a video explaining the use of the quote function: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fAToDNh9hQ&app=desktop

Of course, "I" had a choice as to whether or not to react to that stimulus. Meaning that upon receiving the stimulus the thought arose "ok let's do this exercise"

OK let's look at "choice" more closely. Is it really the thought that controls the action? Who/what is in control of that thought?

Try this exercise. Sit quietly somewhere where you won't be disturbed for 20 minutes or so. Now during this time you are free to do anything or nothing -- for example you may just sit and look out the window or you may check your phone, cut your nails, tidy the room, make a coffee, think about what to buy at the shops . . . simply sit and notice as various thoughts about what to do arise and pass, arise and pass . . . notice that thoughts that arise don't necessarily flow into action . . . there needs to be something else present, a kind of energetic upsurge or movement . . . notice that this energetic upsurge can also rise and fall without resulting in action like water rising up and falling back down a blowhole . . . but at some point the energetic upsurge is such that it tips over into action. At some point after sitting for a while something will happen . . . note how that action came about . . . what "caused" it?

As you go through the day keep on noticing how actions are constantly being performed . . . but can you find some "thing" behind the actions? Some actor or agent?

What an enjoyable and absorbing way to spend 20 minutes!

As I sat, various stimuli prompted action: an itch to scratch, some discomfort inviting movement - but nothing that actually gave enough stimulus or irritation to actually take action. So I saw the rise and fall of the energetic upsurge without action taking place.

At one point, recollection of a transaction earlier in the day prompted a mathematical calculation, which was halfway through before I noticed it, so automatic was it. I'm sure I would have checked on the time elapsed if I hadn't set a timer!

I'll need to go and check a pot that's been simmering in the kitchen soon, and the impetus for that will come from not wanting the dinner to burn.

What I'm seeing is that actions are arising either automatically without thought, or from stimuli when they become "irresistible". The easiest to say is the itch that eventually becomes so irritating that it has to be scratched. But then conditioning plays such a big part too, so I've been brought up to always shave and brush my teeth in the morning so that's what I do. And even at rest, the mind has been conditioned to always be active and find things to do, and so I'm very often unconsciously following those conditionings. And because it's unconscious it's like sleepwalking.

While at one level there's a "me" or personality behind the actions, all that is really is a conglomeration of all the conditions that have led up to the present moment.

Eating ice cream with my daughter yesterday: apart from all the conditions, going back who knows when, leading to my daughter and I being in the same room together - my daughter's wish for ice cream, then transmitted by language to my mind, thoughts of the pros and cons of eating ice cream, the "winning" thought that it was worth the effort of going to the freezer. I know there's loads more involved in this, and it's all so quick as to appear automatic, but what I'm trying to say is that no, I can't find any tangible actor or agent, not when I look closely.

Hello George OK great thanks for taking the time to do the exercise.

As you say actions largely arise due to conditioning or we might even say habit -- if we look closely we cannot actually find an actor or agent behind them -- the "I" that is the subject of verbs remains elusive.

This is partly a trick of language -- we say "It is raining" -- but where is this "it" that is doing the raining? Water is simply falling from the sky. The same with "The wind is blowing hard" -- but can we find this "wind" other than the movement of air? When certain atmospheric conditions are in place -- certain kinds of weather eventuate -- but there is no "weather god" directing all of this! Same with "me" or "my life" -- there is no executive authority behind all our daily activities -- just a mental story about one.

Please continue to check in with your lived experience to see if this is true.

You mention "my mind" a few times -- but what is "mind" in direct experience? Please sit quietly for a few minutes and look for this "mind". What can you find? How does "mind" show up?

Thanks Mark. I am sitting with this for a couple of days, and will be in touch soon.

Hi Mark.

After a few days of checking and observing the experience, I can say that habit alone still leads to thoughts of the self, the "I" or whatever, but when real looking takes place there is no I to be found. It's like a new habit is being formed, that of "looking for the I when it appears to manifest". So, for instance, if "I" get irritated, "I" look for the "I" that is experiencing irritation, and can only find a set of conditioned responses to certain stimuli. The concept of "I" looking for "I" and not finding it sounds ridiculous, but there it is. The nearest I can put it into words is that looking or searching for the self is taking place, but no self is found. Language really can be a barrier!

Same with mind: when looking directly there are only thoughts, feelings, emotions, beliefs, and somehow these all get bound together in this illusion called mind, and another illusion called personality or self.

Hi Mark.

After a few days of checking and observing the experience, I can say that habit alone still leads to thoughts of the self, the "I" or whatever, but when real looking takes place there is no I to be found. It's like a new habit is being formed, that of "looking for the I when it appears to manifest". So, for instance, if "I" get irritated, "I" look for the "I" that is experiencing irritation, and can only find a set of conditioned responses to certain stimuli. The concept of "I" looking for "I" and not finding it sounds ridiculous, but there it is. The nearest I can put it into words is that looking or searching for the self is taking place, but no self is found. Language really can be a barrier!

Same with mind: when looking directly there are only thoughts, feelings, emotions, beliefs, and somehow these all get bound together in this illusion called mind, and another illusion called personality or self.

OK good work George. thanks for looking so thoroughly.

So can we say that looking happens but with no need for a look-er?

You can check this out directly with the 5 senses:

Do you have some kind of bell or gong? If so, ring the bell and pay attention to the sound. Is the activity of hearing separate from the sound itself? Can you find two things: the sound and the hear-er of the sound?

Do the same with looking. Look at the bell. Is the activity of seeing separate from the object seen? Can you find two things: the bell and the see-er of the bell?

Now hold the bell -- feel the coolness of the metal and the weight. As you hold the bell, try with eyes closed: Can you find where "bell" stops and "hand" starts or is there just one sensation? In the experience of the sensation itself can you find two things, an object and a hold-er of the object?

The sound and the hearing are one, neither exists without the other. Yes, I can see that. I notice it more and more now, when listening to music as well, or the sounds of nature when I'm out walking.

Seeing requires closer attention, perhaps because the image appears at first to come into the brain from outside, through the "window" of the eyes. But when I look more closely, I see that the object observed is in me, or part of me, and that the seeing and the seen are inseparable. No see-er, just seeing.

And yes, YES. With eyes closed, only the sensation. The brain, or thought, creates the bell and the hand, but in reality there is only the sensation, and no words or need for words to describe it.

OK good looking George.

So at the beginning of our dialogue you said "there remains a sense that there is a self lurking somewhere. I can see how this is a product of thought, but there it is - I'm still in the dream." Is this still the case?

Remember when you were a kid, did you sometimes have a "sense of a monster" hiding in the wardrobe or under the bed? You switched the light on and looked -- only to see there was nothing there? The sensations were real but the monster was supplied by the imagination or thought.

Similarly, this "sense of a self" -- just switch the light on and take a good look at it! Some sensations are showing up, the sensations are real -- but what says that these sensations are or appear on behalf of a self?

The monster under the bed is a great analogy, because it's so real in the head or thoughts, but not really there. I'm finding the same now with the self, I, me call it what you will. The sensations and thoughts happen and are real, but without the sense of the self to attach them they are so much less "sticky", and tend to come and go naturally. So there is a sense of "lightness" and unexplained joy that I notice much more now.

OK great. So what would you say to someone who was skeptical about all this "no self" stuff?

If there is no self behind actions -- how does anything happen? How do things get done?

How would you explain this to the skeptic, relying on your own experience?

If I were confronted with a sceptic, I wouldn't try to convince him!

But from my own experience I would say that after looking hard, I cannot find anything that I can pinpoint and say "that is me". The body is a collection of organs, which in turn are made up of collections of cells which can themselves be broken down into molecules. It's constantly renewing and changing and there is no place in it that can be identified as "me".

The mind is a mishmash of thoughts, feelings, emotions and beliefs, again all of which are in constant flux and therefore there is no fixed "me" to be found. Awareness is thought reacting to thought and sensation.

Body and mind are inextricably linked, and all arising out of an incredibly complex set of conditions which go back infinitely, and will create conditions for the future.