The Gate

So let me ask you a direct question. You know and understand that pain is just a thought (no self) - so how this have changed youe experience (reactions)?

I never said that pain is just a thought. Pain is pain, might be a warning signal, the body reacts accordingly. It might not always react in the best way, it reacts according to conditioning. It might change over time.

When pain is felt, usually thoughts come in and tell a story about how this is not supposed to be as it is. This story is connected to the I-thought. This is called suffering.
Do you want to eliminate the sensation of pain by "realizing no self?" Is it that why you are here? Are you seeking practical advantages?

If there is no body, and no self - why we are protecting them? That means that we have them - at this point of time, in our experience.

There is a body, but no self. There are only thoughts "pretending" there is a self. What do you mean by "that means that we have them?
Can you find the entity that "has" a body?

And if you don't know WHY you should find out: Just for the sake of finding out. There are no advantages to it.

Certainly I'm seeking practical advantages. I want to be more happy, and have less suffering in my life, etc.

Eliminating the sensation of physical pain - first, if it were possible, certainly I would jump into it; however, I understand that this is not possible (at least using the method we are discussing here).

I agree that thoughts which come after the physical pain (or in another case, for example, when something happens which we don't like) are just thoughts which tell us stories; they are useless and harmful, better not to have them. But these thoughts are very real to me, because they influence my feeling and my experience. So from practical point of view the question is what to do with them.

I never said that pain is just a thought

OK, my question was not good. Let's replace it by another. If there is no self, then there shall be no thought like "my body", correct? And then, it shall be for me the same what will be with "my body" (vecause there is no "me").

Eliminating the sensation of physical pain - first, if it were possible, certainly I would jump into it; however, I understand that this is not possible (at least using the method we are discussing here).

I should have explained the rules better before we started. We are not discussing the method.

This dialogue has the sole purpose of showing how to discover the illusory nature of self. You have to do the looking yourself. This is done by a certain procedure - I pose questions, and you look in your direct experience and report what you find. It requires a lot of energy and dedication from your side, and there are no advantages to be won on the other side.

And it is completely voluntary.

OK, my question was not good. Let's replace it by another. If there is no self, then there shall be no thought like "my body", correct? And then, it shall be for me the same what will be with "my body" (vecause there is no "me").

This question doesn't get you anywhere.

First, find out what is there in your direct experience. What is real, an what is assumed.

I feel this as "my" hand, and later other thoughts arise like "now the pain will be for several days at least; and I will not be able to type the computer; and also how stupid I was to touch this".

Pain is felt >> hand movement happens>>thought appears: "I have burnt my hand">>> some more thoughts appear. The entity "self" (owner of body, feeler of pain, thinker of thought) is an assumption. A fairytale figure.

When feeling pain: Is there only hurting, or is there a threefold sequence feeler-feels-feeling?

About thoughts:

Are you the thinker of your thoughts? Are you making your thoughts? How?

What is your next thought going to be?




In direct experience there is no

there are no advantages to be won on the other side

Could you clarify? If there are no advamtages (like eliminating/diminishing of suffering) - why to do it?

Could you clarify? If there are no advamtages (like eliminating/diminishing of suffering) - why to do it?

For finding out the truth. If you have the nagging feeling that something at the core of your life is off, and are driven to find out what it is, then this is for you.

It is not a magic pill against suffering. It opens the possibility to look through the whole self - thought - suffering mechanism. The problem is that the process won't work when done with a motif. Then (perhaps) I'll get you to admit that there is no self, and you'll say: "so what".

You do it if you have to do it, then I'll be happy to help you. Have you read some of the liberation threads?

It is not a magic pill against suffering. It opens the possibility to look through the whole self - thought - suffering mechanism. The problem is that the process won't work when done with a motif. Then (perhaps) I'll get you to admit that there is no self, and you'll say: "so what".

Any process is done with a motif. In meditation for example, always there is motif, intention. Perhaps, you want to say that there shall be no attachment to goal (something like "the more you try - the less you get" - the same in meditation), and the practice shall bear no expectations. This relates to the attitude of the practice, and then I agree. But the practice without goal is something I don't understand.

Have you read some of the liberation threads?

Yes, and I'm sceptical - that's what we started with.

Let me explain once more. Let's take a sentence "there is no self". Is it true? You say "yes".

it seems that the difference between us is that you think that only 2 answers are possible: "yes" and "no", i.e. the statement "there is no self" is either true or false from logic point of view. This is like absolute truth.

But I say that the answer is different for different people, and for some people the correct answer is "yes", and for some "no". It depends if people can live this truth through. If they can (at least partially) then "yes". If they can't - then "no". In another words for me the truth of such statement is relative.

For me the current answer is "no", though on intellectual level I agree that there is "no self". But I can't live out of it, my reactions are of a guy who has a lot of "self"; they are enough "egoistic". So by my life I demonstrate now more that "self" exists than that "self" does not exist.

So any practice worth doing if it will be bringing me to better demonstration in my life that "self" does not exist. This is the goal. And if there is no self, then (in my opinion) there are no sufferings, so this is the goal as well.

and the practice shall bear no expectations. This relates to the attitude of the practice, and then I agree.

Yes, that is what I meant.

it seems that the difference between us is that you think that only 2 answers are possible: "yes" and "no", i.e. the statement "there is no self" is either true or false from logic point of view. This is like absolute truth.

There is no absolute truth.

You have to decide yourself if you want to do the process or not. I told you the rules, and I gave you some questions. If you prefer to remain sceptical and/or believe in self, then be it. I'm not trying to convince you.

First, find out what is there in your direct experience. What is real, an what is assumed.

How direct experience is connected with what is real?

X-rays are not in our direct experience, at least not until we got too much of them. Do you mean that they are "assumed"?

How direct experience is connected with what is real?

Just describe what is in your direct experience. X-Rays are certainly not.

Are you making your thoughts? How?

There are several ways how thoughts come.

One is active when I actively start to think, e.g. "not to forget to do ..."

However, mostly they are passive, coming themselves. They may be "clear', i.e. have clear meaning. But while dreaming, and also in meditation they may be "vague", so sometimes not possible even to tell them.

I distinguish usual thoughts and thoughts charged emotionally.

Are you the thinker of your thoughts?

With active thoughts it seems that yes, and also I'm the origin.

With passive thoughts it seems yes after the thought arouse inside. But where it comes from - I don't know. I tried to locate, but don't feel.

What is your next thought going to be?

Don't know. Unforunately, no control.

There are several ways how thoughts come.
One is active when I actively start to think, e.g. "not to forget to do ..."

However, mostly they are passive, coming themselves.

I would say, also those you say "you are starting up actively" just come in, like you observed with "most" thoughts.
I.E. the thought: "don't forget to.." doesn't come in when it is forgotten.

With active thoughts it seems that yes, and also I'm the origin.

It seems like that. That is what we have learned.

Who or what is that I that is the origin of what you call "active" thoughts? And how does this work?

With "active thoughts there is intention which comes before the thought. In some way with active thoughts I know which thought will come next - perhaps this is the main difference between active and passive thoughts. For example, if I start to sing without voice (mentally) a song, first the intention comes (to sing this particular song), then the words and motif start to pop up from the memory. When I sing the first line I know with some probability which will be the 3rd.

However, if you ask me - where from the intention comes - I don't know.

However, if you ask me - where from the intention comes - I don't know.

Yes, that's what I was going to ask you. They arise according to preferences and conditions. How did preferences arise? Did you make them? What makes them yours? Try to find the owner or maker of preferences.

Which leads also to: How are decisions made?

The preference (=like/dislike) is like software on the computer. It's in idle mode until input is made.

For example: IF "girl = sexy" THEN "I like her"

Until input (girl) is done (real or imaginatory) the preference is sleeping (does not manifest/show itself). When it arises - there is a feeling.

The preference is "mine" because the "computer" is mine.

I think I don't make them, but they are changing during time, either intentionally (by my efforts) or themselves (subconsciously). Which means I can change them (based on life values, for example, or on the habit)

IF "girl = sexy" THEN "I like her"

Sure. But what is it that makes you prefer blondes, or not? Can you change these preferences, or life values? If not, how are they yours?

The preference is "mine" because the "computer" is mine.

What exactly is the computer, (hardware and software) and who or what is the owner of the computer?