The Gate

Thank you Xain.

Remember we are looking for a real, locatable seperate self, an 'I' - Not the thought of one.

OK.

When you say 'I don't know for sure' - What is this 'I' that doesn't know for sure.
Or is this a thought?

I still don’t know what this “I” is that doesn’t know for sure. I don’t know how to answer this. The “I” doesn’t seem to be locatable. If it were, then I believe it would be inside the head. It must be a thought. How to prove it?

That doesn't really help.
What is this 'me' that it is inside of? - Did you mean the body?

I believe I meant the head area.

Are you 'the body'?

No. I believe I “have” a body. The body seems to be part of the package.

How are you finding this 'thing'?

This is just a sense I have of it. May just be a thought, but how to prove it? I cannot say that there are any of the 5 physical senses that detect a physical “thing”, though.

How is it possible to detect anything behind the eyes?

I don’t know. This just seems to be where the “felt sense of presence” is located. Another thought? I don’t know, but can a thought have the power to convince one that it is a “felt sense of presence” that is looking?

Do you mean inside the head?

Yes.

Remember, we are trying to find what was 'looking'.
When I asked 'What is looking', you are saying that there was something located inside the head behind the eyes that was looking?

Yes.

It's clear to you that there was a 'thing' located at this point doing the action?

Not a physical thing, but a sense or feeling. I cannot accurately describe it.

I hope I don't sound flippant here, but seriously . . . we are looking for something that is actually findable.
A 'you'.
How is it possible to find an invisible ghost?

Ha! Doesn’t sound flippant. An invisible ghost would be impossible to find, yet I cannot deny the feeling that was noticed during “looking”. An “invisible ghost” was an attempt to describe the sensation - Perhaps, not the best description. I used the term “invisible ghost” precisely because I cannot find anything tangible!

Let's for the moment go back one stage and attempt to rationalise things.
You appear to be going off into wild thoughts and beliefs rather than actually examining your experience.

Please - Try to examine and differentiate what is 'a thought' and what is 'something that can be found in experience here and now'. This really is the main thing to do here from now on.

The way I approach this investigation is that in order to find something, we can use the five senses. Seing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touch.
We can also have an idea or thought about something, so we can locate something as a thought.
Can we agree on this basis, or do you believe that things can be sensed or found outside of what I have suggested?

I like what you have suggested. This sounds reasonable.

I am going to put it to you that this 'felt sense of presence' is just an idea that you have. It isn't something that is here as a real 'thing' and therefore can't be 'you'.

Ok. Given the suggested directions above, I totally agree with the points you just made.

Or you might be mistaking the operation of the five senses as 'presence'.

Perhaps. The 5 senses could have been mistaken for “presence”. “Seeing” was more difficult to discern than hearing or touching. The lifting of the arms was really weird and seemed to act on its own.

If you disagree strongly, which of course you may, please try to explain what it is and how you are claiming that it is 'you' or 'is something that is capable of doing things'.

Any claim that there is a “me” doing anything is an assumption that has been made and expressed. Error in perception or assumption? The only apparent physical “thing” I can find that appears to be doing something is the body and I don’t believe that the body acts on its on volition, nor am I sure that the mind moves the body.

Is the 'felt sense of presence' responsible for other things too - Like 'choosing' or 'moving the arm'?

Choosing seemed to come from thinking. The arm movement seemed to happen on its own.

Is this 'felt sense of presense' you?

It feels like it may be me. It seems to be the center point.

If it is, then what was it that discovered it to be you?

Maybe an assumption? There is not a separate “I” disclosing this sense of “presence” to another separate “me”.

When you say 'I don't know for sure' - What is this 'I' that doesn't know for sure.
Or is this a thought?

I still don’t know what this “I” is that doesn’t know for sure. I don’t know how to answer this.

Ok. Can we say that EITHER it is something that can be found using the senses OR it is a thought?
Is that acceptable.
If so, which one does it appear to be given those acceptable constraints?

If it were, then I believe it would be inside the head. It must be a thought. How to prove it?

You experience thoughts as 'real things' that are located inside the head?
Really look at this - Imagine some object (the thought of one).
Is that imagined object really located somewhere?
If you are saying that thoughts are located inside the head, you are saying they are not thoughts - You are saying that they are real objects that can appear at a specific location aren't you?

Are you 'the body'?

No. I believe I “have” a body. The body seems to be part of the package.

Ok, so what 'I' has the body? What 'I' owns it?
Can an 'I' be found - Or is this just an idea - A thought?

The lifting of the arms was really weird and seemed to act on its own.

Can we agree that anything suggested as the 'doer' of the moving is a thought?
So in the phrase 'I moved my arm', the 'I' is just a thought about what did it?
Again, as I described above, this is opposed to an 'I', a seperate self that was 'found' that was doing the moving.

Any claim that there is a “me” doing anything is an assumption that has been made and expressed.

That is an excellent discovery.
Is there even a 'me' that makes and expresses the claim? Could that just be an idea too? A thought?

Choosing seemed to come from thinking.

Is there an 'I', a seperate self that is doing the thinking?
Let's say you drive or you ride a bicycle, do you actively think in order to choose the gears or brakes every time?
Is there an 'I' doing that?

Maybe an assumption? There is not a separate “I” disclosing this sense of “presence” to another separate “me”.

Good work. You saw my little trick.
If something is found, how could it be 'you'? Surely the 'you' would be the thing that was finding it?
And then we'd search for the 'thing' that found it . . . and then search for the thing that found that.
Can you see the endless puzzle?
How to break through the endless puzzle?

Could it be true that any and every reference to 'I', a seperate self is just a thought and nothing more?

Xain ♥

Ok. Can we say that EITHER it is something that can be found using the senses OR it is a thought?
Is that acceptable.

Yes, this is acceptable.

If so, which one does it appear to be given those acceptable constraints?

Seems like it would be thoughts. Can’t locate it with the 5 senses.

You experience thoughts as 'real things' that are located inside the head?

I have taken thoughts themselves to be real, but I can’t recall believing that a thought “about” some tangible object in the head was actually real inside the head.

Really look at this - Imagine some object (the thought of one).

Ok.

Is that imagined object really located somewhere?

No. It is only an idea in imagination. No present evidence to suggest that the imagined object is actually located outside of the thought about it.

If you are saying that thoughts are located inside the head, you are saying they are not thoughts - You are saying that they are real objects that can appear at a specific location aren't you?

I am not sure what is being asked here. I believe that thoughts are inside the head and imagined objects only appear to be real in thought.

Ok, so what 'I' has the body? What 'I' owns it?

I cannot find a separate object called “I” that has a body. It is felt that whatever I am, it has this body. I don’t know what owns it – I cannot find anything tangible that owns this body.

Can an 'I' be found - Or is this just an idea - A thought?

I cannot find a separate “I”. At this point, it could only be said to be a thought and that is what it feels like – a thought.

Can we agree that anything suggested as the 'doer' of the moving is a thought?

Yes.

So in the phrase 'I moved my arm', the 'I' is just a thought about what did it?

Yes.

Again, as I described above, this is opposed to an 'I', a seperate self that was 'found' that was doing the moving.

Correct, no separate “I” found to do the moving.

Is there even a 'me' that makes and expresses the claim? Could that just be an idea too? A thought?

That would have to be another thought, too.

Is there an 'I', a seperate self that is doing the thinking?

No separate “I” found to think, but thinking seemed to be happening. What was thinking or seemed to be thinking? Is it possible that nothing was thinking and there was just thoughts and thoughts about thinking??? If so, how was this recognized to be thinking?

Let's say you drive or you ride a bicycle, do you actively think in order to choose the gears or brakes every time?

No.

Is there an 'I' doing that?

Doesn’t appear to be an “I” actively choosing the gears and bakes.

If something is found, how could it be 'you'? Surely the 'you' would be the thing that was finding it?

True. The “me” that found a thing would be what found the thing and that thing that was found could not be “me”.

Can you see the endless puzzle?

Yes, I see the endless puzzle. Like a hall of mirrors.

How to break through the endless puzzle?

I don’t know for sure. I there is no “I” or “me” to really find the beginning, it seems hopeless to reach a conclusion.

Could it be true that any and every reference to 'I', a seperate self is just a thought and nothing more?

Yes, this could be true and any reference to an “I” is just that – a reference that has no substantiality. What is it that believes it really knows things and can even agree with your suggestion above? Is that thought, too?

Yes, this could be true and any reference to an “I” is just that – a reference that has no substantiality. What is it that believes it really knows things and can even agree with your suggestion above? Is that thought, too?

An excellent, and obvious question.
Well, what can be found?

What right here and now does the 'agreeing' or 'disagreeing' with what is read?
Can you locate something in experience that performs this task?
Or is 'I agree' just a thought?

No. It is only an idea in imagination. No present evidence to suggest that the imagined object is actually located outside of the thought about it.
I believe that thoughts are inside the head and imagined objects only appear to be real in thought.

The perspective I follow is that imagined objects and thoughts are the same.
However, you appear to be saying that one is not a 'real' thing, and the other is a 'real' thing that appears at a specific location (inside the head).
So I assume then, that a medical operation could be performed on the head and the thoughts located inside it could be seen? Is this the case?

If you are saying that thoughts are located inside the head, you are saying they are not thoughts - You are saying that they are real objects that can appear at a specific location aren't you?

I am not sure what is being asked here.

Ok, let us pursue this then - You are saying that thoughts are located inside the head.
Ok - So, any specific area? Front or back, left or right? Top of the head or towards the bottom?
Do the thoughts have a uniform size and shape?
I am assuming that the five senses you have are not used to locate these thoughts, as the inside of the head isn't an area where they operate. How are you determining them inside there?
Forgive me if these questions appear flippant.
Could 'thoughts inside my head' be just an idea? Just a common expression?
Do you REALLY experience them in there?
Is there a 'you' experiencing them?

I cannot find a separate object called “I” that has a body. It is felt that whatever I am, it has this body. I don’t know what owns it – I cannot find anything tangible that owns this body.

So to say 'I own this body' or 'This body is me', is just a thought?
A seperate owner cannot be found. Is this right?

Is there an 'I', a seperate self that is doing the thinking?

No separate “I” found to think, but thinking seemed to be happening

Sure - Thinking happens. Seeing happens. Feeling happens.
Where is the 'I' involved?

What was thinking or seemed to be thinking?

What was found? Can a thinker be found?
If not, does the claim 'I think' hold up?
Is the 'I' in 'I think' a real existing object or a thought? An idea?

I don’t know for sure. I there is no “I” or “me” to really find the beginning, it seems hopeless to reach a conclusion

Wouldn't the realisation that every single case of 'I' is just a thought be a conclusion?
What are you finding so far?

Xain ♥

Thank you Xain for your continued patience and persistence. Here are the responses.

An excellent, and obvious question.
Well, what can be found?

I cannot find anything concrete that thinks that it knows anything or can confirm that something or a situation is correct /incorrect, right/wrong. Maybe it can only be thought. Is this all there is? Is there just thought without a real ability to identify a “thinker” or interpreter or judger of thoughts??? Is this true or just a convenient way to assign an unprovable theory to explain away that which may not be knowable or expressable? How can the truth be known for sure???

What right here and now does the 'agreeing' or 'disagreeing' with what is read?

I don’t know. Cannot find anything tangible. Seems to be just another thought!

Can you locate something in experience that performs this task?
Or is 'I agree' just a thought?

No. It kind of feels like some activity going on around the head area, but that could very well just be a thought!

Or is 'I agree' just a thought?

I think it is a thought about something/someone that believes that it can agree with an idea or concept - only the something/someone cannot be found on the front end of the process. Any agreement from an “I” would seem to come after the thought of the supposed agreement happens.

The perspective I follow is that imagined objects and thoughts are the same.
However, you appear to be saying that one is not a 'real' thing, and the other is a 'real' thing that appears at a specific location (inside the head).
So I assume then, that a medical operation could be performed on the head and the thoughts located inside it could be seen? Is this the case?

Ha! No thoughts would be found inside of the head if the head were cut open. Thoughts inside the head is an unproven assumption that has been repeatedly made! Cannot say for sure where thoughts are located if they are in fact, locateable. Don’t believe that thoughts are locateable.

Ok, let us pursue this then - You are saying that thoughts are located inside the head.
Ok - So, any specific area? Front or back, left or right? Top of the head or towards the bottom?

I cannot locate any specific location for thoughts inside or outside of the head now.

Do the thoughts have a uniform size and shape?

No.

I am assuming that the five senses you have are not used to locate these thoughts, as the inside of the head isn't an area where they operate. How are you determining them inside there?

Correct. The 5 senses could not locate a thought inside of the head. A (seemingly) bad assumption has been repeatedly made that thoughts are inside of the head. I believe that it comes from being taught that the brain thinks, etc. and that the brain is inside of the head. All theory, but nothing to prove that a brain thinks or generates a thing called a thought.

Could 'thoughts inside my head' be just an idea? Just a common expression?

Yes. “Thoughts inside my head” seems to be an idea and could easily be a common expression!

Do you REALLY experience them in there?

It kind of feels like the head is the center of activity, with respect to thoughts appearing – but even this is found to be an assumption.

Is there a 'you' experiencing them?

I cannot find a separate “me” to experience the thoughts. Any “me” that is supposedly experiencing the thoughts can be said to just be a thought. A thought believing that “it” can experience a thought! Ha!

So to say 'I own this body' or 'This body is me', is just a thought?

Yes, I believe this to be a thought with nothing more than an assumption to back it up.

A seperate owner cannot be found. Is this right?

Correct. No separate owner to be found.

Sure - Thinking happens. Seeing happens. Feeling happens.
Where is the 'I' involved?

The “I” comes in after the action happens.

What was found? Can a thinker be found?

No separate thinker to be found.

If not, does the claim 'I think' hold up?

No, it doesn’t hold up.

Is the 'I' in 'I think' a real existing object or a thought? An idea?

The “I” in “I think” is not an existing object. It appears to be a thought or idea that is claiming ownership of thinking.

Wouldn't the realisation that every single case of 'I' is just a thought be a conclusion?

Yes. Every single case of “I” is a thought and could be a conclusion.

What are you finding so far?

“I” is a thought. Thoughts about “things” are still just thoughts. I cannot find a thinker or creator of thoughts. I cannot find an analyzer/judger/approver(or disapprover) of thoughts. Thoughts seem to just happen and are not contained inside the head. The thought that an “I” could validate anything I just said in the few preceeding sentences would also just be a thought.

Ha! No thoughts would be found inside of the head if the head were cut open. Thoughts inside the head is an unproven assumption that has been repeatedly made! Cannot say for sure where thoughts are located if they are in fact, locateable. Don’t believe that thoughts are locateable.

Ok, good.
I needed to pursue this to try to establish if the thoughts have an owner. If they appear in a location, then that might suggest an owner, or further areas to pursue in looking for a creator.

Is there a 'you' experiencing them?

I cannot find a separate “me” to experience the thoughts. Any “me” that is supposedly experiencing the thoughts can be said to just be a thought. A thought believing that “it” can experience a thought! Ha!

Nice work!
This almost doubles back on itself in some respects.
'I had a thought' is a thought. There wasn't an 'I' having the thought.

“I” is a thought. Thoughts about “things” are still just thoughts. I cannot find a thinker or creator of thoughts. I cannot find an analyzer/judger/approver(or disapprover) of thoughts. Thoughts seem to just happen and are not contained inside the head. The thought that an “I” could validate anything I just said in the few preceeding sentences would also just be a thought.

So is there an 'I', a seperate self here right now?
Or just the thought of one appearing?

Did 'you' choose to begin this conversation with me?

I thought I chose to begin the conversation with you at first, but now, I don’t think so.

What about now?
Is it realised that any 'I' that was said to 'have chosen to begin this conversation' is just a thought - An idea?

Is there an 'I' doing this investigation right now? Considering what has been written?
Or would the only one that could be found would be in thought?

Could it be that all 'I' is, or ever was . . . is just a thought?

Xain ♥

Thank you Xain. Really appreciate your help and guidance. Here are the responses.

So is there an 'I', a seperate self here right now?

No.

Or just the thought of one appearing?

“I” is just a thought.

Did 'you' choose to begin this conversation with me?

I thought I chose to begin the conversation with you at first, but now, I don’t think so.


What about now?

No, don’t believe there is a separate “chooser”.

Is it realised that any 'I' that was said to 'have chosen to begin this conversation' is just a thought - An idea?

Correct.

Is there an 'I' doing this investigation right now? Considering what has been written?

No separate “I” found to be doing an investigation.

Or would the only one that could be found would be in thought?

No separate “I” to be found. Only the thought of “I”.

Could it be that all 'I' is, or ever was . . . is just a thought?

Yes. “I” is believed to be a thought.

Sounds good.

At this point, do you have any questions? Any things that aren't clear?

Of course, this conversation is all on the level of 'thought'.
'I' can ask 'you' to look into something or consider something. This doesn't imply that there is a 'you' looking into something or a 'me' asking you to do it.

Nothing needs changing. No need to communicate in a different way.
Just to realise that it is all simply 'thought'.

Xain ♥

Thank you Xain for showing that there is not a separate "I" to do anything or even believe that "this" can even be clear or not clear in thought. Really grateful for "your" time, effort, and persistence! No questions. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

You're very welcome. :-)

Thank YOU for sticking in there and seeing it through!

We can end it here or if you would like, there are six additional questions I can ask. These may further 'solidify' the realisation for you or maybe point to any areas that are unclear. These form the 'standard practice' of what we do here to ensure that you have really realised that 'I' only exists as a thought.

Also, it allows you further access to the forum, your name changes colour and you get an ice-cream and a special badge.

Xain ♥

P.S. I was joking about the Ice-cream and the badge

Hi Xain. Thank you again for your support! More than willing to follow the "standard practice" and check out the other 6 questions.

Hi Greg - Again, please forgive the small delay in responding.

Here are the first three of the six questions - Have a go at answering them when you have a moment.

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

2) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference between 'now' and from before you started this dialogue? Perhaps give a report from the past few days.

3) Was there a last bit that pushed you over? Made you look and realise? Perhaps something I mentioned, or something that you looked into yourself?

Xain ♥

Hi Xain. No worries on the delay and thanks for sending the questions. Very grateful for your guidance! :)

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

No, no separate entity called “me”, “I”, at all. Never was. Only a thought of a “me”, “I”, etc.

2) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference between 'now' and from before you started this dialogue? Perhaps give a report from the past few days.

Doesn’t feel like anything special, really. When the dialogue started, “I” expected to get/gain something – enlightenment, insight, truth, etc. Now, it is realized that “I”, being only a thought, could not possibly gain anything.
If anything, the last few days have been somewhat of a relief. Ups and downs still occur, but with no separate entity called “I” to claim possession of the ups and downs, there isn’t really much worry or enjoyment of events occurring in life.

3) Was there a last bit that pushed you over? Made you look and realise? Perhaps something I mentioned, or something that you looked into yourself?

Your persistence and patience was the key. The “I” see, “I” hear, “I” touch exercises were helpful, but the “arms lifting up on their own” seem to pack a punch! Also, your suggestion to try to find an object, or thing called “I” was really helpful, along with the suggestion that thinking / interpretation may only be a thought. It was seen that the action happened and afterward, the “I” “came in” and claimed ownership. You skillfully pointed out that a thought “about” something was not the thing itself.

Thank you again! Much gratitude!

Your kind words are greatly appreciated, Greg. Thank you.

Here are the last three of the six questions.

4) 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. (Feel free to use conventional language here)

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for? Please give examples from experience if possible.

6) Do you have anything else you would like to say or add?

Xain ♥

4) 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. (Feel free to use conventional language here)

The illusion of a separate self is a belief that there is a separate entity that humans call “I” – an “I” that is able to control situations, think thoughts, initiate actions and interpret the results of actions/thinking, etc. From the illusory point of view of the “I”, it is the epicenter of everything. Things happen to/for the “I” – it is the center of the reality, of sorts. The “I” believes there are other “I”s, called “you”s and the “I” continuously compares itself to “others”. This “I” continuously measures (with respect to itself) gain/loss, goodness / badness, how it is perceived and how it perceives “others”.
I don’t know when it actually starts. Some suggest that it may begin as a toddler, when “others” teach separateness to the toddler and labels and reference points are suggested or inferred. This suggestion of starting as a toddler is, I guess, as good as any, as it, like a separate thing called “I”, is just another thought. How it begins, I don’t know. Why it begins, I don’t know. The “I” is a thought. The questions of how / why it comes about are also thoughts. With no real “I” even there, the questions seem pointless.

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for? Please give examples from experience if possible.

I don’t know how things happen – things just apparently happen. Anything that happens to a believed separate thing called “I”, is just fiction. There is no separate “I” that can decide, control, choose, impose will and have an intention. A belief that a non-existent entity could do any of those things, is a false belief. If “something” is non-existent, then what is there to do anything! There is no “I” that could even be responsible for anything!

Examples: “I” did not choose when to fall asleep last night. “I” did not choose when to wake up this morning. “I” did not choose which thoughts to “think” today. There was no “I” to choose pleasant thoughts over unpleasant thoughts. “I” am not choosing what to type next, but letters and apparent thoughts are occurring and typing is happening. Even this last statement is a thought!

6) Do you have anything else you would like to say or add?

No, but thank you for giving the chance to say/add more. Just doesn’t seem to be needed. 

Thank you Xain.