The Gate

You tell me :-)

Was there ever a real "me"?
Or just a thought story about a "me".

Was there ever a self to see through?
Or just a thought story about a non-existent self to its apparent dissolution.

Was there ever a gate?
Was there ever a one to crash a gate?

Was there ever a real "me"?

No, it's just nature going in its own way. An Intelligence, an impersonal intelligence that gives rise to all the things. Knowing, sensations, thoughts, feelings.

Or just a thought story about a "me".

All stories. And they continuously rise again and again, but they are seen by Knowing.

Was there ever a self to see through?

No, it was a thought that was very persistent, like a stain on the mirror.

Or just a thought story about a non-existent self to its apparent dissolution.

Thought over thought over thought over thought.

Was there ever a gate?

It seems like even the gate itself is a thought.

Was there ever a one to crash a gate?

Even the one that crashes a gate is a thought.

It's a little insane how crazy this labyrinth of thoughts can be.

It's a little insane how crazy this labyrinth of thoughts can be.

Bizarre, perfidious this game is. But on the other hand also beautiful and thrilling, isn't it?

like a stain on the mirror

Ugly and terrifying images can appear in a mirror. Maybe even a stain on it, yes.
But is the mirror and its empty nature EVER affected by it?

Was there ever a gate?

It seems like even the gate itself is a thought.

Was there ever a one to crash a gate?

Even the one that crashes a gate is a thought.

How does it feel to see this?

Bizarre, perfidious this game is. But on the other hand also beautiful and thrilling, isn't it?

I can see what you mean by beautiful... I also see repulsion arising together with a thought of that yet-again persistent self.

Ugly and terrifying images can appear in a mirror. Maybe even a stain on it, yes.
But is the mirror and its empty nature EVER affected by it?

No, it can't be affected, because if it were affected, then there would be a thought of self present. All things flow in their own way, in their own intelligence.

How does it feel to see this?

I felt a slight relief. But... it wasn't as mind-blowing as I thought it would be. I thought it would be like in those Zen stories where masters went "OH!" But there is still a remaining doubt, I need to ask if the realization is real.

When this body and mind goes to sleep, the five senses no longer give rise to sensations. The Knowing is there. But why is it that there is unawareness to the point where it seem as if the Knowing disappeared, covered by a veil of darkness? If the realization is real, this Knowing should be clearly present even in sleep, shouldn't it? Also, this Knowing should be able to be absolutely free of afflictions, so why do afflictions continue to arise, such as this "I" that keeps popping out at every thought?

When this body and mind goes to sleep, the five senses no longer give rise to sensations. The Knowing is there. But why is it that there is unawareness to the point where it seem as if the Knowing disappeared, covered by a veil of darkness? If the realization is real, this Knowing should be clearly present even in sleep, shouldn't it?

We can have a look at this aspect later.
Please remind me if it is still a thing.

Also, this Knowing should be able to be absolutely free of afflictions, so why do afflictions continue to arise, such as this "I" that keeps popping out at every thought?

Is the knowing ever afflicted? Or isn't also "affliction" clearly known?
And isn't "that what is apparently afflicted" also clearly known?

Is there an afflicted awareness?
Or is there awareness of affliction?


How is the thought "I" an affliction anyway?
Again. What is afflicted by it?
And how can this tiny little thought called "I" be afflictive?
Is it afflictive by itself? Where does this idea come from?

Is the knowing ever afflicted? Or isn't also "affliction" clearly known?

No knowing is not afflicted, affliction is also known. Strangely, the "I" thought feels bothered by afflictions continuously rising.

And isn't "that what is apparently afflicted" also clearly known?

Yup, the "I" thought is also known and it doesn't have any basis to exist.

Is there an afflicted awareness?

There is awareness and there is affliction.

Or is there awareness of affliction?

Awareness of affliction.

How is the thought "I" an affliction anyway?

When "I" is attached to a feeling of "like", it becomes "Greed", and then the thought continuously comes back, as if it has residual force behind it.

When "I" is attached to "dislike", it becomes "Hatred". With "neither", it becomes "Obscurity". With "itself", it becomes Conceit and I-identification. With "others", it becomes "Envy".

Again. What is afflicted by it?

Thoughts are afflicted by thoughts. There is a recognition of an "I" that suffers, but it is just a label a thought, and it is just made out of sensations, feelings and thoughts.

And how can this tiny little thought called "I" be afflictive?

This "I" is not afflictive, but it feels like it brings up more "content", if that makes sense.

Is it afflictive by itself? Where does this idea come from?

I feel like it is cause-and-condition, this thought leading to another thought, going about their own way. But of course, without any 'agent' actually making it happen.

Thoughts are afflicted by thoughts

Look at the thought "pony".
Can this thought be afflicted? Can a thought be afflicted?

I feel like it is cause-and-condition, this thought leading to another thought

And is it true? Have a look! Or just another thought, trying to "explain" how this chain of thoughts came about.

Strangely, the "I" thought feels bothered by afflictions continuously rising.

And is that true?
Does "I" feel bothered?


There seems to be an assumption left, that there is something special about the thought "I".
That the thought "I" can make things better or worse.
But again. Is that true? Or just part of the story.

When "I" is attached to "dislike", it becomes "Hatred"

Does this little thought "I" really have the power to create hatred?
Is the thought "I" more special than the thought "O" or "E"?
Can "O" create hatred?
Can "E" create hatred?

Can this thought be afflicted? Can a thought be afflicted?

I guess the feeling of suffering is again just a thought. Since the "I" itself is originally non-existent, what can be afflicted?

And is it true? Have a look! Or just another thought, trying to "explain" how this chain of thoughts came about.

A mango seed leads to a mango tree. Even if those are just "name labels" the actual reality is that it smells, looks, tastes, touches, hears as a "mango" construct. If the body jumps off a building, it will die. Causes lead to conditions. I understand what you are trying to say though, that thoughts exist independently. But one leads to another. Like if there isn't any "I" thought or identification then there would not be a lot of other "thoughts" related to the "I".

And is that true?
Does "I" feel bothered?

True, the "bothered" is a separate thought of suffering.

There seems to be an assumption left, that there is something special about the thought "I".
That the thought "I" can make things better or worse.
But again. Is that true? Or just part of the story.

"I" is not the center, it cannot make anything good or bad because it has no substantial basis and at best, it is a label and just a thought, so it is part of the story. "I" is known by Knowing.

Does this little thought "I" really have the power to create hatred?
Is the thought "I" more special than the thought "O" or "E"?
Can "O" create hatred?
Can "E" create hatred?

"I" was identified as a self, so by "I" it would have meant the self. Having that self, it would then allow "hatred" as a separate feeling and thought to rise. Now, "I" isn't identified as self, so it is the same as "O" or "E". Since there isn't "I" or "O" or "E", then there is just Knowing. Even if there is "hatred" it is a separate thought?

Even if there is "hatred" it is a separate thought?

Hatred is an appearance like any.
Such appearances are a part of the human play sometimes. It has nothing to do with you.


This is for you to just "keep in mind" when looking at "bad" appearances:

Is there a one or a thing creating that hatred (or whatever)?
Is there a one or a thing, which HAS that hatred?
Is there a one or a thing, TO WHICH the hatred happens?

Can such a one or such a thing be found? Does it exist?

If not, who or what could be bothered by that appearance?

How is it known, that an appearance is "bad" in the first place?
Because a buddhist teacher told so? Because thought labelling it as "bad"?
Is there really such a thing as "bad"?

Causes lead to conditions

Is that true?
How is it known.
Because a buddhist teacher told so? Because thought telling so?

When ONLY looking at actual experience. What is here now. While NOT looking at the learned, thought stories..

Is there something other than NOW? Does NOW give rise to NOW?

Looking at actual experience:
Can colour be a cause for colour?
Can sound be a cause for sound?

Is there a one or a thing creating that hatred (or whatever)?

No, hatred appears out of emptiness.

Is there a one or a thing, which HAS that hatred?

No, it arises from emptiness separately from hatred.

Is there a one or a thing, TO WHICH the hatred happens?

No, hatred arises separately from emptiness.

Can such a one or such a thing be found? Does it exist?

No, the thoughts do not seem to interact and there are gaps of emptiness between them.

If not, who or what could be bothered by that appearance?

Nothing, it seems.

How is it known, that an appearance is "bad" in the first place?

"bad" is a separate thought.

Because a buddhist teacher told so? Because thought labelling it as "bad"?

If there is no cause and condition, then the cause of a "buddhist teacher saying that" does not lead to "a belief in the same thought". However, if it is seen as simply a label, then there is actually just a thought of "bad" and another thought.

Is there really such a thing as "bad"?

Just a thought.

Is that true?

They seem separate and rising out of emptiness, so... probably no link.

How is it known.
Because a buddhist teacher told so? Because thought telling so?

No, because of how it appears out of emptiness.

When ONLY looking at actual experience. What is here now. While NOT looking at the learned, thought stories..

Is there something other than NOW? Does NOW give rise to NOW?

No, now is undifferentiated, no here or there, no past or future.

Looking at actual experience:
Can colour be a cause for colour?

No.

Can sound be a cause for sound?

No.

If not, who or what could be bothered by that appearance?

Nothing, it seems.

In direct experience..
What can be found, when looking for that, what is bothered?

When the knowing looks at the "I", it dissolves. Likewise for "bothered".

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

Never. Just Pure Knowing.

Please 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.