The Gate

HI Vivien..

The body is just a conceptual overlay on the AE of colors, sensations and thoughts. Can you see this?

Yes, I see this now

If you put aside all learned information how is it known the experiencing happens through the senses?

it isnt known. It is only an concept

In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'?

No

Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only 'what can be heard'?

Nothing can be found

An 'I'? a 'body'? a 'person'? a brain? A pair of ears?
Can these be found doing the hearing? Or is there just 'what can be heard'?

There is just " what can be heard "

Can an INHERENT HEARER be found? Would anything that is suggested as the hearer, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

When any thoughts , ideas and concepts are removed. There is only the experience of " what can be heard " There is no finding of a hearer

Hi Kalina,

When any thoughts , ideas and concepts are removed. There is only the experience of " what can be heard " There is no finding of a hearer

Good. Now let’s investigate seeing.

Look at whatever is in front of you.
Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes), or is it like a windscreen view?
How is it known that the eyes see?

Focus on the sensation labelled ‘eyes’. Is this sensation doing the seeing?
What is actually known right now about eyes, except thought about them?

Can you find anything behind the eyes that are seeing?

Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen?

Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

Vivien

Hi Vivien...

Look at whatever is in front of you.
Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes), or is it like a windscreen view?
How is it known that the eyes see?

There is nothing that is being looked through, just seeing
Nothing is known about eyes that see

Focus on the sensation labelled ‘eyes’. Is this sensation doing the seeing?

no

What is actually known right now about eyes, except thought about them?

Nothing is known about eyes

Can you find anything behind the eyes that are seeing?

Nothing can be found

Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen?

Nothing can be found that is seeing. There is just what is seen

Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

There is just experience

Hi Kalina,

Nothing can be found that is seeing. There is just what is seen

Great.

Since emotions play a big role in the illusion of the self, let’s start to investigate them, and see what they really are.
Bring up an emotion, feel it, and let’s examine what is really going on.

An appearing ‘emotion’ like ‘fear’ or ‘happiness’ has three ‘components’:

(a) a pure bodily sensation, like contraction or relaxation
(b) a mental label stuck to (layered over) the sensation, like “this is fear” or “this is contraction in the stomach” or “uncomfortable” or “I am happy”
(c) and sometimes there are simultaneously appearing visual thoughts about a certain body parts, like picture about the stomach or the chest

So when an emotion is present, identify these three components, and investigate them:

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘peaceful’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’?
Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, are just mental labels on the pure sensation?

Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?
Is there REALLY ‘sadness’ or ‘sorrow’ or ‘suffering’, or are there only thoughts about ‘sadness’ or ‘suffering’?

So if you look very closely, you’ll see that there is neither sufferer, nor suffering. There are only thoughts ABOUT a sufferer and suffering. Can you see this?

Vivien

Hi Vivien...

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘peaceful’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’?
Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, are just mental labels on the pure sensation?

without labelling, there is just a sensation

Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?
Is there REALLY ‘sadness’ or ‘sorrow’ or ‘suffering’, or are there only thoughts about ‘sadness’ or ‘suffering’?

the pure sensation on its own is neutral
there are only thoughts about suffering or sadness

So if you look very closely, you’ll see that there is neither sufferer, nor suffering. There are only thoughts ABOUT a sufferer and suffering. Can you see this?

I see this, yes

Hi Kalina,

Now let’s examine the pure sensations without the labels. In reality, there are only 3 types of sensations. Pleasant, unpleasant and neutral. But usually the neutral ones are ignored, we hardly notice them. All the negative emotions generate unpleasant sensations, and in reality there is no difference in sensation of ‘sadness’, ‘anger’, ‘fear’, etc. There might be differences of the location and the intensity of the sensations, but the ‘feeling’ is the same. All these sensations feel contracted (actually the muscles are contracted). That’s why they are unpleasant.

The pleasant sensations are just the opposite of contraction, they feel open, expanded (because the muscles are relaxed) That’s why they feel pleasant. ‘Love’, ‘peace’, ‘calmness’, ‘gratitude’… these are all expanded sensations. The pure sensations of them are the same. There might be difference in location and intensity, but that’s all.

For the exercise you’ll have to bring up certain emotions, both pleasant and unpleasant ones. You don’t have to dive deeply into the unpleasant ones, you just bring up them lightly, just enough intensity that you can observe the underlying sensations.

So bring up the memory of ‘sadness’. When the sensation is present, don’t pay attention to the thought story, just stay with the pure sensation for a minute.
After about a minute let go of the sensation labelled ‘sadness’, and try to slightly feel ‘fear’ (just gently). Let go all thoughts, and just feel the pure sensation.
Now try to feel the sensation of ‘anger’ for a little while. Then let it go. Let your body calm down.
So, could you see that all the negative emotions felt very similar, contracted and unpleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?

Now bring up the feeling of ‘love’, and pay attention only to the pure sensation. Let it be there for a while.
Then bring up the feeling of ‘peace’, observe the sensation carefully.
Now bring up the feeling of ‘gratitude’, and stay with a sensation as long as you like.
So, could you see that all the positive emotions felt very similar, expanded, pleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?

And now the last step. Bring up just the feeling of an unpleasant sensation. You don’t even have to label it, just feel it. When the sensation is present observe it very carefully.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘unpleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY unpleasant?

Now, bring up a pleasant sensation, stay with it for a while, and observe it carefully.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘pleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY pleasant?

Vivien

HI Vivien...

So, could you see that all the negative emotions felt very similar, contracted and unpleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?

Yes,there was the experience of contraction with all the negative emotions, and it was only the thoughts/labels about them that were different.

So, could you see that all the positive emotions felt very similar, expanded, pleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?

Yes, same again, but a feeling of expansion, and only labels that were different

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘unpleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY unpleasant?

Without labelling the sensation, there is just the sensation. The sensation isnt unpleasant, It is just a thought that lables it as such

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘pleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY pleasant?

No, the pure sensation itself, is just sensation. There is nothing known about it being pleasant when labels are removed.

Hi Kalina,

Without labelling the sensation, there is just the sensation. The sensation isnt unpleasant, It is just a thought that lables it as such

You did a great looking.

Now, let’s investigate the notion of awareness or consciousness, or in other words the knower.

When it’s seen that a seer, taster, smeller, feeler, thinker, etc. cannot be found, the identification often goes to the seeming appearance of a self-existent, self-aware awareness, which is the knower of everything that appears.
So the identification with the body and the senses (feeler, hearer, thinker, etc) is replaced with a subtle form of identification, “I am that which is aware”…. So there is still some sort of separate entity which is aware and holds and knows all experience (object). And the identification with awareness is an excellent hiding place for the separate self.

Does this belief has come up for you “I = awareness”?
Or the belief that there is a stand-alone independent awareness / consciousness that is aware of what is going on?

I don’t know if you have this assumption that “ I = awareness” or the existence of an independent awareness, but nevertheless, let’s investigate this.

In English, awareness is a noun, not a verb. Nouns imply agencies, or entities.
But can such thing be found as an independently existing awareness?

Stop for a moment now and take a thought. Be aware of the presence of the thought.
Can a thought be separated from the knowing or awareness of it?
Try your best to separate the two from each other. What happens?

Is there a dividing line between the thought and the knowing or awareness of it?
Can you find the line where the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?

Can you find a thought without the knowing of it?
Can you find knower or awareness without any object (like thought, sensation, color, sound, taste, smell)?
In other words, can there be a knowing without a known?

Repeat this exercise many times during the day. Experiment not just only with verbal thoughts, but also with visual thoughts, sounds, taste, etc. Let me know how it went.

Vivien

Hi Vivien...

Does this belief has come up for you “I = awareness”?
Or the belief that there is a stand-alone independent awareness / consciousness that is aware of what is going on?

I have explored this with another teacher prior to this guidance,checking my experience through guided meditation. And from that have seen that there is awareness, and objects of experience that arise , but they are not separate from each other.

But can such thing be found as an independently existing awareness?

Awareness cannot be found as an independent entity

Can a thought be separated from the knowing or awareness of it?
Try your best to separate the two from each other. What happens?

No..its like trying to tear space apart

Is there a dividing line between the thought and the knowing or awareness of it?
Can you find the line where the thought ends and the knowing of it starts?

there is no division, no line that can be found. There is nothing that can be found that separates them

Can you find a thought without the knowing of it?
Can you find knower or awareness without any object (like thought, sensation, color, sound, taste, smell)?
In other words, can there be a knowing without a known?

No thought can be found without the knowing of it.
Everything is known, every thought, sensation, colour, taste, smell..there is no knower without a known

Hi Kalina,

No thought can be found without the knowing of it.
Everything is known, every thought, sensation, colour, taste, smell..there is no knower without a known

Yes, exactly. So, awareness is not something that is waiting in the background for an object (like thought or sensation) to appear and then latch onto them with its knowing or aware-ing ability, so the thought or the sensation become known by it. For this to be true, there must be not only a stand-alone awareness, but a stand-alone thought or a stand-alone sensation without the knowing element. But there cannot be a thought or sensation without the knowing of them. We can fantasize about it, but actually thought or sensation without the knowing element simply doesn’t exist either. Can you see this clearly?

Is it also totally clear that there is no stand-alone, independent awareness waiting in the background for an object to appear and then latch onto it with its knowing or aware-ing ability?

Rather aware-ing is appearing simultaneously with the appearance of the thought or sensation. But this is even not true. Since no two separate ‘things’, an awareness and the thought appearing together, but just one ‘thing’ appearing ‘thoughtawareing’ or ‘sensationawareing’. Can you see this clearly?

And even saying that only ‘thoughtawareing’ is appearing is not completely true, since the word ‘appearing’ already implies something or somewhere in which or where it can appear. But this is the point where language fails us, due to its dualistic nature.

Vivien

Hi Vivien...

We can fantasize about it, but actually thought or sensation without the knowing element simply doesn’t exist either. Can you see this clearly?

Yes, this is clearly seen

Is it also totally clear that there is no stand-alone, independent awareness waiting in the background for an object to appear and then latch onto it with its knowing or aware-ing ability?

Yes

Since no two separate ‘things’, an awareness and the thought appearing together, but just one ‘thing’ appearing ‘thoughtawareing’ or ‘sensationawareing’. Can you see this clearly?

Yes

And even saying that only ‘thoughtawareing’ is appearing is not completely true, since the word ‘appearing’ already implies something or somewhere in which or where it can appear. But this is the point where language fails us, due to its dualistic nature.

Yes :-)

Hi Kalina,

Yes, this is clearly seen

Great :) Let’s start to investigate the notion of time and memory.

What is memory exactly? – please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it…
What is the memory ‘made of’?
WHEN does the memory appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?
WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

Please spend lot of time with EACH question… Look very carefully… Look at what actually going on and not what thoughts say… but what actually is.

Vivien

Hi Vivien...

What is memory exactly? – please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it…

Memory is an image thought

What is the memory ‘made of’?

Colour, shape

WHEN does the memory appear?

they appear with a thought, or other senses

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

Memory thought always has an image

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

It isnt known exactly that a "memory" refers to something that has happened. There is just a thought about it being a past experience

What is the future thought ‘made of’?

Also made of image, shape , colour

WHEN does the future thought appear?

appears in general thoughts

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?

No difference other than that a belief about general thought happening " now " and future thought something you want to happen, but that thought is also happneing "now"

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

It isnt known

What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?

There is no difference, only the labelling of them gives rise to a bleief they are different

Hi Kalina,

V: What is the memory ‘made of’?

K: Colour, shape

V: What is the future thought ‘made of’?

K: Also made of image, shape , colour

There is a BIG difference between the AE of colors and the visual thoughts about color.
The visual thoughts about color are NOT the AE of color, but the AE of thought only.
Can you see this clearly?

So the memory is NOT ‘made of’ colors, but ‘made of’ visual thoughts ABOUT colors. Can you see the difference?
But the visual thoughts ABOUT colors, are NOT actual colors. Can you see this?

It’s the same of the future thoughts.

Future thoughts are not made of image/color, rather they are ‘made of’ ONLY visual THOUGHTS ABOUT image/color. Can you see this?

And is there such thing as AE of shape?
What is the AE of shape? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?
Can shape as such be experienced at all?

V: WHEN does the memory appear?

K: they appear with a thought, or other senses

V: WHEN does the future thought appear?

K: appears in general thoughts

The question wasn’t where they appear, rather when they appear.
Both memory-thoughts and future-thoughts appear NOW.
Just as you wrote here:

No difference other than that a belief about general thought happening " now " and future thought something you want to happen, but that thought is also happneing "now"

Yes. So the only difference between past-, present- and future-thoughts are their contents.
Only the content makes a SEEMING distinction between them that one is about the past, the other about the present, and third is about the future.

But all the three are just thoughts. No actual distinction between them. Is this clear?

Now let’s see what time really is.

What is time?
How time is experienced?
What is past and future?
How past or future is experienced?
Does past or future ‘exists’ other than contents of thoughts?
Is there a proof that you had dinner last night?
Is there any experiential proof whatsoever that the past has ever happened?

Vivien

HI Vivien...

There is a BIG difference between the AE of colors and the visual thoughts about color.
The visual thoughts about color are NOT the AE of color, but the AE of thought only.
Can you see this clearly?

Yes, I see this now, thank you

So the memory is NOT ‘made of’ colors, but ‘made of’ visual thoughts ABOUT colors. Can you see the difference?
But the visual thoughts ABOUT colors, are NOT actual colors. Can you see this?

Yes, totally. Its quite mind blowing to see how everything comes back to thought :-)

Future thoughts are not made of image/color, rather they are ‘made of’ ONLY visual THOUGHTS ABOUT image/color. Can you see this?

Yes, I see this too

And is there such thing as AE of shape?
What is the AE of shape? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?
Can shape as such be experienced at all?

I see now that " shape " is just a concept, not AE

Yes. So the only difference between past-, present- and future-thoughts are their contents.
Only the content makes a SEEMING distinction between them that one is about the past, the other about the present, and third is about the future.

But all the three are just thoughts. No actual distinction between them. Is this clear?

Yes this is clear

What is time?

Time is Visual thoughts about colours, overlayed with the concept ( thought ) that there is time

How time is experienced?

Experienced as now only

What is past and future?

past and future are an overlay of visual thoughts on now

How past or future is experienced?

visual thoughts

Does past or future ‘exists’ other than contents of thoughts?

No

Is there a proof that you had dinner last night?

Mind wants to joke and say " Only if I didnt wash the dishes and they are sat there the next morning " :-)
But experience tells me , no , it is like a dream of something that happened, which is really just a visual thought

Is there any experiential proof whatsoever that the past has ever happened?

no none