The Gate

Hi Vivien,

You are welcome :) but be prepared, you might not like my following comments.

Quite the opposite, actually! :) I really appreciate the things you have said here and welcome the opportunity of working towards seeing through my learned behaviours and intellectual assumptions. I am here for this very reason, and am enjoying learning from you!

We are just going to investigate the simplicity of raw experience.
Are you up for it?

Are you ready to stop thinking and actually see if those assumptions can test the scrutiny of experience?

Are you ready to try out something new? To pay attention to the experience instead of THINK ABOUT the experience?

Absolutely!.

This awareness is the ultimate illusion, it really seems very real. But nonetheless, it’s still an illusion. And for those who engaged in non-dual teachings this sometimes can be a serious stumbling block.

Can you entertain the possibility that awareness is not what it seems like?

I can, and am keen to break through these illusions.

Do you have a resistance to the notion that awareness might be an illusion too?

Not in any overt way. I'm completely open to the possibility that awareness may be an illusion. Any resistance comes from the accumulation of previous learning setting up blockages at some invisible level rather than any emotional or intellectual resistance.

Dave.

Hi Dave,

Quite the opposite, actually! :) I really appreciate the things you have said here and welcome the opportunity of working towards seeing through my learned behaviours and intellectual assumptions.

Very good that you don’t have resistance to this. This can help you a lot.

But before diving deeply into the topic of awareness, there are some other things that needs to be seen first. But we will definitely will look into it.

Do you remember the spoon exercise? We are going to do something similar.

Have a piece of fruit handy, or something that you like to eat.

1. For the first couple of minutes imagine you are eating the fruit…..feel the sensations of chewing, the taste, the texture, the fragrance, hear the crunching sound that the chewing makes. Really enjoy the imaginary piece of fruit as much as you can.

2. Then for the next couple of minutes actually bite the fruit and see the difference. Experience the fruit with curiosity and dive into the sensations of chewing, swallowing, the sounds and the taste. Really enjoy the experience of actually eating the piece of fruit.

3. Then for another minute or so describe the taste and smell in as much detail as possible. Write about it here.

After you have done this, tell me what you noticed when you compared these three experiences:

1. Imaginary fruit
2. Real fruit
3. Description (thought interpretation)

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

After you have done this, tell me what you noticed when you compared these three experiences:

1. Imaginary fruit

A good reproduction of the experience of eating some Camembert cheese was recreated, with the taste, texture, scent and pleasure being remembered from the experience of eating cheese on previous occasions. The function of swallowing was rarely factored in, possibly because it is less pleasurable, so I ended up imaging myself eating several chunks of cheese before remembering to imagine swallowing it too. After a few minutes, the exercise grew more difficult to sustain, as there were no actual pleasure centres being stimulated and my imagination was starting to grow bored and dissatisfied.

2. Real fruit

By focussing on the sensations of eating some Camembert cheese I noticed a great difference between not only the imagined sensation above but in how I usually eat or enjoy food. After imagining eating, actual eating felt like a more heightened experience that I appreciated so much more than usual.

3. Description (thought interpretation)

The camembert had a taste and smell that is difficult to accurately describe. It tasted like pungent cream with a harsh, dull and savoury edge that sometimes came through in stronger bursts that had the flavour of fetid milk. Very difficult to accurately describe such a strong and unique food. The smell was similarly difficult to describe, save that it reminded me a little of the whiff of an old sock or a damp running shoe. None of the descriptions here sound very pleasant and come nowhere close to the actual sensations of eating it.

Continued from above...

After you have done this, tell me what you noticed when you compared these three experiences:

What was most notable was the difference between the actual experience of eating the cheese compared with the imagining of it and the subsequent description of it.

Imagining it beforehand was initially felt quite realistic, but it didn't take long for the sensations being imagined to be revealed as essentially false. There was no taste, smell or sensation, just the illusory sense of them. A product of the mind forged by prior experience.

Describing eating the cheese afterwards was a highly ineffective way of realistically conveying the actual experience, with both words and concepts being entirely insufficient to give an accurate portrayal of what was experienced.

The inadequacies of both imaging and describing the actual experience itself reveals a lot about the difference between actual experience and these two different products of thought.

Hi Dave,

You did an excellent looking :)

The inadequacies of both imaging and describing the actual experience itself reveals a lot about the difference between actual experience and these two different products of thought.

So, is it clear that both imagination and description are just thoughts and not real things or real experiences?

Now, it will be easier for you look for the self and see the difference between thinning and imagining a self, and actually experiencing a self (if it’s possible at all).

Now close your eyes, and sit for a few minutes. Thoughts come and go….

But what is thinking thoughts?
Where is the I, the self, the thinker of thoughts?

Remember, we are searching for a REAL I/self/thinker, not just an imagined one.

Look very carefully, and avoid any speculation, theory, or thinking about this topic, rather investigate HOW things actually are experientially.

Repeat this several times during the day before replying.

Vivien

Hi Vivien

So, is it clear that both imagination and description are just thoughts and not real things or real experiences?

Yes, that was really apparent during the exercise.

But what is thinking thoughts?
Where is the I, the self, the thinker of thoughts?

Remember, we are searching for a REAL I/self/thinker, not just an imagined one.

At first the passing thoughts were very distracting, but when they began to settle and the mind was more silent, I began to look for a 'real' I. There was nothing locatable. I felt more aware of my physical state than my mind at certain points, and on relaxing into their sensations, felt awareness of that mind lessening. A clearer place to look, perhaps? No. Still nothing to locate that could be said to be 'I.' I did notice a sense of openness in my relaxed state that was I didn't notice the ast time I did this exercise, but there was still nothing in that openness that could be said to be 'I.' he thoughts, even those that are muted in the silence and seem almost non-present, are still coming from nowhere and returning there. There is no origin I can trace and the don't have a detectable 'owner' or 'creator.'

Dave

Hi Dave,

You did a nice looking :)

However, you are repeatedly talking as if there were such thing as a ‘mind’, other than an idea. So let’s look into it.

but when they began to settle and the mind was more silent
I felt more aware of my physical state than my mind at certain points
felt awareness of that mind lessening

Where is the exact location of this ‘mind’ which is supposed to be the placeholder and the origin of thoughts?
Can you find it in experience?

Is there a kind of entity called ‘mind’ that does something, like thinking thoughts?
Can you point to the ‘mind’ here now? Can you find one?

felt awareness of that mind lessening

You say you FELT awareness of that mind lessening.

So HOW does a mind FELT?

And WHERE is that FELT ‘awareness of mind’?

Find the exact location where it FELT the mind to reside. Where is that location exactly?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

Where is the exact location of this ‘mind’ which is supposed to be the placeholder and the origin of thoughts?
Can you find it in experience?

What I called mind can't be located or felt. I don't really know how else to describe it, but I use the word to describe the thing that is able to perceive thought. So if I think of an object, say a banana, the thing that can conceptualise a banana is what I am calling mind. True, this is just another thought in which an imaginary banana briefly appears, but I lack the language to call the ability to describe the faculty that becomes aware of that imaginary banana anything but 'mind.'

Is there a kind of entity called ‘mind’ that does something, like thinking thoughts?

I wouldn't describe it as a separate entity that does something, but, as above, the human faculty that is capable of perceiving thought.

Can you point to the ‘mind’ here now? Can you find one?

No, it is more apparent that it doesn't have its own objective or separate existence.

You say you FELT awareness of that mind lessening.

So HOW does a mind FELT?

I'd say it was an awareness that there were less thoughts happening after a few minutes of letting them come and go. Eventually I felt that there were very few thoughts passing at all. That state of relative silence was referred to as the awareness of the mind lessening. It's more accurate, perhaps, to state that it was an awareness of fewer thoughts.

And WHERE is that FELT ‘awareness of mind’?

There is no location or feeling of awareness of mind in reality, but there is a sense of awareness of greater or fewer thoughts which it is convenient to label as 'mind.' But it is just a label.

Dave

Hi Dave,

There is no location or feeling of awareness of mind in reality, but there is a sense of awareness of greater or fewer thoughts which it is convenient to label as 'mind.' But it is just a label.

So is it clear experientially without doubt that there is no such thing as ‘mind’, since there are only thoughts appearing? That mind is just imagined, but it’s actually not there?

Is there mind outside of words that speak of one?
Is there mind independent of thoughts that are imagined to come from a ‘mind’?

Please investigate this for a whole day repeatedly before replying.

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

I'm approaching this one by keeping a log of my experiences over the course of a day, which I started by answering your first question.

So is it clear experientially without doubt that there is no such thing as ‘mind’, since there are only thoughts appearing? That mind is just imagined, but it’s actually not there?

Yes, there is no direct experience of the thing called mind, only thoughts and imagination. Therefore it is only an imaginary construct that doesn't objectively exist.

I then considered how to approach the next two questions.

Is there mind outside of words that speak of one?
Is there mind independent of thoughts that are imagined to come from a ‘mind’?

I decided to compare the concept of the mind to the reality of my right hand. This is because I can see, feel and touch my right hand, meaning that it needs no words to verify its existence. The same cannot be said for the concept of mind which, being impossible to experience, has to be fabricated by the imagination and expressed through words that are always insufficient because they're trying to describe something which doesn't exist.

The same applies to my right hand with regards to its existence being independent of thoughts. I know it exists independent of thoughts and imagination because I can see it, feel it and touch it. Again, the same cannot be said for the concept of the mind which cannot be experienced by the senses.

I came back to these questions numerous times over the course of the day, trying to imagine the concept of the mind without using any inner or outer monologue. I found this impossible to achieve, with the only non-verbal concept that came to me at all being an endless space of darkness, devoid of all form. Yet the imagining of this space of nothingness was still only a thought and not nothingness itself.

In my attempts to try and imagine a mind that exists independently from thoughts, I found that it was impossible to conceptualise the mind at all without attaching it to the concept of thinking. From this, I came to conclude that thoughts are not the product of the mind, but the mind is the product of thoughts.

Hi Dave,

You did a very nice looking, well done :)

thoughts are not the product of the mind, but the mind is the product of thoughts.

Exactly!

I decided to compare the concept of the mind to the reality of my right hand. This is because I can see, feel and touch my right hand, meaning that it needs no words to verify its existence.

Yes, this is an excellent way to inquire.

Here is an exercise for you. Please repeat this several times before replying.

Think of something that makes you happy.

Is there a Dave creating that emotion?
Is there a thought creating that emotion?
Or an image creating it?
What is creating it?

Is there a Dave feeling happy?

Did the experience of happiness last, or some other feeling came up after some time?

How did this change happen, did you choose another thought to make the happiness change to something else?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

Here is an exercise for you. Please repeat this several times before replying.

Think of something that makes you happy.

Is there a Dave creating that emotion?
Is there a thought creating that emotion?
Or an image creating it?
What is creating it?

On the first occasion, I thought of something as simple as the happiness I feel when I see a dog being curious or playful. There is no reliance on the existence of a 'Dave' to feel this emotion. It is more natural than that. I see the thing that makes me happy and the response to it is instant and spontaneous without any thought. I'm sure this happiness is also a learned habit (some people fear dogs for instance), but for me that happiness comes very naturally and without thinking. From this, it's clear that there is no thought shaping it. Neither is it an image as such, though it is the visual stimulus of a real thing, so it can be likened to an image.

What is really creating it though is the actually sight and experience of being in the presence of a dog.

Another thing I thought of that made me happy was the feeling of achievement I had today after completing a long and difficult assignment for a course I'm currently doing. This required no 'Dave,' thought or image, but came as the result of a senses of achievement and satisfaction at having completed a task. The thing creating this happiness was the result of physical, mental and creative processes, though the more immediate happiness came from having to do no more work for the rest of the evening. Some of these things seemed nested with the processes of thought (the mental and creative processes for instance), but also came from the tangible physical experiences of working with my hands and eyes.

The final thing I thought of was the sensation of being outdoors in nature in warm sunshine. This is probably the most obviously physical of the examples I've used, as the resulting thoughts featured feeling the warmth on my skin, hearing the sounds of birds singing, smelling the fresh air and grass and seeing the increased physical beauty of the landscape. No 'Dave' was needed, no thoughts were required, and the only image was that experienced through the eyes. The cause of this happiness was the pleasure felt by the light and heat of the sun.

Is there a Dave feeling happy?

Not really. There is no awareness of such an identity, with it becoming altogether lost in the immediacy of the experiences of happiness.

Did the experience of happiness last, or some other feeling came up after some time?

How did this change happen, did you choose another thought to make the happiness change to something else?

None of the examples here lasted, and none of them were deliberately replaced by a subsequent thought. The moment either passed, some other stimulus came which was less pleasurable, or, more often or not, once out of sight or beyond the other senses, the stimuli for my happiness merely became forgotten over the passage of time.

Dave

Hi Dave,

What is really creating it though is the actually sight and experience of being in the presence of a dog.

But how do you know this, other than making a logical conclusion?

Can you OBSERVE (literally) an ACTUAL link between the ‘being in the presence of a dog’ and the emotion?
Where does this information coming from?

Here is an exercise for you.
Sit down, close your eyes, and think of a car.

How does the visual thought of a car arrive? Is it your doing?
What do you do EXACTLY for an image of a car to appear?
How do you make that happen?

Is there a storage place somewhere hidden where all the visual thoughts of cars are stored, and you go there and you choose and pick which one do you want to think of?

If not, how does that particular car appear from all the possible cars that could have appeared? What do you do EXACTLY to make that happen?

Are you the chooser of the color?
What do you do EXACTLY to the car to be a certain color?
Do you make the color to happen?

And what about its size and brand? Is the size and the brand your doing?

Can you observe a mind, or an I, or a self creating the image of a car?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

Can you OBSERVE (literally) an ACTUAL link between the ‘being in the presence of a dog’ and the emotion?
Where does this information coming from?

When I re-examined this on actually seeing a dog while out exercising earlier, I made a note to try and recollect the experience later. Doing that now, I recall seeing the dog, a blank space of what felt like a fraction of a second, then the experience of the emotion. There were no conscious thoughts in that space, or at least any that I was aware of, as the space was far too short to observe accurately. There was, however, a definite gap between the stimulus and the response.

Sit down, close your eyes, and think of a car.

How does the visual thought of a car arrive? Is it your doing?
What do you do EXACTLY for an image of a car to appear?
How do you make that happen?

There is a small gap again, but this time it is filled with a haze of information that takes a second or so to take form as a clear thought. This thought initially appeared due to the suggestion that I think of a car, which then led to thoughts forming with a jumble of words suggesting the 'creation' of a car. Once the words have been heard, I begin to see the inside of a car from the drivers position, and then the images move to the outside of the car so that the whole of it may be seen. It didn't feel like I made this happen at all, it felt like the suggestion that was heeded formed a car without any conscious effort on my part, forming them from my memories of the appearance of the car I currently own.

Is there a storage place somewhere hidden where all the visual thoughts of cars are stored, and you go there and you choose and pick which one do you want to think of?

Not as far as I can tell. It's a very automatic process with little choice involved in the selection of the car's characteristics.

If not, how does that particular car appear from all the possible cars that could have appeared? What do you do EXACTLY to make that happen?

Aside from aligning your suggestion to sit and think of a car with the act of doing those things, I didn't do anything to make that happen. I closed my eyes, heard some thought-voices saying 'create a car' and then one just appeared from nowhere.

Are you the chooser of the color?
What do you do EXACTLY to the car to be a certain color?
Do you make the color to happen?

And what about its size and brand? Is the size and the brand your doing?

I didn't consciously select any of these characteristics. After the suggestion to think of a car was acted upon, the appearance of the car itself was formed from the memories of my own car.

Can you observe a mind, or an I, or a self creating the image of a car?

No, not at all.

Vivien

Hi Dave,

it felt like the suggestion that was heeded formed a car without any conscious effort on my part, forming them from my memories of the appearance of the car I currently own.

You are falling for the same logical thinking, as with your dog and happiness.

Do you see that it’s only an assumption that since one follows the other (A: seeing the dog or reading the text to think of a car – B: sensations labelled ‘happiness’ arising or visual thought of a car appearing)?

Do you see that it’s coming only from logical thinking that A caused B?

But where is the experiential link between the two?
Is there any actual, observable link?

It's a very automatic process with little choice involved in the selection of the car's characteristics.

So there is a choice (even if just a little) in selecting the car’s characteristics?

Please don’t reply with thinking through of the memory of the previous looking, but rather look afresh, here now.

So imagine a car again.

HOW do you chose the characteristics of the car?
Describe the choosing itself… is there ANY choice what to choose?

What is choice? How does choice itself appear?

Aside from aligning your suggestion to sit and think of a car with the act of doing those things, I didn't do anything to make that happen.

OK, do the imagination again.

HOW do you ‘align with the suggestion of imagining the car’?
HOW do you do it exactly?

Is there anything in that process that you are doing?
Or every single aspect of it is just happening on its own, even the aligning?

Look very carefully.

After the suggestion to think of a car was acted upon, the appearance of the car itself was formed from the memories of my own car.

Do the exercise again. Always do it again, never rely on a memory, since that would just be thinking and not looking in the moment when it’s happening.

What is it exactly that is acted upon on the suggestion?
What is making the ‘acting upon’ to happen?

Vivien