The Gate

Hi Tom,

I got your email. There have been some issues with the website in the last few days, but admins are working on to fix it.

Big revelation here – despite setting out on this investigation to see through the self as an ILLUSION, deeper examination of my expectations revealed a desire to disprove the existence of self as a THING. Having never found any evidence to verify the existence of ‘self’ in the 5 senses, the ‘Illusion’ became the new ‘THING’ to be transcended, annihilated, stamped out of existence. So as long as the illusion of self and ‘subject-object’ perception did not disappear from awareness, seeking to disprove the existence of this ‘ILLUSION-THING’ continued unabated.

It's very good that you discovered this expectation. This is a big one, and a popular one. There are so many beliefs out there about awakening, how it should be like, or feel like. But the thing is that every single expectation is on behalf of a me, who wants to feel better, and thinks if this or that happens then I will be happy or feel better or have more peace.

As I mentioned it at the beginning, it cannot know in advance how it will be. Why? Because all expectations come on behalf of a separate self, who is always in a search for peace, happiness, lack of fear and suffering. We simply cannot imagine it, since we cannot step outside form the separate self’s perspective. We can only imagine within the dream of me. The illusionary me is simply unable to imagine how it would be if it were discovered to be just a fictional character, and not a reality. It can only imagine what it wants for itself.

And also, it’s important to mention that seeing through the self is just the first step, just the BEGINNING not the end. With time, and lots of further looking, even the appearance of the illusion can lessen, but only with lots of continued looking AFTER the self is seen through. Similarly, the illusion of the subject-object split can lessen, but this also needs to be further investigated.

But there is a big difference between WANTING the illusion to be gone in order to feel better (I want to feel better), and just being curios how the illusion itself manifest. The former is based on the desires of a limited-self with seeking, the latter is a curiosity to notice what is going on.

However, the transcendence or annihilation of a ‘self’ assumes existence of the self as a THING to begin with.

Exactly. In order to annihilate something, that thing first has to exists.

And how would you annihilate an illusion? How would you annihilate a mirage in the desert? The mirage could dissolve when look at from a certain angle. But does it need to be dissolved? Or is it enough to recognise that there is no real oasis there in order to stop believing in it?

So although the illusion won’t stop just because the self is seen through, we have to be careful not to fall to the other side, where the illusionariness of the self is well understood intellectually, but without a DEEP experiential recognition of it being a fact, without any doubt.

For those who are highly intellectual, like you, it’s often very well understood what is going on, which understanding can masquerade as an experiential recognition. So we have to watch out for this.

And about transcendence: in order to transcend the self there has to be something other than the self, which is transcending the self. So there has to be another form of self (other than the illusion), which could transcend the illusion. So this transcendence is nothing else than a desire and fantasy of the self, wanting to become better, bigger, transcendent entity / something.

V: Please describe to me this ‘strong sense of I’ as precisely as you can, without adding anything extra, just the raw facts of it.

T: - The one in here looking out there
- The pilot, the steerer of the ship, the director
- The owner of the body

These are very important points. We are going to investigate them one-by-one.

Let’s start with the owner of the body.

We often say ‘MY body’ – so what is it that owns the body?
And how do you know that the body is owned?
What is it that claims ‘MY body’?

You have clothes, right? But what is owning them?
What is that makes the clothes “mine”?
What is that claims the clothes to be “MY clothes”?
Does the seeming ‘voice in the head’, the commentator, owns the clothes?
Do thoughts own the clothes?
Does the thought ‘mine’ owns the clothes?
Does word/thought Tom owns the clothes?
Does the label on clothes own the clothes?

Does the label ‘my’ owns the body?
Does the label/word/thought Tom owns the body?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

Glad the email got through and thanks for updating our thread :)

But there is a big difference between WANTING the illusion to be gone in order to feel better (I want to feel better), and just being curious how the illusion itself manifest. The former is based on the desires of a limited-self with seeking, the latter is a curiosity to notice what is going on.

Thanks Vivien, this is a helpful distinction to make – approaching investigation with a more inquisitive ‘lets see what happens’ mindset has been most effective so far.

For those who are highly intellectual, like you, it’s often very well understood what is going on, which understanding can masquerade as an experiential recognition. So we have to watch out for this.

Agreed! A few pointers being used to scrutinise understanding when it happens:

- Forget ‘why’, focus on ‘what’
- What is happening? What is being experienced directly by the senses?
- What is not happening?
- ‘Understanding’ is not ‘knowing’
- What is happening in direct experience to confirm what is understood?
- Look then look again

V: Please describe to me this ‘strong sense of I’ as precisely as you can, without adding anything extra, just the raw facts of it.

T:
- The one in here looking out there
- The pilot, the steerer of the ship, the director
- The owner of the body

These are very important points. We are going to investigate them one-by-one.

Let’s start with the owner of the body.

We often say ‘MY body’ – so what is it that owns the body?

Nothing and no one.

And how do you know that the body is owned?

‘I’ don’t. The body is just happening, as it is.

What is it that claims ‘MY body’?

The me-character, the thought of ‘I’.

For example, looking at ‘my’ hand (from eyes closed):

- Open eyes; just seeing – a single view of colour, shadow and forms in awareness
- Deciding thought ‘look at hand’ happens
- Sensation of neck rotating right happens
- Sensation of eyeballs rotating downwards happens
- Another thought ‘hand in focus’ happens
- Appearance of seeing separating into ‘hand’ and ‘not hand’ happens
- Image of hand appears very clear in awareness; image of ‘not hand’ appears blurry and in the background
- Appearance of experience separating into ‘experiencer’ and ‘experienced’ happens
- The thought of ‘I’ happens to claim the perspective of ‘experiencer’ (subject) ‘in here’
- Another thought happens to label perception of the hand as being ‘out there’ and ‘experienced’ (object)
- A thought-label – with the me-character’s supposed ownership of the hand as its content – happens as ‘MY hand’

You have clothes, right? But what is owning them?

Nothing and no one.

What is that makes the clothes “mine”?

There is nothing that makes them intrinsically ‘mine’. The existence of clothes is just happening.

What is that claims the clothes to be “MY clothes”?

The me-character, the thought of ‘I’. ‘MY clothes’ is a thought-label which results from a sequence of happenings and thoughts that precede it, which include:

- Deciding thought to focus attention on an object in space (clothes) happens
- Sensation of eyes, head and neck moving to where clothes are located happens
- Appearance of seeing separating into ‘clothes’ and ‘not clothes’ happens
- Appearance of seeing separating into ‘perceiver’ and ‘perceived’ happens
- The thought of ‘I’ appearing to claim perspective of ‘perceiver’ (subject) ‘in here’ happens
- Another thought to label perception of clothes as being ‘out there’ and ‘perceived’ (object) happens
- A thought-label - with the me-character’s supposed ownership of the clothes as its content – happens as ‘MY clothes’

While the perception of a me-character in awareness can influence the content of a thought-label (seemingly ‘claiming’ an object for itself), it cannot create these thoughts directly. The me-character is a thought and thoughts cannot think for themselves.

Does the seeming ‘voice in the head’, the commentator, owns the clothes?

No, it doesn’t. The ‘voice in the head’ is just another appearance of the me-character / thought of ‘I’ in awareness.

Do thoughts own the clothes?

No, thoughts happen but they are not real so cannot own anything.

Does the thought ‘mine’ owns the clothes?

No, ‘mine’ is a thought-label based on the illusion of self. It has no bearing on the ‘happening’ of clothes whatsoever.

Does word/thought Tom owns the clothes?

Ditto.

Does the label of clothes own the clothes?

No, ‘clothes’ is just a label used to conceptualise and group specific ‘bits’ of reality that share similar characteristics (clothes in this case). It is experienced as a sound or a thought, neither have any bearing on the ‘happening’ of clothes.

Does the label ‘my’ owns the body?

No, ‘my’ is just a thought label based on the thought of I. It is not real so cannot own anything.

Does the label/word/thought Tom owns the body?

No – ‘Tom’ is experienced as a sound or thought only, neither possess the body or affect its functioning in the slightest. Other than that, there is no ‘Tom’

Hi Tom,

A few pointers being used to scrutinise understanding when it happens:

- Forget ‘why’, focus on ‘what’
- What is happening? What is being experienced directly by the senses?
- What is not happening?
- ‘Understanding’ is not ‘knowing’
- What is happening in direct experience to confirm what is understood?
- Look then look again

I love these points; these are very good.

You did a nice investigation.

So you said that one of the ways that a strong sense of I appears as the owner of the body.

What would you say to this now? Is there still a strong sense of I as the owner of the body?

Can you ever find an owner or you can only find thought labels of I/me/my/mine?

Please spend a whole day on investigation this. Also make sure that you incorporate looking into your everyday life.

Vivien

Hi Vivien :)

So you said that one of the ways that a strong sense of I appears as the owner of the body.

What would you say to this now? Is there still a strong sense of I as the owner of the body?

No :)

There is a stronger sense of the body and its actions being experienced from the vantage point of ‘witness’ rather than ‘owner’ or ‘doer’. The body knows what it’s doing, the witness is just watching as it happens. Also, what is witnessing feels far more expansive, boundless and not at all localised in the way a me-character feels confined within the body – just the open space of awareness.

Of today’s investigations, this sense was most apparent when hanging out clothes so have included observations below (emphasis on seeing and sensation of body motion in awareness):

- Sensing cool dampness of washed shirt in hands
- Seeing dexterity of arms, wrists, palms and fingers working in unison to turn inside-out shirt the right way; sensing the coordination of these movements
- Seeing the thumb, index and middle fingers of both hands oppose each other to grasp the shirt from its right and left corners; sensing opposing pressure between thumb, index and middle fingers
- Seeing the forearms, wrists, palms and fingers moving vertically in unison to lift the shirt, then move horizontally away from each other to unfold it
- Sensing the subtle weight of the shirt and tension in the triceps, forearms, wrists and fingers as it is lifted, then stretched out
- Seeing the forearms, wrists, palms and fingers moving downwards in unison to carefully hang the shirt on the clothes rail
- Sensing the extension of biceps, tension in the triceps, forearms, wrists and fingers as the shirt is lowered down

Can you ever find an owner or you can only find thought labels of I/me/my/mine?

There is no owner to be found, only thought labels. Much of today was spent looking at things that are supposedly ‘mine’ (my laptop, my golf bag, my coffee cup etc.) and comparing these to similar objects without this thought label applied (the same golf bag in a shop, for example). However, applying the thought-label ‘mine’ did not alter the size, shape, sensation, smell or sound of these objects whatsoever, nor did it confirm the existence of anyone or anything as their owner (not least a ‘me’).

Hi Tom,

However, applying the thought-label ‘mine’ did not alter the size, shape, sensation, smell or sound of these objects whatsoever, nor did it confirm the existence of anyone or anything as their owner (not least a ‘me’).

Yes, exactly. Thought labels and interpretations has no effect on reality, on what is.

You also mentioned that another way that a strong sense of I arise as the pilot the steerer of the ship, the director.
So let’s look into this.

Please spend as much time as you can in the midst of your daily life to observing and noticing how the body moves, how it feels, what it does.

You can notice how the legs are moving as walking happens.
When walking, what do you do in order for the legs to move?
Are you making walking happen, or it just happens automatically and effortlessly?

When you sit down, or stand up, is this something you do, or something that is happening?

Notice all sorts of sensations in the body.
Are you making the sensations happen, or they are there, without anyone or anything making them to be?

When breathing happens, are you making it to happen, or it happens automatically without anyone making it happen?

When preparing food, or eating, washing your hands, typing, brushing your teeth, dressing up, are you making the hands move, or the hands just move by themselves?

Is there a central controller somewhere in the body, from where strings are pulled to lift the arms, and move the body? Or all of it just happening automatically?

Have you been able to find a director, mover, or a pilot or someone at the helm? Or everything, literally everything happens spontaneously and automatically on its own?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

You can notice how the legs are moving as walking happens.
When walking, what do you do in order for the legs to move?
Are you making walking happen, or it just happens automatically and effortlessly?

‘I’ don’t do anything. Walking is just happening automatically and being experienced in awareness:

- Seeing of the knees, lower legs, ankles, feet and toes moving forward in space; left, right, left right…
- Seeing of a marking on the floor approaching, passing under the feet, disappearing into the void
- With each new step, sensing downward pressure between feet and floor shift from heel to balls of feet and finally to toes
- Sensing muscular tension in the toes, balls of feet then calves as they support the body’s weight and drive it forward

When you sit down, or stand up, is this something you do, or something that is happening?

Both are just happening automatically - body parts moving in sequence, muscles tensing and relaxing all of their own accord.

Notice all sorts of sensations in the body.
Are you making the sensations happen, or they are there, without anyone or anything making them to be?

No, they are just happening automatically. Sensations in the body (digestion, aches, tightness, pressure etc.) are only known the moment they appear in awareness, before anyone or anything can make them be.

When breathing happens, are you making it to happen, or it happens automatically without anyone making it happen?

Breathing is just happening by itself. Nothing and no-one is making it happen.

When preparing food, or eating, washing your hands, typing, brushing your teeth, dressing up, are you making the hands move, or the hands just move by themselves?

No, the hands are just moving by themselves.

Is there a central controller somewhere in the body, from where strings are pulled to lift the arms, and move the body? Or all of it just happening automatically?

No, there isn’t a central controller anywhere in the body that is orchestrating the movements of arms, legs hands or any other body parts. The movements are there, happening automatically in awareness before the thought of ‘I’ appears to claim ownership for their ‘doing’.

Have you been able to find a director, mover, or a pilot or someone at the helm? Or everything, literally everything happens spontaneously and automatically on its own?

There’s no director, no pilot, no mover to be found. The body, its movements and everything else are in a constant state of happening on the blank canvas and open space of awareness.

- Seeing of colour, shadow and forms is happening in awareness
- Hearing of different sounds is happening in awareness
- Different thoughts are happening automatically in awareness
- Different tastes and their experience are happening in awareness
- Different smells and their experience are happening in awareness
- Different sensations (touch, weight, tension, pressure, texture) and their experience are happening in awareness

Hi Tom,

There’s no director, no pilot, no mover to be found. The body, its movements and everything else are in a constant state of happening on the blank canvas and open space of awareness.

How do you know that everything is happening IN awareness?

And how do you know that awareness is black?

Hint: watch out for mental images which might depict a black canvas in which things appear.

Please be careful not to go to theorize, but rather look at what is in the present moment experience.
Spend a whole day investigating this again and again.

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

There’s no director, no pilot, no mover to be found. The body, its movements and everything else are in a constant state of happening on the blank canvas and open space of awareness.

Please be careful not to go to theorize, but rather look at what is in the present moment experience.

Thanks Vivien for the pointer - stumbled back into metaphors again!

How do you know that everything is happening IN awareness?
And how do you know that awareness is black?

'I' don't - this was another assumption and hasty conclusion, more investigation required. To this end, much of today's investigation focused on awareness itself - what is it, does it have any identifiable characteristics etc. Here's the results:

Awareness as it relates to experience...

Seeing is constantly happening; the content of seeing comes and goes and is only truly experienced at the moment of seeing.

The seeing of an amazing plant with red and yellow berries was experienced on 'my' way to the coffee shop, but that experience has passed. At this moment, only the visual thought of the plant remains in memory. It's impossible to replicate the exact experience of seeing the plant as it happened.

Hearing is constantly happening; the content of hearing comes and goes and is only truly experienced at the moment of hearing.

The hearing of 'my' daughter crying was experienced at the moment of waking up this morning, but that experienced has passed. At this moment, only the audible thought of her crying remains in memory. It’s impossible to replicate the exact experience of hearing her cry as it happened.

Tasting is constantly happening; the content of tasting comes and goes and is only truly experienced at the moment of tasting.

The tasting of coffee was experienced at around 8:30 this morning while sitting outside ‘my’ favourite coffee shop. At this moment, only thoughts of the coffee’s taste, smell and temperature remain in memory. It’s impossible to replicate the exact experience of that particular coffee (in terms of its taste, smell and temperature) as it happened.

Smelling is constantly happening; the content of smelling comes and goes and is only truly experienced at the moment of smelling.

The smelling of a lavender plant was experienced at around 10:15 this morning on ‘my’ way home from the coffee shop. At this moment, only thoughts of the lavender’s purple colour, fragrance and feelings of relaxation it elicited remain in memory. It’s impossible to replicate the exact experience of that particular lavender plant (in terms of its colour, fragrance and feelings which arose) as it happened.

Sensing is constantly happening; the content of sensing comes and goes and is only truly experienced at the moment of sensing.

The sensation of walking (pressure between feet and ground, shifting of body weight from heels to balls of feet to toes, tension in calves, ankles, knees and thighs) and heat of the sun on skin was experienced on ‘my’ way to the childminder’s this morning. At this moment, ‘I’ am indoors and lying down under a ceiling fan – only sensory thoughts of walking outside under the hot sun remain in memory. It’s impossible to replicate the exact experience of that particular outing and sensations felt in the body (pressure, tension, temperature and movement) as it happened.

Thinking is constantly happening; the content of thought comes and goes and is only truly experienced at the moment of thinking it.

The thought of your last reply to our thread happened (‘she’s right, I’m slipping back into concepts’), followed by another (‘Zen stick!’), then another (‘Cheers Vivien, much needed!’) while driving to view a house. At this moment, other thoughts are happening and being experienced directly – only the recollection of these thoughts happening remains in memory. It’s impossible to replicate the exact experience of those particular thoughts (how they were interpreted, what feelings arose etc.) as they happened.

To strip this back to its bare bones:

Different colours, shapes and shadows come and go (Seeing)
Different sounds come and go (Hearing)
Different smells come and go (Smelling)
Different sensations come and go (Sensing)
Different tastes come and go (Tasting)
Different thoughts come and go (Thinking)

However, if reality is the ‘coming and going’ of experience (as felt by the senses), there must also exist a common reference point to determine whether an experience is ‘coming’ or ‘going’!

An image/sound/smell/sensation/taste or thought can only be experienced directly while it is ‘happening’ (i.e. when it has ‘come’) in the present moment (NOW)
An image/sound/smell/sensation/taste or thought cannot be experienced directly after it has ‘happened’ (i.e. once it has ‘gone’) – only the thought of that experience remains (PAST)
NOW is direct experience of reality as it happens, PAST is a thought with the recollection of experienced reality as its contents, so not real.

Additionally, this reference point must be completely void of colour, shape, shadow, smell, sensation, taste and thought since the defining characteristics of each experience (and distinction from one another) can only be felt relative to their absence:

The experience and characteristics of colour, shapes and shadows are defined relative to the absence of colour, shapes and shadows (Seeing)
The experience and characteristics of sounds are defined relative to the absence of sound (Hearing)
The experience and characteristics of smells are defined relative to the absence of smells (Smelling)
The experience and characteristics of sensation are defined relative to the absence of sensation (Sensing)
The experience and characteristics of tastes are defined relative to the absence of sensation (Tasting)
The experience and characteristics of thought are defined relative to the absence of thought (Thinking)

So based on the above, awareness is not a ‘thing’ (a blank canvas, a black space etc.) but a ‘happening’. It is the only constant presence that has remained unchanged, the silent witness of reality as it is happening from moment to moment (awareness ‘awareing’ if you will).

Awareness is:

- Empty space without colour, shadow or form
- Silent
- Odourless
- Tasteless
- Free of sensation
- Free of thought
- Happening NOW

Hi Tom,
The first part of your comments are coming from looking, but then you went back to thinking and speculating.

However, if reality is the ‘coming and going’ of experience (as felt by the senses), there must also exist a common reference point to determine whether an experience is ‘coming’ or ‘going’!
Additionally, this reference point must be completely void of colour, shape, shadow, smell, sensation, taste and thought since the defining characteristics of each experience (and distinction from one another) can only be felt relative to their absence:

Let’s see what happens here. When you look you see that experience is in constant flux. And yes, it is. But then, you try to fit this seeing into a belief, without seeing that you have a belief.

Since you take your assumption as fact. And what am I referring to? I’m referring to the assumption that “there must also exist a common reference point to determine whether an experience is ‘coming’ or ‘going’!”

So you don’t see that this is just an assumption, and not a fact. Therefore, you are trying to fit the seeing of experience being in flux into this conceptual framework.

But let’s see what happens if you do it differently? What happens if you don’t take this assumption as a fact, but rather you start to investigate if this assumption can stand up to the scrutiny of experience?

(And as a side note, there is another assumption taken as fact in your comments that experience is felt by the senses. But we don’t go there yet, we can come back to this later.)

Please investigate the followings:

How do you know that there is a reference point? – yes, sometimes it SEEMS that way, but is the seeming reference point an actuality?

If you interpret the flux of experience as ‘coming and going’, then yes, it could be theorized that there is a reference point? But what if this theory is not in line with experience?

Does experience communicate any ‘coming and going’, or coming and going can happen only in thought, comparing the current experience to the thought memory of a past experience?

Is there any comparison outside the realm of thoughts?

Additionally, this reference point must be completely void of colour, shape, shadow, smell, sensation, taste and thought since the defining characteristics of each experience (and distinction from one another) can only be felt relative to their absence:

How do you know that there MUST BE a complete void as a reference? Do you see that you are just speculating here?
Where is this 'must be' coming from?

What or who would compare the experience to this seeming void?

Does experience make this comparison?

Or the seeming void is doing the comparison?

Or maybe there is a third player, a person, Tom, who is doing the comparison?

Can you ever observe an actual, real, experiential comparison, or comparison ‘lives’ only in story-land?

Reality is much more simple than you THINK.
You are making this into something very complicated.
Please ignore thoughts, and just look what is here now.
Look. Here. Now. There is nowhere else to look.


Vivien

Hi Vivien,

The first part of your comments are coming from looking, but then you went back to thinking and speculating.

However, if reality is the ‘coming and going’ of experience (as felt by the senses), there must also exist a common reference point to determine whether an experience is ‘coming’ or ‘going’!
Additionally, this reference point must be completely void of colour, shape, shadow, smell, sensation, taste and thought since the defining characteristics of each experience (and distinction from one another) can only be felt relative to their absence:

Let’s see what happens here. When you look you see that experience is in constant flux. And yes, it is. But then, you try to fit this seeing into a belief, without seeing that you have a belief.

Since you take your assumption as fact. And what am I referring to? I’m referring to the assumption that “there must also exist a common reference point to determine whether an experience is ‘coming’ or ‘going’!”

So you don’t see that this is just an assumption, and not a fact. Therefore, you are trying to fit the seeing of experience being in flux into this conceptual framework.

You're exactly right Vivien, thanks again for pointing this out! Reading back through earlier posts, there appears to be a consistent pattern here (most likely a result of trying to force things too much):

- Start investigation with looking
- Experience some of reality directly based on looking
- Become excited with direct experience, stop looking
- Form assumptions, beliefs and conclusions by projecting (limited) experience onto wider reality that has not yet been experienced directly

Need to stay with what is known and not speculate on what that means for everything else.

How do you know that there is a reference point? – yes, sometimes it SEEMS that way, but is the seeming reference point an actuality?

'I' don't, it just seems that way. Right now, things are just happening:

- Singing of birds happening
- Blowing of wind happening
- Seeing of plants, grass, trees, houses, blue sky happening
- Sensation of grass between toes, thighs, bottom, back and head against chair happening
- Smelling of flowers happening
- Hearing of couple arguing next door happening
- Hearing of passing train and helicopter overhead happening
- Sensation of lifting coffee cup happening
- Smelling, tasting and sensation of drinking coffee happening

None of these happenings require a reference point of any kind to exist and be experienced. The reference point is just a thought-concept being used in an attempt to make sense of everything and fit into an assumption or belief - as you say, this is not looking.

Does experience communicate any ‘coming and going’, or coming and going can happen only in thought, comparing the current experience to the thought memory of a past experience?

Is there any comparison outside the realm of thoughts?

No - experience is already here, happening, from moment to moment:

- The birds do not communicate when they're about to sing and when they're going to stop
- The wind does not communicate when it's about to blow and when it's going to stop
- Plants, trees and sky do not communicate when they're about to be seen and when they're going to disappear from view

Their 'coming' and 'going' is happening in thought only to compare 'current' Vs 'past' experience and fit a nice neat assumption around both.

How do you know that there MUST BE a complete void as a reference? Do you see that you are just speculating here?

Yes I do, more incoherent ramblings from the reluctant bedroom philosopher.......we'll leave that to the experts as you say :)

Where is this 'must be' coming from?

This 'must be' is coming from the me-character's desire to make sense of reality through speculation. In this case, there 'must be a complete void as a reference' to fit 'my' complex assumption and make it more believable as reality.

Additionally, this reference point must be completely void of colour, shape, shadow, smell, sensation, taste and thought since the defining characteristics of each experience (and distinction from one another) can only be felt relative to their absence:

What or who would compare the experience to this seeming void?

Does experience make this comparison?

No - experience is just experiencing what is.

Or the seeming void is doing the comparison?

No - there 'seems' to be a constant presence which is aware of experience as it happens (in retrospect, attempts to label it a 'void' or anything else were presumptuous) but this is not doing any comparison.

Or maybe there is a third player, a person, Tom, who is doing the comparison?

Yes - 'Tom' is the one doing the comparison, forming concepts to split up reality into things 'he' understands:

- Splitting the totality of experience into concepts of seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, sensing and thinking
- Applying characteristics to these concepts to make them identifiable and distinct from each other (seeing is experienced through the eyes, hearing through the ears etc.)
- Reasoning that a precondition for any experience to happen and be felt is the absence of that experience.
- These comparisons, concepts and reasoning are all just thoughts and don't impact the happening of experience in the slightest. It is all happening here and now!

Can you ever observe an actual, real, experiential comparison, or comparison ‘lives’ only in story-land?

No, experience just is. The rest resides in story-land (and hopefully in less of 'my' future posts!)

Hi Tom,

Need to stay with what is known and not speculate on what that means for everything else.

Yes. It’s very good that you are open to investigate your beliefs, and you are not clinging to hem.

Yes - 'Tom' is the one doing the comparison, forming concepts to split up reality into things 'he' understands:

Tom is doing the comparison? Are you sure?

Where is Tom, right here, right now?

How Tom is experienced?
As a sound? Colors? Smell? Taste? Sensation?

What and where is this Tom as you observe him, here now?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

Where is Tom, right here, right now?

'Tom' isn't. What is experienced, right here, right now:

- Hearing of birds singing
- Smelling of freshly washed clothes
- Hearing of an angular saw
- Hearing of builders working on flat next door
- Seeing of dense foliage, too many tree and plant varieties to count
- Sensation of grass between toes, bottom, back and head against chair, wind blowing against legs, face, hair
- Seeing of leaves falling from trees, landing where they will
- Sensation of knuckles against chin
- Smelling and tasting of coffee
.....no 'Tom' :)

How Tom is experienced?
As a sound? Colors? Smell? Taste? Sensation?

None of the above. 'Tom' is just the content of thought being experienced in a variety of different ways:

- A collection of thoughts from past experiences and familiarity with these thoughts
- A collection of feelings and emotions in response to thoughts from past experiences and familiarity with these
- A collection of concepts, beliefs and assumptions created to make sense of past experiences and familiarity with these
- A strong belief and identity with this accumulation of thoughts, feelings, emotions, concepts and assumptions as being a static self called 'Tom' that exists in reality, possesses free will and is separate from the world around 'him'

What and where is this Tom as you observe him, here now?

'Tom' is nowhere to be found in current experience, only in thought.

'Tom' is an idea, a memory, an illusion.

Hi Tom,

- A strong belief and identity with this accumulation of thoughts, feelings, emotions, concepts and assumptions as being a static self called 'Tom' that exists in reality, possesses free will and is separate from the world around 'him'

And how does this ‘strong belief’ shows up in each moment?

How does the belief of ‘Tom being a static self’ show up here now?

And what is identity here now? Can you find ‘identity’ itself?

What is it precisely that identifies with the story about Tom?
What is it that needs an identity?
What does identity stick to? What is it that it hooks onto?
What is the glue of identity made of?

'Tom' is nowhere to be found in current experience, only in thought.

Is Tom IN thoughts, or there are only thoughts ABOUT Tom?

Vivien

Hi Vivien :)

A strong belief and identity with this accumulation of thoughts, feelings, emotions, concepts and assumptions as being a static self called 'Tom' that exists in reality, possesses free will and is separate from the world around 'him'

And how does this ‘strong belief’ shows up in each moment?

When this strong belief shows up, it's experienced as a thought or collection of thoughts. However it is not always there and the extent to which it is experienced changes from moment to moment.

For example, 10 minutes ago there was just a sense of being present with what is (observations captured at the moment of experiencing):

- Hearing of a chainsaw outside
- Seeing of the lovely tree from our window
- Sensation of heavy eyelids, feet on the living room rug, toes wiggling about
- Sensation of shallow peaceful breathing
- Seeing of grey coffee cup on sky blue saucer, sensation of picking it up
- Smell and taste of coffee
- No sense of self or beliefs related to a 'Tom'

How does the belief of ‘Tom being a static self’ show up here now?

Just now, Sarah interrupted my looking with a 'Hey Tom' to ask what time we should view a property tomorrow.

At the instant of hearing 'Hey Tom', a sense of self and subject-object split was felt (between a 'Tom' and a 'Sarah').
At the same time, a torrent of thoughts came in to spontaneously assemble (or reassemble) a 'Tom' and a 'Sarah' to perpetuate this felt interaction between 'self' and 'other'. These thoughts felt like recollections from memory (a story) and included:

- The visual thought of how 'Tom' appears to others (as a body)
- A selection of thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, assumptions and moods others often associate with 'Tom' (personality)
- The visual thought of how 'Sarah' appears to others (as a body) and how she is identifiable from 'other' bodies
- A selection of thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, assumptions and moods others often associate with 'Sarah' (personality)
- The memory of the relationship between 'Tom' and 'Sarah' (husband/wife), and terms of engagement based on this relationship
- A recollection of thoughts from memory relevant to the topic at hand (e.g. earlier conversations about house hunting, Sarah's preferences, Tom's preferences, differences of opinion, potential arguments etc.)

This 'story about Tom' seemed to appear throughout the day especially during conversations and other interactions where a strong sense of 'self' and 'other' were felt. The speed at which this 'story about Tom' came together each time, and the consistency and familiarity with the thoughts/feelings/assumptions comprising this story made it feel like something static and unchangeable.

And what is identity here now? Can you find ‘identity’ itself?

No, 'identity' itself cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted or sensed in direct experience. It is just thoughts happening.

What is it precisely that identifies with the story about Tom?

The thought of 'I' identifies with the story about Tom to feed the supposed existence of a separate self called 'Tom'

What is it that needs an identity?

Only the illusory self needs an identity to ensure its own survival.

What does identity stick to? What is it that it hooks onto?

Identity is sticking itself to the many thoughts, feelings, beliefs and assumptions which make up the story of 'Tom'. All of these are just manifestations of thought so there is actually nothing real for identity to hook onto.

What is the glue of identity made of?

Thoughts, lots of them!

'Tom' is nowhere to be found in current experience, only in thought.

Is Tom IN thoughts, or there are only thoughts ABOUT Tom?

No, there are only thoughts about Tom.

Hi Tom,

What I’m seeing from your replies that although you can notice what happens here in experience, you are not applying this to the notion of the self.

- The visual thought of how 'Tom' appears to others (as a body)
- A selection of thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, assumptions and moods others often associate with 'Tom' (personality)
- The visual thought of how 'Sarah' appears to others (as a body) and how she is identifiable from 'other' bodies
- A selection of thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, assumptions and moods others often associate with 'Sarah' (personality)
- The memory of the relationship between 'Tom' and 'Sarah' (husband/wife), and terms of engagement based on this relationship
- A recollection of thoughts from memory relevant to the topic at hand (e.g. earlier conversations about house hunting, Sarah's preferences, Tom's preferences, differences of opinion, potential arguments etc.)

These are all conceptual. You wrote down your definition of a self.

V: What is it precisely that identifies with the story about Tom?

T: The thought of 'I' identifies with the story about Tom to feed the supposed existence of a separate self called 'Tom'

Tom, this is also not coming from looking. You are intelligent, so you quickly grasped the idea of there being no separate self. And now you are writing about your understanding of no self, without deeply investigating it. You might think that you are deeply investigating it, but you are investigating your thoughts and ideas, not the immediate experience of it.

It’s not enough to say that there is no identity, and conclude that the thought ‘I’ identifies with a story. This is not looking, this is thinking.

When you look for the self, where do you search for it? Do you only search for it in thoughts? Or somewhere else too?

V: What is it that needs an identity?

T: Only the illusory self needs an identity to ensure its own survival.

How did you come to this conclusion? Did you actually searched for a thing that needs an identity and literally found an illusonary self somewhere in experience and you literally saw that this illusonary self is trying to ensure its own survival?

How “its own survival” shows up in experience?

And how does this illusionary self look like when you look at it, here now? How big it is? What shape it has? What texture? Color? What is its temperature?

In order to make a statement that the illusionary self needs an identity to ensure its own survival, first, you have to LITERALLY find this self, you have to be able to see it, touch it, smell it, and find its exact physical location. And after that you have to literally SEE as this entity is ensuring its own survival.

But how even ‘ensuring survival’ looks like in experience?

Vivien