The Gate

Hi Vivien,

I have been doing this all day and there is nothing to report. I am not feeling anything there. I have tried to force sensations by sometimes repeating “Me” and “I” thoughts but nothing.

There was a discovery though. That is, whenever I vocalize, be it talking, singing, humming or whatever, there is a vibration in the exact spot that I identified as being where HaHo is centred. The chest resonates at its peak in that very same place. It makes perfect sense to me that I would identify with that spot as being “my” centre given it is the place from where my speech seems to originate. Yes, sound comes from the vocal cords but is amplified by the chest and for me, it feels like that spot is where I talk from.

There can be sensations in that spot but there were none today. Last night there was one occasion where there was a sensation. Difficult to describe but the best I can do is to say it felt like the sensation of an energetic sphere a few centimetres wide that diminished in size and reduced to nothing in a brief moment. I know that energy isn’t a sensation but with just one occasion in 20+ hours there isn’t a lot to go on.

Personally I don’t read any significance into this energetic sensation and the best way I could explain it is to say that a thought about a pickled onion can make the mouth start to water. If mentally, consciously or not, I have associated “my” centre with a specific area of the body then a thought about the “me” may well trigger a psychosomatic response.

Twice I have given you an answer for the location of “Me” in the body and both times it was not from DE, but from memory, so a thought. Now I would not answer the same way. I'll keep monitoring this but as far as believing I am located somewhere in the body, that has gone.

Hi HaHo,

I'll keep monitoring this but as far as believing I am located somewhere in the body, that has gone.

Very good. You did a really nice investigation :)

Whenever there is a seeming ‘sense of me’ that is always just a misperceived and mislabelled sensation, nothing more :)

Previously you wrote:

HaHo has a personality.
HaHo has a reputation.

So where is HaHo that has personality and reputation?
Where is he/she?
Where does HaHo resides / lives / exists?

And where does personality lives / exists / resides?
And where does reputation lives / exists / resides?

What is a personality made of?
How does it look like?

What is a reputation made of?
How does it look like?

HaHo has an identity.

Where is this person who supposedly has an identity?
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?

Where does identity lives / exists / resides?

What is an identity made of?
How does it look like?


Vivien

So where is HaHo that has personality and reputation?
Where is he/she?
Where does HaHo resides / lives / exists?

HaHo is the construct that resides in thought only, so to speak. In the thoughts associated with this body and, apparently, the thoughts of other bodies. There is no HaHo in reality. HaHo is only implied, so to speak. Even the so-called construct does not exist in thought. There can be a thought of a HaHo, but this does not mean there is a HaHo residing in thought.

And where does personality lives / exists / resides?

There is no such thing as personality in reality and, as such, there is no location.

And where does reputation lives / exists / resides?

There is no such thing as reputation in reality and, as such, there is no location.

What is a personality made of?
How does it look like?

Personality is not made of anything and does not have an appearance. It is an idea made from the observation of patterns of behaviour over time and can be used to predict future actions and explain past actions. This all happens as thought content and is story. Behaviour and actions are also story, as is future and past.

What is a reputation made of?
How does it look like?

Reputation is not made of anything and does not have an appearance. As with personality, reputation is superimposed upon reality. Thought content.

Where is this person who supposedly has an identity?
What is it that needs an identity?

There is no person with an identity. There is just identity which is empty. There is nothing that needs an identity.

What does identity stick to? What is it that it hooks onto?
What is the glue of identity made of?

Identity doesn’t stick to anything. There is nothing for “it” to hook onto. Identity is thought content so there is no “it” when we talk about identity.

I was tempted to say it hooks onto itself but that would attempt to validate the existence of identity. Thought content can hook onto thought content but that does not mean it is real. Only that there are thoughts can we call real.

Where does identity lives / exists / resides?

Identity does not exist anywhere. It is a concept which is a story. A thought about a thought about a thought.

What is an identity made of?
How does it look like?

There is no identity, just a series of thoughts which make up a story.

*All these things being discussed above are pointers towards an apparent self. They imply or suggest a self. It’s quite an eye opener to know there is no self and also realise that there is no pointing either!

Hi HaHo,

You did a nice investigation.

Now let’s look at the remaining:

HaHo has a character.

What is it exactly that has a character?
Where is the owner?

HaHo has a history.

Who/what has a history?

Where is this history located? Where does it reside?

HaHo is his future dreams and aspirations.

And where is the location of future dreams and aspirations?

HaHo is a product of his social conditioning.

And where is the storage place of ‘his social conditionings’?

HaHo is associated with a physical body.

Who/what makes the association with the body?
What is it that makes the claim that “I am this body”, or “I have a body”?

What is it that has a body? What owns it?
Where is the owner?

That is the uniqueness of the list above compared with other people.

And what is making the comparison?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

What is it exactly that has a character?

It could be said there is a character associated with the human, so the human has a character with preferences and other characteristics that make it unique. But that is embellishing What Is with story. When looking for a character in experience there is none to find. So there is nothing that has a character and no such thing as character.

Where is the owner?

The owner isn’t absent as that would imply there’s an owner somewhere else. There is nothing to own and there is nothing for character to attach to. Character is thought content as is the concept of an owner.

Who/what has a history?

There is nothing that could have a history and there is no history. History isn’t an object that can be possessed or attached to something. History can’t be found. History is the content of thought. Thoughts of an apparent past where there were events worthy of remembering or forgetting.

Where is this history located? Where does it reside?

Location is a concept and has no reality. There is a biological mechanism where grey matter in the brain stores memories that can be accessed. Of course, this is as much of a fiction as the idea of a person or a history. There is no reality to biological mechanisms or grey matter.

And where is the location of future dreams and aspirations?

Fantasy about another place and time where things are better is content of thought. There is no location because any answer would, itself, also be content of thought.

And where is the storage place of ‘his social conditionings’?

There is no social conditioning nor a storage place to be found in experience. It is a concept and part of a complex and elaborate narrative that can make things seem real.

Who/what makes the association with the body?

No one. The association with the body just happens.

What is it that makes the claim that “I am this body”, or “I have a body”?

Nothing, there is just the claim, “I am this body”.

What is it that has a body?

There is nothing that has a body.

What owns it?

There is no owner.

Where is the owner?

There is no owner.

That is the uniqueness of the list above compared with other people.

And what is making the comparison

Nothing. The comparison, if there is one, just happens as thought. There can be thinking about “Me” and another and more thinking about concepts such as how the two compare and there can be thinking about all sorts of stories, explanations, reasons and logic. There are many thoughts simply happening.

Hi HaHo,

Nine. Now let’s start to investigate thoughts from a different perspective. Seeing thoughts clearly is essential part of the inquiry.

It is very important that you never think or ponder on the questions. Rather you actually have to look what you can see in your immediate experience before any thought interpretation.

Please always be thorough with looking. Look repeatedly several times before replying.

What do you do exactly in order to think?

How do you make (or birth) thoughts into existence?

Please be careful not to think about these questions, but actually sit and NOTICE how you think, how you do it exactly. So don’t go to theories, speculations, philosophy, or any learned information. Just notice what is happening here now in the immediacy of your own experience.

Please spend a whole day investigating these questions. Look again and again and again. Even if the answer seems to be clear, look more.

This investigation is about persistent repetition. Looking at the same thing again and again in experience, what brings about the realization.

Vivien

This is very difficult and frustrating. If I use direct experience only, I can’t answer these questions. DE is sound, colour, touch, taste, smell, sensations, thought. These raw sensory inputs are not enough to answer questions. I need to be able to conceptualize and ponder the questions. A sensation or sound will not provide answers. Neither will the fact of noticing there has been a thought.

I am finding it extremely difficult to simply observe thoughts as they appear and notice the mechanism which you want me to explore. That is because attention is in, and part of, the thought. It doesn't feel like there is a position outside of thought where I can observe from. After thought has occured I am sometimes able to unpick what has happened, but this is all thought content because it is after the fact.

With that said, here are some comments but I don’t feel they do the questions justice.

What do you do exactly in order to think?

I don’t do anything, thinking just happens itself. If I chose to think about something then I place attention upon whatever that may be and usually thinking takes over. Here, thinking becomes like a vessel which I ride downstream.

When thinking is under way, I don’t do anything in order to maintain thinking. It just plays out on its own.

I believe the question is asking how do I initiate thinking?
Mostly thinking happens spontaneously and with no effort required. Daydreaming is a good example. In this example I do nothing to initiate thinking.

Sometimes I seemingly initiate thinking by asking questions internally, “Right, what do I need from the supermarket?”. Then the shopping list can arrive in thought. It feels like this type of thought is somewhat under my control.

How do you make (or birth) thoughts into existence?

No-one births thoughts into existence. They happen naturally.

It can be the noticing of things that gives birth to thought. Things that were unnoticed that became noticed seem to cause attention to land on the noticed which gets labelled and leads to a stream of thought content. This process isn’t volitional.

Thoughts can seemingly arise as a reaction to external events. Again, no-one is doing this.

Random numbers. I can set myself a task of trying to think up random numbers. No matter how much I try, I cannot will thoughts into existence and am not choosing the numbers. They appear on their own timetable and the numbers are not chosen in advance of the thought. They just appear.

I don’t see anything intermediary between DE and a thought label other than attention landing upon a subject.

Hi HaHo,

This is very difficult and frustrating. If I use direct experience only, I can’t answer these questions. DE is sound, colour, touch, taste, smell, sensations, thought. These raw sensory inputs are not enough to answer questions. I need to be able to conceptualize and ponder the questions. A sensation or sound will not provide answers. Neither will the fact of noticing there has been a thought.

We are looking at thoughts in DE as a phenomenon.
When you focus on the content of a thought, then it’s not DE. But when you can notice thoughts as phenomena, then you look at the thoughtness of them directly… without getting lost in the content.

am finding it extremely difficult to simply observe thoughts as they appear and notice the mechanism which you want me to explore. That is because attention is in, and part of, the thought. It doesn't feel like there is a position outside of thought where I can observe from. After thought has occured I am sometimes able to unpick what has happened, but this is all thought content because it is after the fact.

Observing thoughts is a skill, and it can be learned just as any skill. And this is a very useful skill… it helps us to see how much fiction and fantasy is going on.

Sometimes I seemingly initiate thinking by asking questions internally, “Right, what do I need from the supermarket?”. Then the shopping list can arrive in thought. It feels like this type of thought is somewhat under my control.

And how do you have the first thought “what do I need form the supermarket?”?

Are you creating that thought?
How do you create it?
How do you decide that this a thought that you want to think about?

Is there any control over thoughts? Any at all?

I would like to ask you to take a piece of paper with a pen, and sit down to plan something you would like to do in the future and write a list about it. And as you write the list, investigate:

The first ‘plan to do’ just arrived as a thought.

But have you made that thought to appear? If yes, how did you do that?
How do you instigate a particular thought to appear?
How do you make the decision what to write next to the list?
Can you know what will be the chosen thought before this thought appears?

What makes a difference between an everyday thought simply arising and the thoughts about planning that are imagined to be 'thought' or 'created'?

Vivien

We are looking at thoughts in DE as a phenomenon.
When you focus on the content of a thought, then it’s not DE. But when you can notice thoughts as phenomena, then you look at the thoughtness of them directly… without getting lost in the content.

Observing thoughts is a skill, and it can be learned just as any skill. And this is a very useful skill… it helps us to see how much fiction and fantasy is going on.

Thanks Vivien, this has helped and is very clear.

And how do you have the first thought “what do I need form the supermarket?”?

It simply arrives from nowhere.

Are you creating that thought?

Nope.

How do you create it?

I don’t.

How do you decide that this a thought that you want to think about?

I don’t.

Is there any control over thoughts? Any at all?

No, none.

But have you made that thought to appear? If yes, how did you do that?

No.

How do you instigate a particular thought to appear?

I can’t.

How do you make the decision what to write next to the list?

I don’t.

Can you know what will be the chosen thought before this thought appears?

No.

What makes a difference between an everyday thought simply arising and the thoughts about planning that are imagined to be 'thought' or 'created'?

There is no difference, they all just appear.

I should explain why the above answers are so brief. I was out for a walk earlier and was looking at thought. I was running the three times tables in thought (one three is three, two threes are six…). This was low level thinking occurring as quiet thought in the background, you could say. Then there was the thought to engage with the background thought as internal vocalizing “I’m going to join in” (this was very much a “Me” thought). So I started superimposing the thinking voice over the top of the background thought which was in rhythm to the walking tempo. I saw the Me thought, “I’m going to join in” appear and it came from nowhere, unannounced and unprompted. This was very significant because it felt like the so-called Self was busted! I saw the mechanism at work which reinforces the apparent Self as the doer. Here’s why..

Alongside the thought “I’m going to join in” comes the unquestioned assumption that the thought is real, and therefore the absolute truth. This is because the content of the thought references the Self, “I”. Because of this, “I am having the thought, I control thought and I created the thought” are also believed to be true and go unquestioned. But really, the actual thought itself (the DE) simply arrived seemingly from nowhere.

After the “joining in” occurs, there is a looking back at the thought content, “I’m going to join in” and it is taken as confirmation of being in control. “I said I was going to join in and now I am joining in, so there is my proof”. Also, at the time of the thought, “I going to join in”, there is an expectation that that will occur. When/If it does, there is more so-called proof. This is illusion of doership.

This is actually quite tricky to put into words, I hope the above makes sense.

Hi HaHo,

This is actually quite tricky to put into words, I hope the above makes sense.

Yes, it does :) Thanks for your sharing your experience.

I should explain why the above answers are so brief.

So you had an experience while you were walking… but how do your replies to the questions came about? As a deduction from what you saw when you were walking, or you’ve investigated every single question thoroughly and replied to them from a fresh seeing in that very moment?

Try an experiment.

Try to create a thought. Any thought, from scratch. What do you find?

Do you notice how thoughts seem to appear, hang around for a while and somehow pass, and then the next thought comes?

What is making thoughts to appear?

Now try preventing a thought from appearing. Is it possible?

Try to decide the next thought you are going to think.
How do you make this decision?

Can you know what will be the chosen thought before this thought appears?

Vivien

So you had an experience while you were walking… but how do your replies to the questions came about? As a deduction from what you saw when you were walking, or you’ve investigated every single question thoroughly and replied to them from a fresh seeing in that very moment?

The answers came from the experience on the walk. “This is how it is therefore this is what the answers are…”, but I do take the point you're making.

Try an experiment.

Try to create a thought. Any thought, from scratch. What do you find?

I find that I am locked out and cannot acquire any sort of control over the thinking process. This feels like a task which is impossible to achieve. Even if I say that I will think of an object, the object always appears on it’s own timetable and is a random object. Even if I say, “I will chose a coconut”, I still didn’t choose that object to choose, lol. I also haven’t chosen to think, “I will think of an object”. That thought arrived unprompted. When the object appeared in thought, it wasn’t chosen but simply turned up out of the blue. When it was labelled, it may have felt like I did the labelling. I guess here it could be said that it seemed as though I was responsible for the labelling thought. Even at that, there is no choosing to label the object, there is just the internal vocalizing of the labelling.

Do you notice how thoughts seem to appear, hang around for a while and somehow pass, and then the next thought comes?

Often there is a continual stream of thoughts with one leading on to another without interruption. Daydreaming, fantasy, problem solving, exploring issues seem closer to stories. Yes, I do also notice that thoughts can appear, hang around and then pass, or lead directly into the next thought.

What is making thoughts to appear?

They are usually triggered by something in DE. A geometric pattern in an LED light can prompt an image of landing lights on a sci-fi moon base and off it goes…

Other thoughts can arrive without warning and seemingly nothing making them appear.

Now try preventing a thought from appearing. Is it possible?

No. I don’t know what the thought is going to be or when it will arrive so how could anything be done to stop it? Impossible. There can’t be any knowledge of an incoming thought and then a readiness to take preventative action.

Try to decide the next thought you are going to think.
How do you make this decision?

Okay, so I tried to decide to think of a netball. But the problem is, the netball thought arrived prior to the taking ownership of the decision to decide to think of a netball. So there is no making of the decision but there is an attempt to claim it afterwards.

Can you know what will be the chosen thought before this thought appears?

Absolutely not.

Hi HaHo,

The answers came from the experience on the walk. “This is how it is therefore this is what the answers are…”, but I do take the point you're making.

It is very important that you don’t make logical conclusions based on a previous experience.
With looking, you always have to look afresh and never rely on memory of previous looking. Why? Because if you rely on the memory of a previous looking in a form of a thought: “I know there is no self” without actually looking afresh for a self, then in that moment the no-self is just a belief. So every time it seems like or feels like as if there were a self, but you just remind yourself with the thought “there is no self”, then you just covering up one belief (the seemingly perceived self) with another belief (there is no self).

It’s the constant are repeated looking and looking and looking and more looking and seeing the same thing again and again that brings about the realization.

So every time I ask a question, you always have to look afresh, to see it again and again what is being pointed it. Can we agree on this?

That thought arrived unprompted. When the object appeared in thought, it wasn’t chosen but simply turned up out of the blue.

Yes, nice observation.

When it was labelled, it may have felt like I did the labelling. I guess here it could be said that it seemed as though I was responsible for the labelling thought. Even at that, there is no choosing to label the object, there is just the internal vocalizing of the labelling.

It's important to not guess. Whenever you want to use words like "maybe", or "I suppose", "I think", “I guess” ..... stop yourself, here the thinking ABOUT starts and the looking stops. Breathe in, look again.
This looking takes a bit of practice until one gets fluent.

They are usually triggered by something in DE. A geometric pattern in an LED light can prompt an image of landing lights on a sci-fi moon base and off it goes…

Are you sure that there is an actual triggering going on?
Or there is just noticing led light, then an image of a sci-fi moon base come up? But is there an actual link between the two? Or the link is only ever ASSUMED by another thought only?
Is there a real link in reality?

Okay, so I tried to decide to think of a netball. But the problem is, the netball thought arrived prior to the taking ownership of the decision to decide to think of a netball. So there is no making of the decision but there is an attempt to claim it afterwards.

Yes! Only another thought claims AFTER that ‘I did that’. :)

So there is no control over thoughts, or is there?

Is there anything else that there is a control over? Or everything, without exception, just happens on its own?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

So every time I ask a question, you always have to look afresh, to see it again and again what is being pointed it. Can we agree on this?

Yes we can. Your explanation makes good sense. We could be at this for years otherwise.

Are you sure that there is an actual triggering going on?

Given what we have agreed in terms of fresh looking, I am unable to reference what was experienced or concluded earlier today while out walking and examining these questions therefore my answers need to be looked at at the time of writing, namely now.

I am unable to test this as thoughts are not free flowing right now and as such have no answer at present.

Or there is just noticing led light, then an image of a sci-fi moon base come up?

I can test that. There is looking at the LED light and it is labelled in thought as an LED light, then there is a thought image of the underside of a rocket as it is taking off. There is also a thought memory of the sci-fi moon base image from yesterday.

But is there an actual link between the two? Or the link is only ever ASSUMED by another thought only?

It is hard to say because while the written word suggests these thoughts are all separate from each other and as such have borders i.e. thought 1 = Labelling LED, thought 2 = image of rocket engines etc., my experience is that these thoughts blend into each other and are more akin to borderless liquid which why I like to describe such thought as a thought stream. Yes there can be individual thoughts that suddenly pop on their own e.g. I left the oven on., but often it is a seamless story/narrative that plays out. So is there a link in this case? No. There is a jump from thought 1 to thought 2, however the thought content from thought 2 onwards can have a continuity in terms of thought content.

Is there a real link in reality?

In reality there is just the jump in thought from a thought label to thought imagination. Neither are real as they are both thought content. All that’s real are the two separate thoughts which appeared one after the other. Any “link” would indeed be another thought.

So there is no control over thoughts, or is there?

When I test this the inner voice says, “Right, I’m going to think of…”, and before that is even said, an object has already appeared. It arrived before I was able to attempt to choose it. As for, the thinking, “Right, I’m going to think of…”, that came from nowhere and happened without anything making it so. There is watching thoughts and reacting to thoughts (more thoughts about thoughts). Undesirable thoughts can show up and they are not chosen.

Even if there is a thought to try to remember yesterday and subsequent thoughts about yesterday it can be assumed that, “I chose to think about yesterday” but in fact, the thought to think about yesterday actually happened before the thought, “I will think about yesterday”. The “I” was added on afterwards. None of these thoughts, with or without an “I” in them, are controlled in any shape or form.

Is there anything else that there is a control over? Or everything, without exception, just happens on its own?

Thinking, seeing, hearing, tasting, touch and smell all happen on their own. Arguably that covers everything. There is still a form of seeing when the eyes are closed.

There can be a thought, “I will close my eyes in a couple of seconds to stop seeing” . A couple of seconds later the eyes can close. Seeing is still happening but the question is, was there control over the eyes closing? The same thought can happen again and this time the eyes can remain open.

So there can be a thought followed by an action. Regardless of outcome they can not be related for the simple reason that thought content is merely story and action is DE. Thought content isn’t actuality.

There is no one thinking thought so there can’t be anyone chosing actions. Everything happens on its own.

Hi HaHo,

So is there a link in this case? No. There is a jump from thought 1 to thought 2, however the thought content from thought 2 onwards can have a continuity in terms of thought content.

Yes, the only continuity comes from thought content. But ever for that that a third thought is needed to interpret the contents of two previous thought with the conclusion that they are related, therefore there is continuity.
Can you see that continuity or that one caused the other is just a story, nothing else?

There is no one thinking thought so there can’t be anyone chosing actions. Everything happens on its own.

Nice :) Now let’s look at if there is anything moving the body.

Please spend as much time as you can in the midst of your daily life 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?

Please spend lots of time in the midst of your everyday life observing this.

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

There wasn’t any looking today so if it’s alright with you, I’ll post again tomorrow with my findings.

Cheers,

HaHo