The Gate

Hi Tristan,

I was just rereading our conversation and your answers to the six questions. Thanks for your great answers.

I have a couple of questions to ask just now, which return to things we discussed before about thoughts and the body.

A few pages back you said

Thoughts are experienced inside the body, because they are subjective.

The body appears to be associated with thoughts but are all thoughts 'experienced inside the body'?

Where there is 'subjective' there must be 'objective'. Would it be fair to say that thoughts that appear to be 'inside the body' like sensations, in experience, have no real begining or end?

Close your eyes and imagine the universe. The sun, planets, then vastly distant stars, our galaxy, interstellar space, millions of other huge galaxies. Can you say that this thought is either 'in' the body or 'not in' the body?


Let me know.

Best regards,


Jonathan.

Hello Jonathan,

The body appears to be associated with thoughts but are all thoughts 'experienced inside the body'?

No, some thoughts are not experience inside the body. I reread mysef, and at the time I was placing thoughts 'inside' the body.
Now I would rather say that some thoughts create the illusion of being experienced inside the body, and these thoughts are the ones that lead to the illusion of a self.

Where there is 'subjective' there must be 'objective'. Would it be fair to say that thoughts that appear to be 'inside the body' like sensations, in experience, have no real begining or end?

Yes, these subjective thoughts have no beginning nor end, they are just a part of an 'objective' thought.

Close your eyes and imagine the universe. The sun, planets, then vastly distant stars, our galaxy, interstellar space, millions of other huge galaxies. Can you say that this thought is either 'in' the body or 'not in' the body?

This thought has no beginning nor end, it is not 'in' the body, nor 'not in' the body.

Thank you for reading.

Best regards,

Tristan

OK Tristan,

I' m going to submit your answers so that the other guides can look at them. They may or may not come back with further helpful questions. This consultation may take a few days (or less). Hang in there!


Best wishes,



Jonathan.

Hello Jonathan,

Alright, i will be checking my mails regularly.

Best regards,

Tristan

Hi Tristan,

One of the guides has raised some very good questions.

You said:

Now that I know that the self is an illusion, I will try to live accordingly, and this behaviour will certainly strengthen the presence of this truth.

There are a few things here. How can an 'I' ' know' that the self is an illusion? In what sense can it be known?

''I will try to live accordingly'. Is there an 'I' that can 'do' this?

How could 'no self' be 'strengthened' by 'behaviour' ?

"

The illusion of separate self is a false concept implying that human beings are detached from the world around them"

Ok but are you a 'human being' ?

I have a detailed understanding of it, and thus it is much more present to me.

What is the 'me', that the detailed understanding is now present for?

It was clear that I was a part of this whole I was witnessing, there was no separation between the world and 'me'

Exactly how was this known?


Take a look at these things.

Regards,

Jonathan.

Hello !

Thank you for those questions.

Now that I know that the self is an illusion, I will try to live accordingly, and this behaviour will certainly strengthen the presence of this truth.
How can an 'I' ' know' that the self is an illusion? In what sense can it be known?

''I will try to live accordingly'. Is there an 'I' that can 'do' this?

How could 'no self' be 'strengthened' by 'behaviour' ?

'I' can now know that the self is an illusion. Thoughts going through a body do know that the self is an illusion.

No, an 'i' cannot live accordingly. There will just be living.

'No self' cannot be 'strengthened'. It might be permanent, in a situation of permanent direct experience.

The illusion of separate self is a false concept implying that human beings are detached from the world around them"
Ok but are you a 'human being' ?

No, there are no human beings. It is better to say that the illusion of separate self is a false concept implying that the world is not a continuity.

I have a detailed understanding of it, and thus it is much more present to me.
What is the 'me', that the detailed understanding is now present for?

There is no 'me' that the detailed understanding is now present for. Actually, some current thoughts appear about 'non-self', some non-self thinking is there right now.

It was clear that I was a part of this whole I was witnessing, there was no separation between the world and 'me'
Exactly how was this known?

This was not known. There were thoughts about the continuity of the world.

Best regards,

Tristan

Hello Tristan,


It is very important that I am able to understand correctly exactly what you mean. Maybe you can clarify a few things, please?

You said:

'I' can now know that the self is an illusion. Thoughts going through a body do know that the self is an illusion.

If this is taken literally, you seem to be saying that Tristan can 'know' that the self is an illusion?

But how can Tristan 'know' this? Can an illusion 'know' an illusion?

If 'no-self' is 'seen' is it true that this is seen by thoughts?

Can thoughts know thoughts?

The thought 'self is an illusion' is a thought. Does that thought 'see' the illusion or is it simply passing comment?

Also, is it true to say that 'thoughts go through a body' or might it be better to say 'it appears that thoughts are associated with a body'? Would that be fair?

Ok but are you a 'human being' ?

No, there are no human beings. It is better to say that the illusion of separate self is a false concept implying that the world is not a continuity.

The question here is whether there is a 'Tristan' that views 'hiimself' as a 'human being'?

From the Direct Experience of hearing or seeing (etc) was it necessary to apply labels to actual experience? Or was there just EXPERIENCE?

You could not find a 'self' in any of these investigations. Is there a human being?

Think about these things and please let me know your thoughts.



Warm regards,

Jonathan.

Hello Jonathan,

'I' can now know that the self is an illusion. Thoughts going through a body do know that the self is an illusion.


If this is taken literally, you seem to be saying that Tristan can 'know' that the self is an illusion?

But how can Tristan 'know' this? Can an illusion 'know' an illusion?

If 'no-self' is 'seen' is it true that this is seen by thoughts?

Can thoughts know thoughts?

The thought 'self is an illusion' is a thought. Does that thought 'see' the illusion or is it simply passing comment?

Also, is it true to say that 'thoughts go through a body' or might it be better to say 'it appears that thoughts are associated with a body'? Would that be fair?

Sorry, there was a mistake ! I wanted to say: 'I' can NOT know that the self is an illusion.

Thoughts going through a body do know that the self is an illusion.

But thoughts cannot know, they are simply passing comment. And they do not 'go through a body' either. So I would rather say: thoughts that seem to be associated with the body are currently about 'non-self'.

Ok but are you a 'human being' ?

No, there are no human beings. It is better to say that the illusion of separate self is a false concept implying that the world is not a continuity.


The question here is whether there is a 'Tristan' that views 'hiimself' as a 'human being'?

From the Direct Experience of hearing or seeing (etc) was it necessary to apply labels to actual experience? Or was there just EXPERIENCE?

You could not find a 'self' in any of these investigations. Is there a human being?

There is no 'Tristan' that sees 'himself' as a 'human being'.
There was only experience.
No, there is no human being.

Best regards,

Tristan

Hi Tristan,


Thank you.


So, just to be clear,

'I' can now know that the self is an illusion. Thoughts going through a body do know that the self is an illusion.

So you are saying that you had written this by accident and that what you mean to say is ' 'I' can not know that the self is an illusion?'
And 'Thoughts cannot know'?

Since thoughts cannot know thoughts, can you describe how is it that 'no-self' is 'seen'?



Jonathan.

Good morning Jonathan,

'I' can now know that the self is an illusion. Thoughts going through a body do know that the self is an illusion.


So you are saying that you had written this by accident and that what you mean to say is ' 'I' can not know that the self is an illusion?'

Yes, I wanted to say that 'i' can NOT know that the self is an illusion.
But I still wrote that thoughts do know, and I realise now that this is false.

And 'Thoughts cannot know'?

Since thoughts cannot know thoughts, can you describe how is it that 'no-self' is 'seen'?

So no-self is not seen, not known. There are just thoughts about non-self that currently appear.

Best regards,

Tristan

Ok Tristan,

But then in Direct Experience, hearing, touch, (etc) and looking at thoughts or feelings coming and going, is 'self' or 'I' found anywhere in these?

How is this noticed?

Are 'you' the noticer?

Are thoughts doing the noticing?

Or does noticing just happen?


Jonathan



Is anyone the noticer?

Hi Tristan,

You are doing well. Keep going. Can I ask you another question, please?

You said

But I still wrote that thoughts do know, and I realise now that this is false.

This seems like a recent and quite significant change. What was it that made you see this differently?

Thanks,


Regards,

Jonathan.

Hello Jonathan,

These past two days have been charged with emotion, and it only got freed tonight. I was reading but could not answer until now, sorry.

But then in Direct Experience, hearing, touch, (etc) and looking at thoughts or feelings coming and going, is 'self' or 'I' found anywhere in these?

How is this noticed?

Are 'you' the noticer?

Are thoughts doing the noticing?

Or does noticing just happen?

There is no 'self' or 'i' found in Direct Experience.
It is noticed by contrast: an illusionary 'self' appears after Direct Experience.
'I' do not notice it.
Thoughts are not noticing.
There is just noticing.

But I still wrote that thoughts do know, and I realise now that this is false.


This seems like a recent and quite significant change. What was it that made you see this differently?

I remember that when I reread this sentence: 'Thoughts going through a body do know that the self is an illusion.', it hit me that it was false. Because there is no thinker of thoughts. Thoughts do not think. As you said, they simply pass a comment. There is just thinking, there is just thoughts.
All these efforts that were put on the 'non-self', were only applied on 'MY self'. Separation was still applied on other concepts, such as thoughts; they were still given selves. So this recent change is an emphasis of the non-self, an attempt of a global application of it.

Best regards,

Tristan

Hi Tristan,

These past two days have been charged with emotion, and it only got freed tonight.

Was that due to these further questions Tristan?

This seems like a recent and quite significant change. What was it that made you see this differently?


I remember that when I reread this sentence: 'Thoughts going through a body do know that the self is an illusion.', it hit me that it was false. Because there is no thinker of thoughts. Thoughts do not think. As you said, they simply pass a comment. There is just thinking, there is just thoughts.
All these efforts that were put on the 'non-self', were only applied on 'MY self'. Separation was still applied on other concepts, such as thoughts; they were still given selves. So this recent change is an emphasis of the non-self, an attempt of a global application of it.

Very good. This is important. A 'self' cannot be found by looking at the senses but neither can it be found in ideas or concepts or thoughts.


Warm regards,

Jonathan.

Hello Jonathan,

These past two days have been charged with emotion, and it only got freed tonight.



Was that due to these further questions Tristan?

No, it was anger which had been accumulated over a month and a half, and eventually came to the surface. It has nothing to do with these questions, but since everything is connected, it actually might.
'I' was not angry. There was just anger, then there was confronting and freeing, and now there is peace.

Best regards,

Tristan