The Gate

Dear Ivy,

Thoughts arise and disappear. They can't be entities to perform actions or do something.

Yes :)
So let’s see if there is ANYTHING that does things; if there is anything that is thinking, choosing, controlling.

Is there a thinker of thoughts? If yes, what is it exactly, and where it is exactly?
Is there a chooser of thoughts? If yes, what is it exactly, and where it is exactly?
Is there a controller of thoughts? If yes, what is it exactly, and where it is exactly?
Please look very carefully with each question, and answer them one-by-one.

Please investigate ‘decision making’ whatever ‘you’ do today.
Describe in detail a decision of a small event, for example getting up.

Is there a decision maker making the body leave the bed?
Where does the ‘decision’, the ‘command’ to get up come from?
What makes the body get up, is there a ‘you’, or a decider that commands the body?
When lying there, shout 'GET UP' internally as loudly as you can. Does that affect the outcome?

How does the decision happen?
Does a decider come in and take over, weighing pros and cons, looking at possible consequences?
Or does getting up just happen, or not, as part of the flow of life?

Love, Vivien

Dear Vivien,

Is there a thinker of thoughts? If yes, what is it exactly, and where it is exactly?

There is no thinker of thoughts. Thinking happens, thoughts arise and disappear without an entity doing the thinking.

Is there a chooser of thoughts? If yes, what is it exactly, and where it is exactly?

Sometimes some thoughts may be taken more seriously than others, and it appears to be that "choosing" happens, but there is no an entity to do the "choosing".

Is there a controller of thoughts? If yes, what is it exactly, and where it is exactly?

Thoughts may be affected by surroundings and other factors, but there is no a controller controls thoughts.

Please investigate ‘decision making’ whatever ‘you’ do today.
Describe in detail a decision of a small event, for example getting up.

Is there a decision maker making the body leave the bed?

No. The body leaves the bed without a maker making a decision.

Where does the ‘decision’, the ‘command’ to get up come from?

Thoughts about "get up" arise, but the body doesn't follow the thoughts unless the thoughts are taken seriously. Sometimes even the thoughts about "get up" are taken seriously, the body still doesn't follow the thoughts. And sometimes the body just gets up without any reasons or decisions.

What makes the body get up, is there a ‘you’, or a decider that commands the body?

Sometimes the body gets up because of the thoughts about "get up" arise and sometimes the body just gets up by itself without any reasons. There is no a "me" or "decider" to commands the body.

When lying there, shout 'GET UP' internally as loudly as you can. Does that affect the outcome?

At the beginning, no matter how loudly I shout "get up", it doesn't affect the outcome. But when the thoughts of the consequences of "not getting up" keep appearing and being taken seriously, the body gets up because of the thoughts.

How does the decision happen?

Sometimes the body may move because of the thoughts about "getting up" when thoughts are taken seriously. And sometimes the body just moves automatically without decisions.

Does a decider come in and take over, weighing pros and cons, looking at possible consequences?

The thoughts about "weighing pros and cons, looking at possible consequences" may arise, and the body may follow the thoughts sometimes, but there is no a decider come and take over to control what's happening.

Or does getting up just happen, or not, as part of the flow of life?

Yes, getting up happens, sometimes with no reasons, sometimes because of thoughts.

Regards,
Ivy

Dear Ivy,

Nice looking :)

Sometimes some thoughts may be taken more seriously than others…

and

Thoughts about "get up" arise, but the body doesn't follow the thoughts unless the thoughts are taken seriously.

and

But when the thoughts of the consequences of "not getting up" keep appearing and being taken seriously….

and

Sometimes the body may move because of the thoughts about "getting up" when thoughts are taken seriously.

OK. So there is no thinker, no chooser, no decision maker, BUT there is still something that could take thoughts seriously. Is this so?

Saying that “when thoughts are taken seriously” but “there is nothing that could take thought seriously” is an oxymoron, impossibility.

So, if ‘thoughts are taken seriously’ then there MUST be something that is taking the thoughts seriously.
Or, if there is NOTHING that takes thoughts seriously, then ‘taking thoughts seriously’ is just a THOUGHT FANTASY.

Please, look very-very carefully what is actually happening.

Is there ANYTHING that takes thoughts seriously?
If no, then how “taking thoughts seriously” could happen at all?
Does “taking thoughts seriously” REALLY happening or is “taking thoughts seriously” just another thought appearing?

Love, Vivien

Dear Vivien,

OK. So there is no thinker, no chooser, no decision maker, BUT there is still something that could take thoughts seriously. Is this so?
Is there ANYTHING that takes thoughts seriously?
If no, then how “taking thoughts seriously” could happen at all?

No, there is nothing to take thoughts seriously, so "taking thoughts seriously" doesn't happen.

Does “taking thoughts seriously” REALLY happening or is “taking thoughts seriously” just another thought appearing?

When thoughts keep arising and attention goes to those thoughts, a thought label this condition as "thoughts are taken seriously". And this may make those thoughts seem to be important.

Regards,
Ivy

Dear Ivy,

No, there is nothing to take thoughts seriously, so "taking thoughts seriously" doesn't happen.

Has this seen clearly, or is this rather a logical conclusion?

Please investigate throughout the day:

Seeing
Currently there are words on the screen being read. Go to the actual experience itself, and ignore the suggestion of thoughts.
What reads these words?
Is there anything that is reading?

Look around in the room. Go to the actual experience itself, and ignore the suggestion of thoughts.
What sees?
Is there a seer somewhere?
If yes, WHAT is it, and WHERE is it?

Hearing
Pay attention for the background sounds. Go to the actual experience itself, and ignore the suggestions of thoughts.
Does a hearer arise in the actual experience?
Is there somewhere a hearer?

Smelling
Smell something, an orange, coffee or the hand.
In the fragrance that arises, is there any direct evidence that there is a smeller (or a nose) that is doing the smelling, or is there only smelling?

Of course, thoughts and mental images suggest ‘explanations’, but when they are examined closely, are they really the case?

Love, Vivien

Dear Vivien,

Ivy: No, there is nothing to take thoughts seriously, so "taking thoughts seriously" doesn't happen.

Has this seen clearly, or is this rather a logical conclusion?

This has been seen clearly, but the anwswer may look logical. Originally I doubted there is no seer, hearer, thinker, but seeing, hearing, and thinking still happen. After looking closely, I see that "taking thoughts seriously" is a thought tries to interpret what happen to other thoughts. Seeing, hearing and thinking is raw and direct sensation, but "taking thoughts seriously" is a thought story.

Seeing
Currently there are words on the screen being read. Go to the actual experience itself, and ignore the suggestion of thoughts.
What reads these words?
Is there anything that is reading?

There is nothing doing the reading. Seeing happens, and when the words are seen, thoughts of the words arise, and another thought labels the combination of "seeing" and "arising thoughts" as reading.

What sees?
Is there a seer somewhere?
If yes, WHAT is it, and WHERE is it?

Nothing sees. There is no seer. There is only seeing happening.

Hearing
Pay attention for the background sounds. Go to the actual experience itself, and ignore the suggestions of thoughts.
Does a hearer arise in the actual experience?
Is there somewhere a hearer?

No hearer. Only hearing happens.

Smelling
Smell something, an orange, coffee or the hand.
In the fragrance that arises, is there any direct evidence that there is a smeller (or a nose) that is doing the smelling, or is there only smelling?

There is only smelling. No smeller.

Of course, thoughts and mental images suggest ‘explanations’, but when they are examined closely, are they really the case?

No. It can be seen more clearly when eyes close. "The wind of the fan blows on the skin" can be seen is a thought story when eyes close and the imagination of "The wind of the fan blows on the skin" is ignored. There is only pure sensation happening without fan, wind, and skin.

Regards,
Ivy

Dear Ivy,

After looking closely, I see that "taking thoughts seriously" is a thought tries to interpret what happen to other thoughts. Seeing, hearing and thinking is raw and direct sensation, but "taking thoughts seriously" is a thought story.

Nice :)

"The wind of the fan blows on the skin" can be seen is a thought story when eyes close and the imagination of "The wind of the fan blows on the skin" is ignored. There is only pure sensation happening without fan, wind, and skin.

Beautiful looking :)

You mentioned ‘skin’, so let’s have a look on the body then. Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does it have a weight or a volume of the body?

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

Is there an inside or outside?
If there is an inside, inside of exactly what?
What outside is outside of?

What does the word ‘body’ is ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. Take your time, don’t rush. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, having a short break from work, walking, etc.) before replying.

Love, Vivien

Love, Vivien

Dear Vivien,

Hearing, seeing, tasting, smelling, touching and thoughts arising are all pure sensations, but the contents of sensations are interpreted by thoughts. And it means everything which is seen is interpreted by thoughts. I want to make sure about it, so I write down the answers with the contents of seeing and without the contents of seeing. When eyes open, the length, volume, shape and form of the body can be seen when the body is in front of a mirror. The inside and outside of the body can be known, too. When the mouth opens, it can be seen that the tongue and teeth are inside this body. When eyes looks down, the shape and volume of the body, and boundaries between the body and other things can be seen, too. But when the contents of seeing are ignored, the experiences become totally different. The following answers are based on other sensation except seeing.

Can it be known how tall the body is?

It can't be known how tall the body is when the body is not in front of a mirror. Even when hands touch the top of the head and try to compare the length of this body with the length of other objects, it can't be known that if the top of the head and the bottom of the feet are the both ends of the body if the body image is ignored. There are only some sensations happening somewhere.

Does it have a weight or a volume of the body?

When hands and feet are raised, some sensations happen and those sensations are interpreted as "weight". When eyes close and hands touch the body to try find out the volume, there is only some sensations called "warm" happen. The hands and the body disappear when the the thought of the body image is ignored.

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

There are no boundaires among the body and anything else. There are only sensations happening.

Is there an inside or outside?
If there is an inside, inside of exactly what?
What outside is outside of?

When drinking water and eating food, some sensations happen, but there are no inside and outside, there are only sensations happening somewhere.

What does the word ‘body’ is ACTUALLY refer to?

The word "body" refers to different things when eyes open and close.
When eyes open, "body" refers to an object which has a head, legs, hands and so on. And this body can do many actions. But "head, legs, hand and body" are all concepts, and it means everything which has been seen is a concept, including colors, light, and so on.
When eyes close and the body image is ignored, the word " body " refers to " sensing sensations."

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Sensing sensations, including hearing, smelling, seeing, tasting, touching and thoughts, but the contents of the above are all interpreted by thoughts.

Regards,
Ivy

Dear Ivy,

Hearing, seeing, tasting, smelling, touching and thoughts arising are all pure sensations

Here might be some misinterpretation of the word ‘sensation or it might be only a language thing, so let’s be clear on this.

I would use the word ‘PERCEPTION’ instead of ‘SENSATION’, because what you refer to ‘touching’ is ‘sensation’ (touching = sensation).

Actual experience = image/sight, sound, sensation, taste, smell, thought

Using verbs (like touching or tasting) instead of nouns (like sensation or taste) can be quite misleading, because a verb (touching or tasting) requires a subject (toucher or taster) that is touching or tasting an object (like touching a cup or tasting the coffee).

But in actual experience neither the subject (toucher or taster) nor the object (cup or coffee) can be found, ONLY a sensation or a taste. Is this clear?

Hearing, seeing, tasting, smelling, touching and thoughts arising are all pure sensations, but the contents of sensations are interpreted by thoughts.

Is there a sound AND the content of the sound?
What is the content of a sound?

Are there a taste AND the content of the taste?
What is the content of a taste?

Are there a smell AND the content of the smell?
What is the content of a smell?

Are there a sensation AND the content of the sensation?
What is the content of a sensation?

Again, I assume that when you use the word ‘sensation’ you refer to ‘perception’, don’t you?

And it means everything which is seen is interpreted by thoughts.

Yes.

But when the contents of seeing are ignored, the experiences become totally different.

Is there a sight/image AND the content of sight/image?
Or is there only a sight/image and THOUGHTS ABOUT content?

Do you see the difference between saying that there is a ‘content of sight/image’ and ‘thoughts about content’?

The hands and the body disappear when the the thought of the body image is ignored.

Exactly.

There are no boundaires among the body and anything else. There are only sensations happening.

Yes, there is only sensation.

When eyes close and the body image is ignored, the word " body " refers to " sensing sensations."
“Sensing sensations” – What is it EXACTLY that is doing the sensing?

So are there two things:
- a senser (doer)
- and a sensation?

Vivien: What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Ivy: Sensing sensations, including hearing, smelling, seeing, tasting, touching and thoughts, but the contents of the above are all interpreted by thoughts.

Again, what is it that is sensing sensations?

Sensation = touching

So hearing cannot be a sensation, hearing can be only a perception.
Same with all the above.

Is the ‘body’ a sound?
Is the ‘body’ a taste?
Is the ‘body’ a smell?
Is the ‘body’ an image?
Is the ‘body’ a sensation?
Is the ‘body’ a thought?
Which one(s)?

Does the body doing the seeing of an image/sight?
Does the body doing the hearing of a sound?
Does the body doing the smelling of a smell?
Does the body doing the tasting of a taste?
Does the body doing the sensing of a sensation?
Does the body doing the thinking of a thought?

If yes to any of the above, how is it known exactly?

Please look all the questions one-by-one. Don’t just thing about the reply, but really look.

Love, Vivien

Dear Vivien,

Using verbs (like touching or tasting) instead of nouns (like sensation or taste) can be quite misleading, because a verb (touching or tasting) requires a subject (toucher or taster) that is touching or tasting an object (like touching a cup or tasting the coffee).

But in actual experience neither the subject (toucher or taster) nor the object (cup or coffee) can be found, ONLY a sensation or a taste. Is this clear?

Yes, it is clear when eyes close, there are no subject and object, there are only perceptions happen. But it is quite confusing when eyes open. That the subject (hands) touch an object (cup) is seen. It can be seen that thoughts interpretate images. So the subject, object and the action "touch" are all interpretation of thoughts. Then it means everything is interpretated, including space, motion, volume and etc. It seems nothing can be trusted by seeing.

Is there a sound AND the content of the sound?
What is the content of a sound?

Are there a taste AND the content of the taste?
What is the content of a taste?

Are there a smell AND the content of the smell?
What is the content of a smell?

Are there a sensation AND the content of the sensation?
What is the content of a sensation?

There are only sound, taste, smell and sensation. Thoughts interpret them as music, siren (sound), bitter, sweet (taste), fragrant, smelly (smell), hot, cold (sensation). So there are no contents of perception, there is only perception happening. Thoughts interpret those perception as something else.

Again, I assume that when you use the word ‘sensation’ you refer to ‘perception’, don’t you?

Yes, I do. "Perception" is an accurate word to express what is seen.

Is there a sight/image AND the content of sight/image?
Or is there only a sight/image and THOUGHTS ABOUT content?

There is only a sight/image. The content of sight is what thoughts try to interpret a sight/image.

Do you see the difference between saying that there is a ‘content of sight/image’ and ‘thoughts about content’?

When saying "there is a content of sight/image", it means "the content of sight/image" is real as it is. When saying "thoughts about content", it means thoughts interpret the sight/image as something else.

Ivy:" When eyes close and the body image is ignored, the word " body " refers to " sensing sensations."

Vivien: “Sensing sensations” – What is it EXACTLY that is doing the sensing?

So are there two things:
- a senser (doer)
- and a sensation?

It shoud be said that the body refers to "perceptions happening". All perceptions just happen without a doer and objects.

Ivy: Sensing sensations, including hearing, smelling, seeing, tasting, touching and thoughts, but the contents of the above are all interpreted by thoughts.
Vivien: Again, what is it that is sensing sensations?

There are only perceptions happening without a perceiver and objects.

Is the ‘body’ a sound?
Is the ‘body’ a taste?
Is the ‘body’ a smell?
Is the ‘body’ an image?
Is the ‘body’ a sensation?
Is the ‘body’ a thought?
Which one(s)?

When eyes open, the body is an image and thought interpret it as "body". When eyes close, "body" only exists in thoughts, and when the thoughts are ignored, there are only perceptions happening.

Does the body doing the seeing of an image/sight?
Does the body doing the hearing of a sound?
Does the body doing the smelling of a smell?
Does the body doing the tasting of a taste?
Does the body doing the sensing of a sensation?
Does the body doing the thinking of a thought?

An image/sight,sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought are experienced without a doer doing them. The body doesn't have power to control if it wants to experience those perceptions or not. And when objects can't be found in actual experiences, nothing is heard, smelled, tasted, sensed. No subject and object. There are only perceptions happening.

Regards,
Ivy

Dear Ivy,

Nice looking :)

Yes, it is clear when eyes close, there are no subject and object, there are only perceptions happen. But it is quite confusing when eyes open. That the subject (hands) touch an object (cup) is seen. It can be seen that thoughts interpretate images. So the subject, object and the action "touch" are all interpretation of thoughts. Then it means everything is interpretated, including space, motion, volume and etc. It seems nothing can be trusted by seeing.

“It seems nothing can be trusted by seeing” – seeing is completely neutral. Only thought interpretation ‘gives’ or ‘creates’ SEEMING space, motion, volume, etc. The image/sight itself says nothing about space, motion, volume, etc.
So the sentence would look like: “it seems that THOUGHTS ABOUT seeing cannot be trusted.”

But, this is well beyond our investigation here (seeing that there has never been a separate self doing or having anything).

There are only sound, taste, smell and sensation. Thoughts interpret them as music, siren (sound), bitter, sweet (taste), fragrant, smelly (smell), hot, cold (sensation). So there are no contents of perception, there is only perception happening. Thoughts interpret those perception as something else.

Yes.

There are only perceptions happening without a perceiver and objects.

Yes, nice looking.

An image/sight, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought are experienced without a doer doing them. The body doesn't have power to control if it wants to experience those perceptions or not. And when objects can't be found in actual experiences, nothing is heard, smelled, tasted, sensed. No subject and object. There are only perceptions happening.

“The body doesn't have power to control if it wants to experience those perceptions or not.” – Is the body the experiencER of experience? If yes, how is it known exactly?

Are there two things:
1. an experiencER (body)
2. an experiencED (the experience itself)?


Let’s have a little bit of investigation on the notion of time.
There is a general assumption that there is a linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time or an event that is moving forward on this linear time, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But do you have an experience that the now is moving along the line of time?
How fast the present moment is actually moving?
How long does the now last?
Where does it start and where does it end?
When does the now exactly become the 'past'?
What is the past in the actual experience?

Please look for the answers many-many times (haha :) before replying.

Love, Vivien

Dear Vivien,

“The body doesn't have power to control if it wants to experience those perceptions or not.” – Is the body the experiencER of experience? If yes, how is it known exactly?

Are there two things:
1. an experiencER (body)
2. an experiencED (the experience itself)?

There is no experiencer(body). A body is a concept that thought tries to interpret an image. There is only experience itself when eyes close.

Let’s have a little bit of investigation on the notion of time.
There is a general assumption that there is a linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time or an event that is moving forward on this linear time, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But do you have an experience that the now is moving along the line of time?

No. "The now is moving along the line of time" is a concept as what a thought about. It can't be experienced in actual experiences.

How fast the present moment is actually moving?

The movement of the present moment can't be experienced. What can be experienced is the changes of perceptions. Thoughts interpret "perceptions are happening" as "now", and "previous perceptions" as "past". Then the concept of "time" is formed.

How long does the now last?

"Now" is a concept of "perceptions are happening". "Now" keeps lasting until the label is seen or perceptions stop happening(ex. sleep without dreams)

Where does it start and where does it end?

It starts when thought interpret "perceptions are happening" as "now" and it ends when the thought interpretation can be seen.

When does the now exactly become the 'past'?

Perceptions change and then thoughts about previous perceptions arise. Another thought label the thoughts about the previous perceptions as "memories". When memories about perceptions arise, the concpet of "past" is created.

What is the past in the actual experience?

It is a concept as what a thought about. The past can't be experienced in the actual experience.

Regards,
Ivy

Dear Ivy,

There is no experience (body). A body is a concept that thought tries to interpret an image. There is only experience itself when eyes close.

And is there anything else than experience, when a sensation is labelled ‘open eyes’?
Is the body the experiencer when there is a sensation labelled ‘eyes are open’?

The movement of the present moment can't be experienced. What can be experienced is the changes of perceptions.

This reply is a mixture of looking and the belief of time. With looking it’s clear that time is just a concept (first sentence), but the second sentence is not coming from looking, but from a thought interpretation.

There is no change without time.
Change is impossible without time.
So if time cannot be experience because time is just a concept (thought), then change cannot be experienced either.
There could be only thoughts about change, but change as such cannot be experienced.

If there is an interest, the topic of change (time) can be looked at later more deeply as a further investigation (after we finished here).

Has it been clearly seen that there has never been a separate individual that could control or own life or anything?

Is there any chooser or decider of any kind?
Is there a separate ‘I’ (or separate self) of any kind whatsoever that could be responsible for anything at all?

Is there a separate entity that started this investigation?
Has there ever been a separate self doing anything?

Any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?

Love, Vivien

Dear Vivien,

And is there anything else than experience, when a sensation is labelled ‘open eyes’?

No. There is only experience itself. Just when images are seen, thoughts interpret images very quickly, so it is easier to see that an experiencer doesn't exist when eyes close.

Is the body the experiencer when there is a sensation labelled ‘eyes are open’?

No. The body is just an image when eyes are open. Just thoughts tend to interpret this image as "experiencer" very soon, so it is easier to "look" when eyes close.

Has it been clearly seen that there has never been a separate individual that could control or own life or anything?

Yes, it has been seen clearly that there has never been a separate individual that could control or own life or anything. "Separate individual" "control" "life" are all thoughts' interpretations.

Is there any chooser or decider of any kind?

No. There is no chooser or decider. The body moves and does what need to be done by itself. There are only thoughts about "choose" and "decide" arise.

Is there a separate ‘I’ (or separate self) of any kind whatsoever that could be responsible for anything at all?

"The separated I" can't be found to be responsible for anything. Only thoughts about responsiblity appear.

Is there a separate entity that started this investigation?
Has there ever been a separate self doing anything?

No, there is no a separate entity started this inverstigation or do anything. Things just happen without a separate entity to do it.

Any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?

It can be seen clearly that "a separated self" doesn't exist when look carefully. But it is so easy to be drawn to the thought that "separate self exists" again especially when interact with people. Is this normal and should the habit of "look" be maintained? Thank you for guiding me so patiently and skillfully, it can be seen that many believes have fallen. Thank you a lot.

Regards,
Ivy

Dear Ivy,

It can be seen clearly that "a separated self" doesn't exist when look carefully. But it is so easy to be drawn to the thought that "separate self exists" again especially when interact with people. Is this normal and should the habit of "look" be maintained?

“it is so easy to be drawn to the thought that "separate self exists" again”- What is it exactly that can be drawn to a thought that ‘separate self exists’?

Thank you for guiding me so patiently and skillfully, it can be seen that many believes have fallen. Thank you a lot.

You’re more than welcome dear Ivy :)

Let me ask some more questions. There might be some repetition, but please answer them all, because I'm going to ask other guides to read this conversation to see we haven’t missed anything.

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

6) Anything to add?

Love, Vivien