The Gate

Hi Andy,

You are NOT saying that the content of thought has NOT been abstracted from AE

What would do / perform the abstraction? Thought? Or what else?

Can thoughts do anything?

Do thoughts know anything about a sensation or an image/color?
Can thoughts know anything?

Are thoughts aware?

I'm going to make an interpretation here that you are NOT saying that the imagined beach is NOT experienced, but rather that the imagined beach is a different kind of experience to a real beach --it is the experience of a "mental image" rather than the "physical image" of a real beach.

No, I am saying that the beach is NOT experienced. That’s the whole point!
Only a mental image is experienced.
But what the image is about, the content of the image, the beach is NOT experienced.
But, the mental image itself, (as a phenomenon) is experienced.
Seeing this is crucial.

I say this because when I imagine a beach before me, it has all of the experienced attributes of the actual beach. If it were an hallucination then it would even be taken as a real beach. Or say one is dreaming of being on a beach but unaware that it is a dream.

These are all thought speculations. All these comparisons happens ONLY as the CONTENT of thoughts.
And it seems that you take the content of thoughts quite seriously without seeing them for what they are. And you’re not seeing that these are just thoughts, nothing else.

Have you thought these thoughts?
Have you made this thought interpretation to appear?

There is no abstraction process in AE. There is AE and there is thought-content. AE says "shape, colour, heat sensation, smell" and thought-content says "cup of coffee". It is inconceivable that exactly these aspects of AE should arise and thought-content say it is a strawberry. Or an albatross.

Inconceivable for WHAT?
What is it that could not conceive this?

WHAT is it that would be so stunned if it turned out that there is no actual relation between an image and a thought?
These speculations are based on the notion of time, and cause and effect. We will look at these soon.

I say this because when I imagine a beach before me, it has all of the experienced attributes of the actual beach.

It’s based in the belief in time and thus cause and effect.

Vivien

You are NOT saying that the content of thought has NOT been abstracted from AE

What would do / perform the abstraction? Thought? Or what else?

Can thoughts do anything?

Do thoughts know anything about a sensation or an image/color?
Can thoughts know anything?

Are thoughts aware?

There is nothing in AE that "does" this abstraction. Thoughts do not "do" this abstraction. Thoughts do not "do" anything, but rather they (as containers) arise in AE. Thoughts do not "know" anything. Thoughts are not "aware" of anything. Abstractions arise as part of thought content.

I'm going to make an interpretation here that you are NOT saying that the imagined beach is NOT experienced, but rather that the imagined beach is a different kind of experience to a real beach --it is the experience of a "mental image" rather than the "physical image" of a real beach.

No, I am saying that the beach is NOT experienced. That’s the whole point!
Only a mental image is experienced.
But what the image is about, the content of the image, the beach is NOT experienced.
But, the mental image itself, (as a phenomenon) is experienced.
Seeing this is crucial.

Okay. So mental images are like thoughts -- they arise in AE as containers but the content is not part of AE.

I say this because when I imagine a beach before me, it has all of the experienced attributes of the actual beach. If it were an hallucination then it would even be taken as a real beach. Or say one is dreaming of being on a beach but unaware that it is a dream.

These are all thought speculations. All these comparisons happens ONLY as the CONTENT of thoughts.
And it seems that you take the content of thoughts quite seriously without seeing them for what they are. And you’re not seeing that these are just thoughts, nothing else.

I'm starting to get the hang of what you're saying here. You are making a distinction that I wasn't making. I will try to bear this distinction in mind from now on.

Have you thought these thoughts?
Have you made this thought interpretation to appear?

"I" is a thought. Thoughts don't think, and thoughts don't interpret. Thoughts just appear (as containers) in AE alongside all the other stuff that is arising in AE.

There is no abstraction process in AE. There is AE and there is thought-content. AE says "shape, colour, heat sensation, smell" and thought-content says "cup of coffee". It is inconceivable that exactly these aspects of AE should arise and thought-content say it is a strawberry. Or an albatross.

Inconceivable for WHAT?
What is it that could not conceive this?

WHAT is it that would be so stunned if it turned out that there is no actual relation between an image and a thought?

The thought arises that if the content of thought is not constrained by actual experience then all thought content should be devoid of orderliness. All thought content should be chaos. What is it that makes thought content as orderly as it is? This is the thought that arises.

Hi Andy,

There is nothing in AE that "does" this abstraction. Thoughts do not "do" this abstraction. Thoughts do not "do" anything, but rather they (as containers) arise in AE. Thoughts do not "know" anything. Thoughts are not "aware" of anything. Abstractions arise as part of thought content.

If it’s clear that thoughts don’t do anything, or know anything and they are not even aware, then why taking their content so seriously?

Thoughts cannot know anything about experience, since they are not aware.
Thoughts are known as ‘part of’ the experience, as a phenomenon.
But thoughts are not more ‘important’ or ‘superior’ to other ‘elements’ of experience (sound or sensation).
Thoughts are not somehow outside of experience observing what is happening inside the experience.
Thoughts cannot know anything about experience, since they are not aware.
Is this clear?

Okay. So mental images are like thoughts -- they arise in AE as containers but the content is not part of AE.

But is this clear?

Thought, in and of itself contains no experience, if it did you would be able to taste the word ‘sweet’, or feel the word ‘hot’. But can you?

With mental images it’s a bit trickier to see this. With using everyday language, the mental image of an apple cannot be touched. The mental imagination about walking on a sunny beach cannot give you sunburn and your feet won’t get sandy or wet.

I'm starting to get the hang of what you're saying here. You are making a distinction that I wasn't making. I will try to bear this distinction in mind from now on.

And what is the distinction I am making that you didn’t do?

The thought arises that if the content of thought is not constrained by actual experience then all thought content should be devoid of orderliness. All thought content should be chaos. What is it that makes thought content as orderly as it is? This is the thought that arises.

Making the conclusion of order or chaos, are based on the illusion of time. It requires comparison between the current experience and previous experiences. And this comparison happens only as the content of thoughts.

What is memory exactly? – please don’t go to thought explanation, don’t think
What is the memory ‘made of’? – don’t think
WHEN does the memory appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought? – don’t think, just look
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?
WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

Please spend lot of time with EACH question… Look very carefully… Look at what actually going on and not what thoughts say… but what actually is.

Vivien

There is nothing in AE that "does" this abstraction. Thoughts do not "do" this abstraction. Thoughts do not "do" anything, but rather they (as containers) arise in AE. Thoughts do not "know" anything. Thoughts are not "aware" of anything. Abstractions arise as part of thought content.

If it’s clear that thoughts don’t do anything, or know anything and they are not even aware, then why taking their content so seriously?

Because of curiosity -- the drive to understand. The thought arises that "this is strange... what is going on here?" And the investigation follows. Data are collected. Patterns are discerned. Explanatory hypotheses are formulated. Predictions are made. Tests are done. Models are integrated. Eventually the phenomenon under investigation is understood -- i.e. it is no longer strange.

Thoughts cannot know anything about experience, since they are not aware.
Thoughts are known as ‘part of’ the experience, as a phenomenon.
But thoughts are not more ‘important’ or ‘superior’ to other ‘elements’ of experience (sound or sensation).
Thoughts are not somehow outside of experience observing what is happening inside the experience.
Thoughts cannot know anything about experience, since they are not aware.
Is this clear?

Yes this is clear. Thoughts arise as part of experience and are not outside of experience.

Okay. So mental images are like thoughts -- they arise in AE as containers but the content is not part of AE.

But is this clear?

Forgive me Viven... I'm trying to get inside your head to allow you to guide me but language and habits of thought get in the way. I think I'm clear on this now (more on this below).

Thought, in and of itself contains no experience, if it did you would be able to taste the word ‘sweet’, or feel the word ‘hot’. But can you?

No, I cannot do those things. Thought (container) is AE, but thought (content) is not AE.

With mental images it’s a bit trickier to see this. With using everyday language, the mental image of an apple cannot be touched. The mental imagination about walking on a sunny beach cannot give you sunburn and your feet won’t get sandy or wet.

I'm starting to get the hang of what you're saying here. You are making a distinction that I wasn't making. I will try to bear this distinction in mind from now on.

And what is the distinction I am making that you didn’t do?

My analysis concludes that everything is experience. There is nothing other than experience. There may be experience of an imagined beach just as there may be experience of a real beach. There maybe experience of an imagined triangle just as there may be experience of real lines on paper. You employed the term "Actual Experience" that I took to be synonymous with my understanding of 'experience', but now I think you're employing the term 'actual' in order to exclude part of what I call 'experience', specifically the experience of imagined scenarios (e.g. the content of mental images and the content of thoughts). We might call this excluded part of experience "non-actual experience" if I'm right. But the division of experience into 'actual' and 'non-actual' arises only as part of thought-content.

The thought arises that if the content of thought is not constrained by actual experience then all thought content should be devoid of orderliness. All thought content should be chaos. What is it that makes thought content as orderly as it is? This is the thought that arises.

Making the conclusion of order or chaos, are based on the illusion of time. It requires comparison between the current experience and previous experiences. And this comparison happens only as the content of thoughts.

What is memory exactly? – please don’t go to thought explanation, don’t think
What is the memory ‘made of’? – don’t think
WHEN does the memory appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought? – don’t think, just look
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Memory is a category of thought or of mental image. The idea that memory is "made of" something is thought-content. Memories appear and disappear, and the idea that they appear and disappear "for a reason" is thought-content. Any difference between a 'general' thought and a 'memory' thought would be the result of analysis and therefore thought-content. The idea that a 'memory' thought refers to something that "has happened" is thought-content.

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?
WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

This is all thought-content.

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

The difference arises only in thought-content.

Hi Andy,

You employed the term "Actual Experience" that I took to be synonymous with my understanding of 'experience', but now I think you're employing the term 'actual' in order to exclude part of what I call 'experience', specifically the experience of imagined scenarios (e.g. the content of mental images and the content of thoughts). We might call this excluded part of experience "non-actual experience" if I'm right. But the division of experience into 'actual' and 'non-actual' arises only as part of thought-content.

Seeing the difference between imagined scenarios and what is really going on is essential. This lack of ability to differentiate between the two, is the reason for suffering, since the content is taken as something real. The self / me is taken as a REAL someone, as if there were REALLY a ME, who can do this or that, who is born and will die and probably often suffer between the beginning and the end.

But this ‘me/I’ is just a fabrication. But as long as it’s not totally clear that the contents of thoughts are not happening, seeing through this very convincing illusion is really hard if not impossible.

Thought will always ‘want’ to understand and intellectualize everything, this is what thoughts are ABOUT: analysing, interpreting, and putting everything into categories or into order, and most of all, conceptualizing the actual experience.
And it’s not problematic in and of itself. But for this investigation we have to stick to the pure experience, BEFORE any thought interpretation.

Why? Because the whole illusion is mainly created by thoughts. The self is just a concept. It’s not a real thing. It’s a fantasy. It’s a mirage in the desert. For a newborn baby, there is no concept of self. For the newborn there is only pure experiencing. And just later, when language is introduced, the concept of a self emerges, out of the thin air. It’s just a fabrication, but with time this fabrication is taken as reality. And what is the problem with that? It’s suffering. Only a self could suffer.

So for the infant there is only pure experiencing. Sight, sound, taste, smell, sensation. She is in direct contact with experience. But as cognition develops she starts to conceptualize her experience. Putting everything into categories, labelling the experience, etc. And of itself it’s not problematic. But this conceptualization is overlaying the experience, and it gets thicker and thicker. And at some point she hardly can access her direct experience, since she can only see the conceptual overlay. Like seeing everything through a pink tinted glass. At some point pinkness gets so natural (used to), that she even stops knowing/seeing that everything is just coloured pink, but not in reality. And at that point this conceptual overlay is believed to be THE TRUTH. Pink becomes the ultimate truth. The pinkness distorts our perception of what is really going on.

Whatever thoughts ‘say’, is the truth/reality from now on. This is how humans live their lives. We hardly can connect with our immediate experience since we believe that the overlaying thought concepts are all there is. And of course concepts are very useful when solving a problem, building a bridge or a house. But concepts/thoughts are just tools. But for humans the tool itself is overthrown what is really happening and creating all sorts of problems. This tool cannot be turned off. It’s like having a hammer as tool. The hammer is very useful for hitting the nail into the wall, but it’s not so useful for making dinner. But for humans, thoughts (the hammer) cannot be switched off, and we hammer everything with thoughts.

Thoughts, as a tool, has its place and value when a problem needs to be solved, but when the task is done, we should be able to put the tool (thoughts) down and just rest in the natural peace of experience. But thoughts are constantly on in forms of self-referencing narrating talks. Which is the basis of human delusion and suffering.

But the aim is not to stop these overlays from appearing, but rather to see them for what they really are. The overlay in and of itself is not problematic, as long as we see that it’s just an overlay.

This is why we have to stick to our immediate experience while doing this investigation. Not to devaluate thoughts and concepts, but rather to see what is really going on ‘behind the scenes’. When investigating the nature of reality and the self we cannot use the same tool which created the illusion itself on the first place.

Andy, from your comments it’s not clear for me what you can REALLY SEE, and what is just an intellectual conclusion.

Vivien

Andy, from your comments it’s not clear for me what you can REALLY SEE, and what is just an intellectual conclusion.

When I was a very young boy I recall mentioning to my mother, "in passing" so to speak, that sometimes everything looks like it's on TV. What I meant was that the world seemed to be made of nothing more than changing shapes and colours. Unfortunately my mother took this to be symptomatic of watching too much TV and restricted my viewing, so I learned to keep it to myself. I get the impression that this is what you call AE, or at least a part of it (since TV is constrained to visual experience).

Hi Andy,

I get the impression that this is what you call AE, or at least a part of it (since TV is constrained to visual experience).

Let’s replace the word ‘actual’ with direct. So direct experience is what is there for a baby without learning language and concepts.
Direct experience is what can be known without thoughts.

When I was a very young boy I recall mentioning to my mother, "in passing" so to speak, that sometimes everything looks like it's on TV.

Could you please tell me a bit about how you experience the world now in your everyday life?

Also how do you experience yourself in your day-to-day life?

Here is an excerpt from you first post:

I recall an instantaneous change of perspective whereupon I suddenly understood myself to be the entire field of conscious experience rather than the physical organism so intimately associated with it. This has never left me, though most of the time I'm not in that state. The effect this had on me was to undermine the entire materialist/physicalist metaphysic that I had unconsciously adopted beforehand. The mind/body problem became clear to me, along with the vacuity of the idea of 'matter' (a concept that Whitehead considered an example of what he called the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"). So this is where I am.

How are you with this now? – please try to describing your experience as precisely as you can without philosophising.

What are you looking for with our investigation?

Is it TOTALLY CLEAR EXPERIENTIALLY that there is no self in any shape or form?

whereupon I suddenly understood myself to be the entire field of conscious experience

What makes this ‘entire field of conscious experience’ you?

Vivien

I get the impression that this is what you call AE, or at least a part of it (since TV is constrained to visual experience).

Let’s replace the word ‘actual’ with direct. So direct experience is what is there for a baby without learning language and concepts.
Direct experience is what can be known without thoughts.

This is how I had come to understand you, so what word we use to qualify it is not really important as long as I'm understanding you. Actual/Direct Experience is what remains when thoughts and imagination are not arising in experience.

When I was a very young boy I recall mentioning to my mother, "in passing" so to speak, that sometimes everything looks like it's on TV.

Could you please tell me a bit about how you experience the world now in your everyday life?

Also how do you experience yourself in your day-to-day life?

Everyday (day-to-day) life is lived at the 'content' level of thought and imagination, as a physical organism interacting with physical objects in a world of physical objects. When I speak the word 'I' or 'me' the referent is the physical organism that is uttering that word. What I am NOT referring to is some entity distinct from that physical organism, an entity that somehow 'experiences' what that organism perceives through its various sense organs, or an entity that somehow dictates the activity of that organism.

Here is an excerpt from you first post:
I recall an instantaneous change of perspective whereupon I suddenly understood myself to be the entire field of conscious experience rather than the physical organism so intimately associated with it. This has never left me, though most of the time I'm not in that state. The effect this had on me was to undermine the entire materialist/physicalist metaphysic that I had unconsciously adopted beforehand. The mind/body problem became clear to me, along with the vacuity of the idea of 'matter' (a concept that Whitehead considered an example of what he called the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"). So this is where I am.
How are you with this now? – please try to describing your experience as precisely as you can without philosophising.

This is a commonplace now. A picture paints a thousand words, and the drawing in Douglas Harding's book On Having No Head conveys it better than I could say. This is a link to the nearest image I could find on the internet to that picture:
http://r.duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=h ... g_Here.jpg

I recall a time walking along the sidewalk looking down at my feet, when my impression changed from that of 'me' moving through the world to that of the world moving through 'me'... the concrete paving slabs entering 'me' at the top of the field and exiting 'me' at the bottom of the field.

What are you looking for with our investigation?

All of this experience is arising like watching a movie. But there's no 'watcher'. Maybe more like being the screen on which the movie is projected. And so what? Everything falls flat. Ambition gone. Aspirations gone. Just indifference remains. It feels like it should be a devastating loss, but there is no 'loser'. I'm not the loser but rather I'm the lost. And that's the feeling... I'm lost... what now?

Is it TOTALLY CLEAR EXPERIENTIALLY that there is no self in any shape or form?

Your qualifier "in any shape or form" gives me cause for hesitancy. From the "everyday/day-to-day" perspective there's the physical organism as it clearly arises in thought-content. From the alternate perspective there's the entire field of experience as alluded to in the picture in Harding's book. Dissolving into AE there isn't even a field of experience, since this 'field' is an idea or thought-content.

whereupon I suddenly understood myself to be the entire field of conscious experience

What makes this ‘entire field of conscious experience’ you?

What makes it 'me'? I started from the impression of being the witness to that field... "I am experiencing these things". But no witness can be found. It is not there. So the 'I' got carried over to the only thing left... the field itself.

Hi Andy,

This is how I had come to understand you, so what word we use to qualify it is not really important as long as I'm understanding you. Actual/Direct Experience is what remains when thoughts and imagination are not arising in experience.

It doesn’t matter if thoughts arising or not, since thoughts themselves (as phenomena) are AE.
So thoughts don’t have to be ‘absent’, it’s enough not taking their content as reality, or in other words ignoring their contents to see what is there if the contents of thoughts are ignored or not taken into account.

V: Is it TOTALLY CLEAR EXPERIENTIALLY that there is no self in any shape or form?

A: Your qualifier "in any shape or form" gives me cause for hesitancy. From the "everyday/day-to-day" perspective there's the physical organism as it clearly arises in thought-content.

The shape or form is usually referring to the body. Or some entity inside the body.
So is the body YOU?

What makes it 'me'? I started from the impression of being the witness to that field... "I am experiencing these things". But no witness can be found. It is not there. So the 'I' got carried over to the only thing left... the field itself.

So do you say that I = the field itself?

From your last reply it seems that you’ve already seen through the illusion of the self. So what are you expecting from this conversation? Is there something that doesn’t feel clear enough? Is there something missing? What else is there that you need to see, if there is any?

Vivien

So is the body YOU?

The body is 'me' in the story that is being told in thought-content. I take a step back and 'I' am the witness to that story being told, the "audience of one". I take another step back and the witness turns out to be part of the story too. I stepped back until it was evident that there was nothing stepping back.

I started from the impression of being the witness to that field... "I am experiencing these things". But no witness can be found. It is not there. So the 'I' got carried over to the only thing left... the field itself.

So do you say that I = the field itself?

I = everything. NOT everything in thought-content, but everything in AE.

There is AE. That much is undeniable. But the thought arises that everything in this AE must sum to a 'totality'. So this 'totality' inherits the idea of 'I' (the idea that continues in the vacuum created by the disappearance of the idea of the 'witness'). But this 'totality' is thought-content. So you've pushed me now to the point where I have to dispense with even this.

So what are you expecting from this conversation? Is there something that doesn’t feel clear enough? Is there something missing? What else is there that you need to see, if there is any?

Yes, there is the feeling that there is something missing. There's a feeling that I was going somewhere and I've suddenly forgotten where I had to get to. Now if you're saying that this is where you were taking me then you've succeeded. But there must still be a 'me' hovering around behind the curtain because I feel like I've been taken out into the desert and dumped without map and compass. So there's a "what now?"

Hi Andy,

I stepped back until it was evident that there was nothing stepping back.

Great.

I = everything. NOT everything in thought-content, but everything in AE.
There is AE. That much is undeniable. But the thought arises that everything in this AE must sum to a 'totality'. So this 'totality' inherits the idea of 'I' (the idea that continues in the vacuum created by the disappearance of the idea of the 'witness'). But this 'totality' is thought-content. So you've pushed me now to the point where I have to dispense with even this.

Yes, exactly.

There is AE which is undeniable.
But saying that I = everything (AE) is just a conceptual overlay on AE.
Only thought would label everything (AE) as ‘I’.
Is this clear?

Is it totally clear that the word ‘I’ doesn’t point to anything, meaning that behind the word ‘I’ or ‘self’ there is nothing there, not even everything (AE)?

Yes, there is the feeling that there is something missing. There's a feeling that I was going somewhere and I've suddenly forgotten where I had to get to. Now if you're saying that this is where you were taking me then you've succeeded. But there must still be a 'me' hovering around behind the curtain because I feel like I've been taken out into the desert and dumped without map and compass. So there's a "what now?"

Just because the illusion of the self has seen through, it doesn’t mean that the illusion will stop appearing. It won’t. So the sense of self could arise out of habit, however upon each looking it can be clearly seen that there is nothing there.

Yes, there is the feeling that there is something missing.

How is that something is missing actually FELT?
Is this really a feeling?
What is it that feels that something is missing?

I've been taken out into the desert and dumped without map and compass. So there's a "what now?"

What would need a map or a compass?

Vivien

There is AE which is undeniable.
But saying that I = everything (AE) is just a conceptual overlay on AE.
Only thought would label everything (AE) as ‘I’.
Is this clear?

Is it totally clear that the word ‘I’ doesn’t point to anything, meaning that behind the word ‘I’ or ‘self’ there is nothing there, not even everything (AE)?

Yes, it is now clear that this latest refuge of the 'I' is just more thought-content.

Just because the illusion of the self has seen through, it doesn’t mean that the illusion will stop appearing. It won’t. So the sense of self could arise out of habit, however upon each looking it can be clearly seen that there is nothing there.

Okay. So just keep looking.

Yes, there is the feeling that there is something missing.

How is that something is missing actually FELT?.
Is this really a feeling?
What is it that feels that something is missing?

It is felt as something forgotten. Like in a recurring dream I have wherein there is an important task for me to perform but I can't remember what it is. So just keep looking. There is nothing that is "having" this feeling.

I've been taken out into the desert and dumped without map and compass. So there's a "what now?"

What would need a map or a compass?

"What now?" -- Just keep looking.

Thank you Vivien. This has been helpful.

Hi Andy,

It is felt as something forgotten

“It is felt as something forgotten” – is a thought, not a feeling (sensation).

Thoughts often play the trick by saying “I feel cheated”, “I feel abandoned”, “I feel refused”, “I feel misguided”, “I feel I lost something”, “I feel I forgot something”, etc. – as if these things could be felt, since the thought starts with: ‘I feel..”

But actually these things cannot be felt. But if the contents of these thoughts are taken as something real, then the illusion of feeling something lost or forgotten, or feeling cheated, abandon, refused, etc, emerges. Can you see this?

So just keep looking.

Yes, just keep looking. Falling for the illusion can happen much more often than one might expect. It can last for even hours several times during the day. And why? It’s because every time an emotion is triggered (by some circumstances or because of certain thoughts coming up), the self is activated. So whenever there is frustration, wanting or not wanting something, expecting something, having anger, resentment, feeling hurt, disliking something / somebody, etc. the self is there immediately. Since all these emotions are on behalf of the self. And after seeing no-self, all these conditioned issues need to be worked through, otherwise whenever these emotions arise the self comes with them. Humans are very often triggered (many-many times a day) and those triggering reactions can last from minutes to hours, meaning that the self is there and seemingly believed to be real for minutes or hours while those triggered reactions are functioning. But upon each looking, it can be seen again and again that there is nothing there.

Taking the self as real, is also a conditioned habit of thinking. It’s a habit of the ‘mind’. It’s the result of a life-long conditioning. But upon each looking it gets a little bit weaker and weaker.

Here are some questions to see if is there anything that is not completely clear. Please answer what's true for you right now, rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer.

Has it been seen that there has never been an ‘I’ that could control or own life or anything?
Is there any chooser or decider of any kind?
Is there an ‘experiencer’?
Is there a ‘thinker’?

Is there a ‘doer’ of any kind which performs activities and movements?
Is there an 'I' of any kind whatsoever that could be responsible for anything at all?
Do others have responsibilities?

Is there a self that is inside the body, perceiving a world that is outside?

Is there a 'you' that started this investigation?
Has there ever been a 'you' doing anything?

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

Vivien

“It is felt as something forgotten” – is a thought, not a feeling (sensation).

Thoughts often play the trick by saying “I feel cheated”, “I feel abandoned”, “I feel refused”, “I feel misguided”, “I feel I lost something”, “I feel I forgot something”, etc. – as if these things could be felt, since the thought starts with: ‘I feel..”

But actually these things cannot be felt. But if the contents of these thoughts are taken as something real, then the illusion of feeling something lost or forgotten, or feeling cheated, abandon, refused, etc, emerges. Can you see this?

Yes, "I've forgotten something" is a thought not a feeling.

Has it been seen that there has never been an ‘I’ that could control or own life or anything?

Yes.

Is there any chooser or decider of any kind?

No.

Is there an ‘experiencer’?

No.

Is there a ‘thinker’?

No.

Is there a ‘doer’ of any kind which performs activities and movements?

No.

Is there an 'I' of any kind whatsoever that could be responsible for anything at all?

No. 'Responsibility' is a thought.

Do others have responsibilities?

No. 'Others' is a thought.

Is there a self that is inside the body, perceiving a world that is outside?

No. There is no 'inside' and no 'outside'.

Is there a 'you' that started this investigation?

No.

Has there ever been a 'you' doing anything?

No.

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

I need to keep looking. The idea of 'self' is insidious.

Hi Andy,

Please answer the following questions with some detail please, and answer what's true for you rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer. Also please provide examples where asked.

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) a) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how things happen and how things work.

b) What are you responsible for? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how this works.

6) Anything to add?

Vivien