The Gate

Hi Vivien,

I'll reply to your latest post tomorrow.
Thanks,
Graham

Hi Vivien,

What else needs to happen to see this as a fact and not just as a possibility?
Is there anything missing at all, or rather just certain thoughts/beliefs prevent this to be accepted?

I just have to be vigilant and keep looking looking looking whenever a strong 'sense of me' arises with attendant thoughts about a 'me'. The other day I had a very clear 'seeing' of this fact so more and more I see the reality of 'no self'

But just because a thought ‘say’ so, does it make it so?

No- it's just a thought.

And how does this quote support the doubts in no-self? Could you please explain it a bit more?
What do you want to explore exactly? The existence or realness of fear? Or the one who is afraid? Or do you mean a psychological exploration?

I suppose the quote pointed to 'future' which is an area that a lot my thoughts are concerned with. So doubts or questions arise about direction for instance. There is a clash between seeing there is no decider and the need to make decisions about direction- so I guess it's about trust in a way. As there is no decider, 'I' need to trust that decisions or deciding happens.

Best,
Graham

Hi Graham,

So doubts or questions arise about direction for instance. There is a clash between seeing there is no decider and the need to make decisions about direction- so I guess it's about trust in a way. As there is no decider, 'I' need to trust that decisions or deciding happens.

Just because there isn’t a decision-maker, decision still happens. And it’s worked perfectly well before it has been seen that there is no decision maker. Nothing has change! There has never ever been a decision maker. The only thing that change that now this fact is seen, but nothing else. Everything else goes on just like before.

This organism was completely capable of functioning without a decision maker in the past and it’s still completely capable to do that.

As there is no decider, 'I' need to trust that decisions or deciding happens.

Whether you trust it or not, deciding still happens, just like before. Nothing has change. There is no lost in functionality. It’s not like you lost the ability to make a decision. Since you have never ever had the ability to make a decision, so it cannot be lost. You cannot lose anything you’ve never had.

Now let’s start to investigate the sense of self, which still can arise after seeing no-self due to a life time of conditioning.
There are several 'sense of me'-s:

- a sense of me in the chest and stomach area that feels
- a sense of me in the forehead (or somewhere in the skull) that thinks
- a sense of me behind the eyes that sees (both ‘visual sight’ and ‘mental images’)
- a sense of me in the ears that hears (both 'real' and imagined sounds)
- a sense of me in the throat that speaks (even when speaking happens only in thought)
- a sense of me in the hands as a toucher

And probably there are more. But all of these are nothing more than sensations that are mistaken to be ‘me’ and the source of particular perceptions (image, thought, sensation, sound, etc.).

It’s really worth investigating all of these, one-by-one.

Probably the most convincing one are the sense of seer. The sense of seer seemingly resides either in the eyes or behind the eyes. So the so called ‘visual sight’ is observed from this point of view. But what is this point of view exactly?
It's believed that both the 'visual sight' and 'mental images' are coming from the eyes, because when it's investigated the attention automatically goes to the sensation 'of the eyes', and sometimes the image 'of the eyes' also appear with it.

But what are the eyes in the actual experience?
Are there anything to the eyes other than sensations and images (of ‘eyes’)?

Please investigate this in a similar way as you did with the notion of ‘thoughts coming from the head’. Do it with BOTH ‘visual sights’ and ‘mental images’.

When there is either a visual sight or a mental image, immediately try to trace back to the feeling sensation to the ‘eyes’ or ‘behind the eyes’ (or whatever is the most prominent)

You can observe that when the attention is on the sensation of the ‘eyes’, a mental image of eyes might also appears (or not).

(a) While keeping the attention on the felt sensation (of the eyes) ask the question:
Can sight / mental image come from a sensation?

Then stop and just LOOK. Don’t try to analyse it or make logical concussions. Just feel the sensation and look.
And although intellectual it might be clear that of course a sensation cannot see, still do the looking, since the experientially recognition what makes the realization.

(b) While keeping the attention on the felt sensation (of the eyes) ask the question:
Can sight / mental image come from an image (of ‘eyes’)?

(c) While keeping the attention on the felt sensation (of the eyes) ask the question:
Can this sensation see?
Is this sensation doing the seeing of the ‘sight’?
Is this sensation the seer?

Try very hard to experience the act of ‘seeing’.
Where does the act of seeing take place (locally)?

These exercises need to be done many-many times. It’s not enough to see this just once to have an impact.

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

Just because there isn’t a decision-maker, decision still happens. And it’s worked perfectly well before it has been seen that there is no decision maker. Nothing has change! There has never ever been a decision maker. The only thing that change that now this fact is seen, but nothing else. Everything else goes on just like before.

This organism was completely capable of functioning without a decision maker in the past and it’s still completely capable to do that.

Of course

Whether you trust it or not, deciding still happens, just like before. Nothing has change. There is no lost in functionality. It’s not like you lost the ability to make a decision. Since you have never ever had the ability to make a decision, so it cannot be lost. You cannot lose anything you’ve never had.

Ok


I will post tomorrow on the rest.
Thanks Vivien.
Graham

HI Vivien,

Probably the most convincing one are the sense of seer. The sense of seer seemingly resides either in the eyes or behind the eyes. So the so called ‘visual sight’ is observed from this point of view. But what is this point of view exactly?

This would be the strongest 'sense of me' from the list.

But what are the eyes in the actual experience?

Just a sensation or image of 'eyes'

Are there anything to the eyes other than sensations and images (of ‘eyes’)?
No

(a) While keeping the attention on the felt sensation (of the eyes) ask the question:
Can sight / mental image come from a sensation?

No- it's just a sensation separate from seeing.

(b) While keeping the attention on the felt sensation (of the eyes) ask the question:
Can sight / mental image come from an image (of ‘eyes’)?
No- it's just an image. Sight cannot come from a sensation or an image itself and they are separate from seeing.

(c) While keeping the attention on the felt sensation (of the eyes) ask the question:
Can this sensation see?
Is this sensation doing the seeing of the ‘sight’?
Is this sensation the seer?

The sensation cannot see- it's just a sensation. The sensation is not seeing the 'sight' nor is it the 'seer'.

Try very hard to experience the act of ‘seeing’.
Where does the act of seeing take place (locally)?

So, the act of seeing is happening but not as a 'thing' that be separated out and as such I can't locate 'seeing'. I can't point to it and say 'seeing happens HERE". The best I can say is that is is happening. Thought tries to appropriate 'seeing' as happening 'here'- behind the eyes- but this is just a sensation and sensations can't see.

You're right in saying this has to be repeated many many times. There's a 'stickiness' to the 'seeing sense of me' that needs constant challenging.

Best,
Graham

Hi Graham,

You're right in saying this has to be repeated many many times. There's a 'stickiness' to the 'seeing sense of me' that needs constant challenging.

This needs a lots of looking. Hundreds or even thousands of times. Again and again. It’s a deep seated conditioning. You can make this into a habit. Whenever the sense of self as the seer arise, just look.

Let’s try this out.

With open eyes, look forward and just see whatever is there. Don’t pay too much attention to the sight, but rather to the seeming ‘seer’.

Notice, that it seems and ‘feels’ as the visual sight is in front of this body, especially in front of the face and the head.
Observe very carefully. What makes this sense or feeling of the sight being in front of the eyes/head/body?

Close your eyes, and have a mental image. Hold the image, don’t pay too much attention to the image itself, but rather investigate the ‘I’ that is supposedly seeing it.

Notice that although the eyes are closed it STILL seems and FEELS AS IF the mental image is in front of the eyes/head/body.
What makes this sense or feeling that the mental images is happening in front of the eyes/head?
Which sensation seems/feels to be the seer?

If the eyes are closed the image obviously cannot in front of the eyes/face. But still it seems like. What an amazing illusion! Can you see this?

Now, let’s look at the sense of a feeler. Put the attention on a sensation, and keep it there. At the same time, ask:
Where is the feeler? – and scan through every part of the body for the feeler. Look into the armpits, the upper back, lower back, behind the ears, the back of the head, into the mouth, the forehead, the top of the head, to the throat, into the neck, everywhere.

Which sensation seems to be the feeler?
What makes this sensation seems/feels to be the feeler?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

This needs a lots of looking. Hundreds or even thousands of times. Again and again. It’s a deep seated conditioning. You can make this into a habit. Whenever the sense of self as the seer arise, just look.

It's already becoming more and more my default mode of 'looking' in my day to day life.

What makes this sense or feeling of the sight being in front of the eyes/head/body?

It's the thought/sensation/images that 'I' am contained in the head, that there is a 'me' in the body (head) looking outwards through the eyes that gives the sense of sight being in front of the eyes/head/body- in front of 'me'. Sights are seen and thought says "I am seeing" and "I am here" (behind the eyes). These thoughts are over-layed with the sensation 'of the head' which SEEMS to confirm the 'I' behind the eyes. An image of 'me' also arises so the combination of the thought, the sensation and the image creates a 'sense of me' which is located 'here' or 'behind the eyes' so sights appear as if they are out in front of 'me' When thought is seen as just arising thought (which cannot see), the sensation is seen as a sensation which cannot see and the image of 'me' is seen as an arising image which cannot see the 'sense of me' is deconstructed and there is just seeing. As you say (and I experience!) there is a deep conditioning in this that needs to be constantly looked at for what it is. I'm sure you're familiar with Douglas Harding's 'On Having No Head'?

Notice that although the eyes are closed it STILL seems and FEELS AS IF the mental image is in front of the eyes/head/body.What makes this sense or feeling that the mental images is happening in front of the eyes/head?
Which sensation seems/feels to be the seer?

Again, the image is seen and the 'sense of me' creates the illusion that 'I' am behind the image seeing it and the image is in front of 'me'. The sensation of the head coupled with the thought "this sensation is me" creates the 'me' that is seeing- but a sensation cannot see and a thought cannot see.

What an amazing illusion! Can you see this?

Yes I can see this.....and the conditioning is so strong it can revert back to itself in a millisecond. So despite seeing the illusion it "needs lots of looking, hundreds or even thousands of times".

Now, let’s look at the sense of a feeler.

Which sensation seems to be the feeler?
What makes this sensation seems/feels to be the feeler?

Take the sensation of 'hand'. The sensation is 'felt' and the 'sense of feeler' is then created by thought/sensations/images that SEEM to be located in the head- but these are just sensations/thoughts/images which cannot 'feel'. Any sensation, other than the head, SEEMS to be felt by a feeler located in the head. So now I go to the sensation of the head itself. It is a sensation. It is felt SEEMINGLY by 'me' which cannot be located beyond 'a sense of me' (thoughts/images/sensation).

Best,
Graham

Hi Graham,

As you say (and I experience!) there is a deep conditioning in this that needs to be constantly looked at for what it is.

Yes, but we are not doing this exercise for the sense of self to go away, and never stop appearing again. We are doing it only to see that there is no entity behind the sense of self. This distinction is important. Because seeing no self doesn’t equate to not having the appearance of a sense of self.

I'm sure you're familiar with Douglas Harding's 'On Having No Head'?

Yes, I am.

and the conditioning is so strong it can revert back to itself in a millisecond. So despite seeing the illusion it "needs lots of looking, hundreds or even thousands of times".

Again, we are not after making the sense of self to go away. It’s enough to see that there is nothing behind it. We are doing the looking to dissolve the BELIEF in the self, and not trying to dissolve the sense of self itself :) We are looking, until no doubt is left that there is no separate entity in any shape or form.

Any sensation, other than the head, SEEMS to be felt by a feeler located in the head. So now I go to the sensation of the head itself. It is a sensation. It is felt SEEMINGLY by 'me' which cannot be located beyond 'a sense of me' (thoughts/images/sensation).

Yes, this is how the illusion is created.

Wait for a thought to arise. Localize the sensation which it seems to originate from. Keep the focus on the sensation, and ask:
Is this sensation doing the thinking?
Is this sensation creating thoughts?
Is this sensation the thinker?
Is this sensation is the origin of thoughts?

Ask these as many times, until it gets totally clear, that it’s just a sensation, nothing else. And it cannot see.

When a mental image arises, focus the attention inside the head, and try to find the sensation, from where the seeing seems to be happening. It can be the eyes, behind the eyes, forehead, etc.
Then keep the focus of attention on that sensation, and ask:
Is this sensation seeing the image?

Localize the sensation, keep the focus there, and ask:
Is this sensation the self?
Is this sensation the ‘me’?
Is this sensation the ‘focuser’?
Is this the knower?

When there is a sound present, localize the sensation that seems to be the hearer of the sound, and ask:
Is this sensation doing the hearing?
Is this sensation the hearer?


When there is a sensation present, localize the sensation that seems to be feeling the sensation, and ask:
Is this sensation feeling the other sensation?
Is this sensation the feeler?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

Yes, but we are not doing this exercise for the sense of self to go away, and never stop appearing again. We are doing it only to see that there is no entity behind the sense of self. This distinction is important. Because seeing no self doesn’t equate to not having the appearance of a sense of self. Again, we are not after making the sense of self to go away. It’s enough to see that there is nothing behind it. We are doing the looking to dissolve the BELIEF in the self, and not trying to dissolve the sense of self itself :) We are looking, until no doubt is left that there is no separate entity in any shape or form.

Understood.

Wait for a thought to arise. Localize the sensation which it seems to originate from. Keep the focus on the sensation, and ask:
Is this sensation doing the thinking?

No

Is this sensation creating thoughts?

No

Is this sensation the thinker?

No

Is this sensation is the origin of thoughts?

No

When a mental image arises, focus the attention inside the head, and try to find the sensation, from where the seeing seems to be happening. It can be the eyes, behind the eyes, forehead, etc.
Then keep the focus of attention on that sensation, and ask:
Is this sensation seeing the image?

No

Localize the sensation, keep the focus there, and ask:
Is this sensation the self?

No

Is this sensation the ‘me’?

No

Is this sensation the ‘focuser’?

No

Is this the knower?

No

When there is a sound present, localize the sensation that seems to be the hearer of the sound, and ask:
Is this sensation doing the hearing?

No

s this sensation the hearer?

No

When there is a sensation present, localize the sensation that seems to be feeling the sensation, and ask:
Is this sensation feeling the other sensation?

No

Is this sensation the feeler?

No

The sensation is nether the thinker, focuser, hearer, feeler nor the self- it's just a sensation which is 'sensation-aware-d'.

Best,
Graham

Hi Graham,

Great looking!

Please look very carefully one-by-one with the following questions. Spend a few minutes with each. Literally scan through the whole body from head to toe, with particular attention on the head. Look behind the eyes, into the forehead, the top of the head, the throat, look everywhere. Also scan through all aspects of experience.

Is there a thinker?
Is there a seer?
Is there a feeler?
Is there a hearer?
Is there a taster?
Is there a smeller?

Is there an experiencER?

Is there anything having the experience of whatever is happening?
Is there anything which the experience is happening TO?

Is there a you?
Has there ever been a you?

Is there anything that is not totally clear and you would like to look at?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

Is there a thinker?

No. Thoughts arise. Another thought says "I am the thinker thinking these thoughts" but this itself is a thought which is 'though-aware-d'. A combination of thought, sensation and images creates a 'sense of me' which is thinking itself but thoughts can't think, sensations can't think and images can't think. When a thinker is looked look for all that is found is sensations, thoughts and images ABOUT a thinker. A thinker can not be found.

Is there a seer?

No. Seeing arises. A false 'sense of me' appropriates seeing as 'seeing done by me' but a seer cannot be found outside of the false 'sense of me' which is just a belief (albeit a very strong one!)

Is there a feeler?

No. Feelings arise.

Is there a hearer?

No. Sounds arise

Is there a taster?

No. Tastes arise.

Is there a smeller?

No Smells arise.

Is there an experiencer?

No. Experiences arise and are experienced.

Is there anything having the experience of whatever is happening?

No. Experience arises. The false 'sense of me' appropriates experience as 'happening to me' but that me cannot be found outside of sensation, thought or image ABOUT a 'sense of me'

Is there anything which the experience is happening TO?

No.

Is there a you?

Outside of a belief of a 'me'- no. and that belief has to be constantly challenged.

Has there ever been a you?

No

Is there anything that is not totally clear and you would like to look at?

What arises is "What now?". There are questions arising about the implications and consequences of this moving forward. It is both simple yet profound at the same time.

Best,
Graham

Hi Graham,

Outside of a belief of a 'me'- no. and that belief has to be constantly challenged.

So is there any doubt left whether the self has been seen through?

Do you feel the need to do more exercises?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

So is there any doubt left whether the self has been seen through?

You said previously "We are doing the looking to dissolve the BELIEF in the self, and not trying to dissolve the sense of self itself :) We are looking, until no doubt is left that there is no separate entity in any shape or form". Honestly, I do still have doubt as to whether the self has been seen through. The BELIEF in the self seems as strong as ever and in some ways has been replaced by another BELIEF- 'there is no self'- despite all the exercises and finding no seer, thinker, doer, controller etc and even seeing how the 'sense of me' is created. So now there are seemingly two clashing beliefs despite our work. Frustrating! Even though I look afresh every time the 'sense of me' arises and don't find one there is a feeling that the penny hasn't dropped.

Do you feel the need to do more exercises?

I'm very open to and feel the need for doing more exercises in light of my comments above.

Graham

Hi Graham,

I'm very open to and feel the need for doing more exercises in light of my comments above.

All right. I am here to help you as long as it takes. And it doesn’t matter how long will it take. So don’t feel pressured :)

I am going to ask you some specific questions to help me to see what might be the stumbling blocks. So please try to describe the answers as precisely as you can.

The BELIEF in the self seems as strong as ever and in some ways has been replaced by another BELIEF- 'there is no self'- despite all the exercises and finding no seer, thinker, doer, controller etc and even seeing how the 'sense of me' is created. So now there are seemingly two clashing beliefs despite our work.

How do you see what would be different if the belief in the self wouldn’t be there anymore?

How would you recognise if the belief in the self would have fallen away?

What is a belief?
How do you recognise a belief?

You’re saying that there are two clashing beliefs there. Please describe me as precisely as you can that what is the difference between the belief in the self (I exist), and the belief “I don’t exist”?

You say that you’ve seen it several times that there is no self. So what is the difference between SEEING that there is no ‘I’ or self, and the BELIEF of “I don’t exist”?

How do you know that the statement “I don’t exist” is a belief?
What makes it to a belief?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

I'm very open to and feel the need for doing more exercises in light of my comments above.

All right. I am here to help you as long as it takes. And it doesn’t matter how long will it take. So don’t feel pressured :)

Thanks so much Vivien- just the words I needed to hear :)

I'm going to give your questions the attention they deserve and reply to them tomorrow as I'm a bit all over the place today. Thanks for your patience.

Graham