ready to start with a guide

[geiger]

Hi Fred,

To answer question 1) the difference between the open presence and what I believe myself to be now...I feel like I'm this self who is doing this investigation-I can see that other thoughts are coming and going, but somehow "I" am the one who is investigating them. (sorry for the run-on sentences, I'm trying to write without any thought of editing)

2) Can you point out this true nature?

/ yes! As I sit here and type there is a clear and empty presence that is the background of all that is happening. This is not an object I am focusing on nor is this a state I'm trying to maintain--there is just this ever present fire that's been lit for some years now.

3) keep looking at this energetic pull that is labelled as separate self volition...

/ this seems to be the crux of the matter; the watermark of identity. The energetic pull in the chest IS the suffering. Okay, wait a minute. There is a labeling going on-I need to sit and ask "who is the self that is doing the labeling? such that this feeling is identified as suffering?"

Thank you Fred.

[Freddi]

Hi Craig

1)

what I believe myself to be now...I feel like I'm this self who is doing this investigation

The key word here is ‘believe’. In direct experience, can you point to this self that is doing this investigation? Can you describe its shape, colour, size? Or is it more like this investigation is doing ‘you’. Take a good look, away from concepts and spiritually correct terminology. Let me know what you find, in your own words.

2)

yes! As I sit here and type there is a clear and empty presence that is the background of all that is happening.

This reads a bit conceptual. What is a ‘clear and empty presence’, in your experience? Can you describe? You say it isn’t an object or a state. Imagine I am a child and have never read a spiritual book in my life. Does it have any reality you can show me, or is it a label for a feeling of aliveness in the body?

3)

there is just this ever present fire that's been lit for some years now

How can an ever present fire be lit ‘for some years’? Is it ever present, or did it have a beginning? Question all assumptions.

4)

The energetic pull in the chest IS the suffering

You have seen that ‘suffering’ is a label given to this energetic pull in the chest. Can you dig a bit more into this experience of this energetic pull and describe it to me? What are its qualities, below the label? When observed in your moment to moment experience, is it different to, say, the pressure on the back where you are sitting? Or a headache? Or the feeling of the breath coming in and out of the nose? Look and tell me what you find.
Who or what is calling this experience ’suffering’?

Thank you!

Fred

[geiger]

1) HI Fred, thanks for getting back to me. In answer to your first question, can I point to something that believes it is doing the investigation? No! Emphatically No! I could be sitting here lost in thought and suddenly investigation arises just as thought arises, spontaneously with no investigator behind it.

2) You asked me to describe this "clear and empty space" in simple terms as if to a child who had never read a spiritual book. Oh course I can. It's me. It's me just before I have a thought "about myself."
I would ask a child "what are you like when you say I am to yourself and then sit quietly?" This very familiar sense has been with me my whole life, but the last 3 years it has been more in the foreground, the volume has been turned up.

[geiger]

4) You ask me to describe the energetic pull in the chest? and who or what is calling this experience suffering?
Okay Fred, this is ridiculously simple: it's only another though that is labeling this feeling in the chest suffering. Then another thought labels a succession of thoughts as proof that the first thought was correct.
The truth is that all these thoughts I believe are me, all of them, pass out of my awareness such that I don't actually remember one minute to the next "who" I thought I was.

[geiger]

Fred,
as I walked away from the computer after completing my last post I walked outside and various thoughts came up like "of course it's so simple etc." "I can't wait to get back and write something to Fred about this" ...
Now it's so obvious that thoughts are arising without a thinker, even very personal, excited thoughts right now are arising but no one is doing it. This is utterly clear here and now. Even this typing, only thought claims "I am typing."
There is no personal volition in any of this, there can't be.
I'm going to step away from the computer again.

[geiger]

Fred,
when I got up from the computer a few minutes ago a thought arose, "what if I'm just in a passing state?" and I could see immediately that the thought and images of "me" that might just be in a "passing state" are just that, thoughts and images. Of course that's not a self. Thought is just rounding up perceptions and impressions and commenting and projecting a future but it's os obvious that no one is doing it, it's just a function. It's really quite beautiful.
Just now as I set here after a brief pause the thought "I'm not sure what else to say" arises and with it a slight contraction in the chest but no one labels it an energetic pull of suffering. There is no suffering here. Thought is just putting labels on experiencing and calling this a moment in time.
I'm going to sign off and head out to work................Wow, "I'm going to sign off and head out to work" is simply a creation in thought...

Holy fuck, of course there isn't a "self" that is going to sign off, it's just a convention of language, a very useful convention but that's all it is. Where the hell would a self that's going to "sign off now" be?

There's no need to screw around with pronouns, they're totally fine for functioning.
Having said that, I going to sign off and head out to work.

Thanks again Fred...

[Freddi]

Hi Craig,

Really enjoying your earnestness and dedication!

Now it's so obvious that thoughts are arising without a thinker, even very personal, excited thoughts right now are arising but no one is doing it. This is utterly clear here and now. Even this typing, only thought claims "I am typing."
There is no personal volition in any of this, there can't be.

Nice ;-)
That is clear seeing. When you look in your experience, you notice thoughts, but no thinker, and the labelling, but no labeller. It’s all on automatic.

1)

In answer to your first question, can I point to something that believes it is doing the investigation? No! Emphatically No! I could be sitting here lost in thought and suddenly investigation arises just as thought arises, spontaneously with no investigator behind it.

So, which is more true, what you SEE or what you BELIEVE?

2)

You asked me to describe this "clear and empty space" in simple terms as if to a child who had never read a spiritual book. Oh course I can. It's me. It's me just before I have a thought "about myself."
I would ask a child "what are you like when you say I am to yourself and then sit quietly?" This very familiar sense has been with me my whole life

What if that child (or, for the purposes of this investigation, Fred) told you that this ‘sense of me just before a thought about myself arises’ is also in ‘him’. What if this sense of aliveness was everywhere but had been labelled ‘I’ by Craig, ‘I’ by Fred, ‘I’ by the child, and by everyone else? This 'clear and empty space' would have to be non-localised, right?
When you strip away all the assumptions about yourself, what makes that sense personal? What gives it its ‘Craigness’?

3)

The truth is that all these thoughts I believe are me, all of them, pass out of my awareness such that I don't actually remember one minute to the next "who" I thought I was.

Who or what is there to believe these thoughts and label them as ‘me’?
What is claiming ownership of them? Observe thoughts in direct experience. Don’t get involved with their content, this is not the point. Just notice their movement, the aliveness in them. They come and go. There can be belief in them, or not. What is there to believe or not believe? Does it matter whether they are believed or not? Is it a problem if they are?

Thanks!

Fred

[Freddi]

when I got up from the computer a few minutes ago a thought arose, "what if I'm just in a passing state?" and I could see immediately that the thought and images of "me" that might just be in a "passing state" are just that, thoughts and images. Of course that's not a self. Thought is just rounding up perceptions and impressions and commenting and projecting a future but it's os obvious that no one is doing it, it's just a function. It's really quite beautiful.

Exactly! Who or what is there to be in a passing state or in a permanent state? A character in a thought/story? Who or what is there to be enlightened or not? Realisation is realising that there is no-thing to realise. There is only seeing, 100% of the time. And you are so right, it is quite beautiful.
Do I sense something shifting there?

Fred

[geiger]

Hi Fred,
you asked,

So, which is more true, what you SEE or what you BELIEVE?

What I believe is just thought passing through; relative and temporary. What I see (if by that you mean my understanding) would be true.

2) When you strip away all the assumptions about yourself, what makes that sense personal? What gives it its 'Craigness'?

When I strip away the assumptions there IS no Craigness. Craigness is just a pattern. And in seeing this as just a pattern it's clear that awareness does not have a location, awareness is singular. I never encounter more than one awareness. It's not even one awareness, it's more like atmosphere with no boarders or edges. Boarders and edges are a function within Craigness. I don't encounter 'others' with their own awarenesses, my experience only ever shows me this singular awareness.

[geiger]

3) Who or what believes...claims ownership?

only another thought could believe or claim ownership. You ask if there is a problem with believing? I notice now that if there is irritation at work, like with this electronic medical information system that after 7 months still doesn't work, thoughts flair up but I see that they aren't referring to a self. This is how it went for me all day yesterday: I saw how 'Craigness' operates. When things get out of control at work the thoughts of Craig start to judge the stupidity and shortsightedness of those who purchased such an inefficient software program. It was an amazing day because all those 'Craig' thoughts were just that, thoughts, part of the dance of the day. The difference is, no suffering. Thoughts and beliefs and emotions my arise, but there is no suffering because the belief in a self who is authoring them is absent, because there is an impersonal understanding that thoughts and images don't author thoughts and images. Thoughts do not think.
Yesterday was an incredible test because I've been so angry at work for the last 7 months that Ive felt at times like I was going to smash something and walk off the job. I understand this now as the 'Craigness' pattern. That pattern claims ownership and authorship ( I know I'm repeating myself here Fred) that pattern believes itself to be an individual who is at stake, at risk in the various situations he believes he is part of.
What is so obvious now is how simple this understanding is and how easy it is to see in the face of these strong emotions. Thoughts and images are never who I am. Why? Because I perceive them, so how could they be me? This understanding is very simple and childlike, like primary colors and fingerprinting.

Yes Fred, there is a shift. -Love, Craig

[Freddi]

Hi Craig
Thanks for the honesty of your last post. I could feel a sense of liberation during the last couple of days.
I love that you are seeing this. And you express it with so much clarity.

Just one thing:

What I believe is just thought passing through; relative and temporary. What I see (if by that you mean my understanding) would be true.

No I don’t mean ‘understanding’. ‘Understanding’ would be more of a logical deduction, an intellectual work out. It is soooo obvious that the mind can’t get it.
What I mean by ‘seeing’ is more of an experience of what is always in plain sight, when stepping out of the mind stream.

1) Which is it with you? Understanding or seeing? Is there a difference with what happened three years ago?
2) Would you say you have seen through the illusion of the separate self?
3) How would you describe it to somebody who has never heard about this illusion but is curious about it?
4) If there is no real ‘Craigness’, ‘Fredness’ etc, is there any personal responsibility?

Love,
Fred

[geiger]

Greetings Fred,
once again, thank you so much for your guidance so far.
You asked,

Which is it with you? Understanding or seeing? Is there a difference with what happened three years ago?

[ This is clearly a seeing of obvious facts. I could use the word grokking instead because this is a gestalt knowing/being of something so simple.
Right now I'm not sure I can answer you as to wether or not this is the same as 3 years ago. Certain'y 'this' isn't something that belongs to a character who was awake 3 years ago then lost it. 'This' has no duration, no existence in conceptual time. The only thing thought would believe it had to get back to would be another thought--this is seeing clearly here.

Would you say you've seen through the illusion of the separate self?

/ I would say there is an impersonal seeing through this illusion and a recognition of truth. Language gets tricky here because this is not at all like wining the lottery, not a grand prize or accomplishment that 'Craig' finally achieved and can now show off at his next high school reunion. No person, no character has seen through the illusion yet the illusion is seen and understood, grokked for what it is, a momentary appearance, that is in fact not separate from awareness at all.

How would you describe it to somebody who has never heard about this illusion but is curious about it?

I would say the illusion of the separate self is like having a dream that your best friend has stolen your car, killed your dog and is now living in your house. You wake from your dream and go about your day angry and vindictive, waiting for the opportunity to confront your friend in spite of all the evidence that points to the fallacy of your dream assumptions. You carry around with you, and replay, and elaborate on these dream images and you believe the images are you, and you persist in your illusion even after you return home from work and your dog greets you at the front door. You believe you are what you imagine yourself to be.

If there is no real 'Craigness', 'Fredness' etc, is there any personal responsibility?

great question. If there is no one running the show then there can be no personal responsibility, however there are consequences for our actions, and some of those consequences may involve standing in court before a judge and taking personal responsibility in a conventional sense. In other words, because there are consequences, this means that a so called 'separate self' can't hide behind a concept of 'no self' and escape responsibility.

I think this question really gets at the acid test of this 'seeing', and that involves the cessation of suffering.
I need to head out to work Fred, I'll right more on this later.

with gratitude, Craig

[Freddi]

Good morning, Craig

I would say there is an impersonal seeing through this illusion and a recognition of truth. Language gets tricky here because this is not at all like wining the lottery, not a grand prize or accomplishment that 'Craig' finally achieved and can now show off at his next high school reunion. No person, no character has seen through the illusion yet the illusion is seen and understood, grokked for what it is, a momentary appearance, that is in fact not separate from awareness at all.

Nice ;-)

I would say the illusion of the separate self is like having a dream that your best friend has stolen your car, killed your dog and is now living in your house. You wake from your dream and go about your day angry and vindictive, waiting for the opportunity to confront your friend in spite of all the evidence that points to the fallacy of your dream assumptions. You carry around with you, and replay, and elaborate on these dream images and you believe the images are you, and you persist in your illusion even after you return home from work and your dog greets you at the front door. You believe you are what you imagine yourself to be.

Thank you!

however there are consequences for our actions, and some of those consequences may involve standing in court before a judge and taking personal responsibility in a conventional sense. In other words, because there are consequences, this means that a so called 'separate self' can't hide behind a concept of 'no self' and escape responsibility.

Sure, when viewed from inside the ‘story’, if I steal your car, I will have to answer for it and will likely suffer the consequences. But in truth, which ‘separate self’ is there to escape or not escape ‘responsibility’?
Who or what has the ultimate doership of the theft? Is it personal? Is it Life stealing Life? Without the ‘personal’ adjective, without the separate self, what happens to the concept of responsibility?

This brings me to the question of decisions, choices etc. With no entity there to claim ownership and doership, how do choice and decisions happen? Can you look deeply into everyday apparent decisions, like choosing what to wear, what to eat, what to do, etc, and see how the process unfolds. What happens?
Look into your most immediate experience and let me know what you find.

Warm wishes,

Fred

[geiger]

Hi Fred,
you ask,

With no entity there to claim ownership and doership, how do choice and decisions happen? Can yo look deeply into everyday apparent decisions, like choosing what to wear, what to eat, what to do, etc, and see how the process unfolds. What happens?

The answer to this is clear and unequivocal; sitting in a chair suddenly I'm scratching my nose, the next moment I'm standing and heading toward the refrigerator, and the next moment I'm petting my dog, then I walk out the door to get some sun, then I remember the novel I'm reading and I go back into the house, but before get my book I remember a scene from an episode of Gilligan's Island that I watched in the summer of 1969, then an internal focusing occurs and a question arises, "who or what just decided to remember that?", then a spaciousness suddenly opens and my belly releases and I grab my iPod to record a quick voice note to Fred....
I can say without hesitation that at no point is there anyone doing any choosing or selecting among a list of options what to do next, and this includes that moment when the internal focus occurs with the question "who or what just decided to remember that?" All of this simply rolls on like a filmstrip, and no one is present to direct or choose what the next frame is going to show.

This brings me back to your question of responsibility. If no separate self is making decisions "here" then no separate selves are making decisions "over there". Judgements arise and words are spoken, and strong feelings course through the body, but there is no one behind any of it-this life is an unfathomable mystery, a dance. At this point questions of love and compassion and service appear. I don't have quick answers to those questions. Perhaps as Rilke says, I can only live them.

Love, Craig

[Freddi]

Hi Craig

Your answers leave me in no doubt that you are seeing through the illusion…
I would like to invite you to some LU groups where ideas are exchanged, help is offered, as a kind of aftercare, to work through the aspects of conditioning and residual thinking that may or may not reoccur after the ‘gate’.

Before that we have a list of summing-up questions that I would like you to look at. When you have answered and we are both happy with your answers, I will ask other guides to have a look to make sure we have covered all areas, that there is 100% clarity. Take your time with these questions, as usual, look into your most intimate and immediate experience to answer. Write as fully and honestly as you can.

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?

I look forward to your answers, Craig.
Love, Fred