requesting a guide

[Cazimi]

I have been on the path too long. Over thirty years ago I spent time with a teacher, in India and the US; in the 90s with Byron Katie and UG. I'd walk up to the lip of the canyon, but always turned away.

Student of Ramana for last four years. I have been holding the intention during that time "I am willing to let go of everything for the truth" and a lot has dropped away, and here I am. Have been practicing inquiry, know the drill, still hesitate to take what feels like 'the last step'. Ready to drop it, but keep holding on, hence, asking for a guide.

Thank you!

Richard

[nonaparry]

Hi Richard,

"I am willing to let go of everything for the truth"

Are you willing even to let go of the belief in a separate self? Many want to cross the gate, but wish to do it with a self firmly attached.

Have been practicing inquiry, know the drill,

Our "drill" may be a bit different from any drill you know. Are you willing to not-know the drill?

I'd walk up to the lip of the canyon, but always turned away.

Can you describe why? Is there fear?

with much love,
Nona

[Cazimi]

Thank you for responding, Nona.

I do want to let go of the belief in a separate self. I am very clear that crossing the gate with a self firmly attached is an impossibility.

When I said 'I know the drill' I meant that I have pursued looking at the looker for sometime. That said, I am stuck and am asking for assistance. No problem dropping my ideas about the 'drill' since they are not working :)

The feeling at the lip of the canyon is complicated to describe. It is experienced like cloudiness, like a squid shooting ink into the water; or like when the captured hero begins to wake up and Nurse Ratched delivers another dose of sedative to put him back to sleep. If I feel into it, there is kind of a primal terror there, fear plus, That is 'Nurse Ratched', my own fear.

For my entire time on the path I have been in a repetitive cycle of putting my toe into the water of presence and then pulling away. The cycle has been shifting - I would pull away and retreat back into my ideas for years, then for months, now maybe for a week, before dipping the toe back in. And I can watch the process to some degree, but there is still a very powerful resistance to just letting go, which I am unable to see through; the fear. The manifestation is always in behavior. I will 'waste time', fall into old patterns of behavior and story that are so habitual I almost don't notice that I am slipping away. Very much experiencing it these days as two steps forward and then two steps back, over and over.

[nonaparry]

Hi Richard,

Thank you for clarifying.

I would like us to look at the fear that has you pull away when you get too close to seeing the truth about "self".

What is the worst that could happen if you discovered you are not a self, do not have a self, and never had a self? What would it mean? How would life be different if this were true? Would you be unable to perform important functions?

Take your time, and be as honest as possible. You are safe here and now.

love
Nona

[Cazimi]

Hi, Nona, away we go...

What is the worst that could happen if you discovered you are not a self, do not have a self, and never had a self?

Well, the first thing that comes up is that I have wasted so much time; but then, I suppose I really didn't if there wasn't an 'I' to waste it. There is a really deep sadness, almost poignant, around losing my self, my story. And there is a real fear about not being in control, if there is no 'self' to control this. That feels like the source of the fear - the illusion of being in control of my life will be gone, and bad things can happen. So, the question - what is the worst that could happen - I'd be shamed, because it would be seen that Richard's careful creation of a persona was a sham; that is something I have always feared. And the result would be that no one would like 'me'. But if there wasn't a 'me', just a bunch of reactions to other people, filtered through what I wanted from them, and expected of them, then how bad is that - it seems completely irrelevant actually. And 'I' wouldn't be in control. It does feel that I have some control over this body, what it does, how it does it. That 'Richard' is real - a consistent picture to others and a consistent story to himself. But if I never had a self, then there never was a picture, just an idea of one, there never was anyone in control. So, discovering that I am not a self, and do not and never had one - actually feels very quiet, and quite a relief.

What would it mean?

It wouldn't mean anything. There wouldn't be a me to attach a meaning to it.

How would life be different if this were true?

Again, it would be so quiet. Like the kids going off to college and the house is empty and clean and still, and there is an awareness of a raft of things that were never noticed when the house was a chaotic, noisy mess.

Would you be unable to perform important functions?

Performing functions would be simpler. The functions wouldn't have meaning beyond themselves. Going to work would just be about doing a job, not about being in control, being seen as at 'the top of my game', etc., etc.. Oh, my what a simpler life it would be.

After writing this, I am having difficulty generating the fear in order to look at it. I have to believe in the idea of a 'me' for the fear to kick in. Feels like quite a chore at the moment. Some old, deep samskara about shame, or being seen, so I have to rev up the dog and pony show. But if there is nothing to be seen, and never was, well, I can send the dog and pony off to play.

Feeling empty, but still reflective - that little bit of 'me' hanging out, experienced as a contraction at the base of my skull. I will be considering these questions this evening.

Thank you, Nona, thanks for the safe space.

Richard

[nonaparry]

Hi Richard,

What is the worst that could happen if you discovered you are not a self, do not have a self, and never had a self?

There is a really deep sadness, almost poignant, around losing my self, my story.

How could you lose a self if you discovered you never were one, never had one in the first place? You cannot lose something you never had.
Suppose I extend my hands to you and, lying, say—here is a watermelon.
And I give you an imaginary watermelon.
You take the imaginary watermelon and “hold it”. Go ahead, do it. Hold the imaginary watermelon—huge—in between your hands. Now I ask you: what should you do to get rid of this watermelon in your hands?
Anything?
You can’t. There’s nothing there.
In exactly the same way, you can't lose the self. There actually is no self.

And there is a real fear about not being in control, if there is no 'self' to control this. That feels like the source of the fear - the illusion of being in control of my life will be gone, and bad things can happen.

Good. Let's LOOK at this fear, bring it out into the light.
To control is to "determine the behaviour or supervise the running of", so you are assuming that a self does this.
Either the self has control or it doesn't; self determines what happens or it doesn't. Control is an absolute concept, like "unique" or "pregnant"; self can't be partially in control any more than something can be partially pregnant or partially unique.
So let's Check it!
Are you in control? Do you determine what happens?
Right here right now, are you directing the beating of the heart, the pumping of blood, the expansion and contraction of the lungs, the picking up of oxygen by the blood and its transport to the cells? Are you determining the winning lottery numbers for tonight? Are you running what your neighbours are doing or determining what is going to happen today?
Or, in reality, is everything just happening by itself, without any need of a director, a determiner?
Does the heart just pump, blood just flow, lungs expand and contract, blood pick up oxygen and transport it, all without any interference from a "self"?
Do the winning numbers wait for you to choose them? Or do they simply show up when it's time?
Do the neighbours depend on your direction? Or is everything that is happening simply running on automatic, including your "choice" of what to wear today, what to eat, whether to walk or ride, and the myriad of other "choices" that appear to happen?

Here is an exercise for you. Sit quietly, and wait for something to happen.
Did it? Did something happen? Were you sitting quietly when something happened? Did a self show up to make the event happen? Or did something merely happen as part of the movement of Life?

what is the worst that could happen - I'd be shamed, because it would be seen that Richard's careful creation of a persona was a sham;

Really? A sham? Or just another Story, with a character "Richard" that moves through Life?

And the result would be that no one would like 'me'.

Ah, the quest for love, approval and appreciation!

But if there wasn't a 'me', just a bunch of reactions to other people, filtered through what I wanted from them, and expected of them, then how bad is that - it seems completely irrelevant actually. And 'I' wouldn't be in control.

Exactly. Very nicely put.

It does feel that I have some control over this body, what it does, how it does it.

"Some" control? Or actual control? Describe over what and how you have control.
When choices happen, do you take credit for them: "I chose that!" ?
Have you seen the interesting documentary in which scientists watching an MRI can "predict" which of two buttons a subject will press up to 6 seconds before the subject "makes the choice" himself?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Biv_8xjj8E

That 'Richard' is real - a consistent picture to others and a consistent story to himself.

Now that's an interesting one! Consistent? Really?
If we asked a dozen people, family, friends, co-workers, strangers, to describe Richard, would we receive one "consistent" story? Does Richard's story of himself not alter with time and memory? Has his picture of himself not changed since he was, say, 6 years old? In fact, is either Richard OR his story "consistent" at all?

But if I never had a self, then there never was a picture, just an idea of one, there never was anyone in control.

Yes, indeed. This is what I wish to explore with you.

So, discovering that I am not a self, and do not and never had one - actually feels very quiet, and quite a relief.

Yes! For one thing, we realise that in the three kinds of business, yours, mine and god's (or Life's) there is no "my" business.

How would life be different if this were true?

Again, it would be so quiet. Like the kids going off to college and the house is empty and clean and still, and there is an awareness of a raft of things that were never noticed when the house was a chaotic, noisy mess.

This is an interesting expectation.
Certainly some of the noise of believing in a controlling self abates; but conditioned thought and behaviour is habitual — it doesn't simply drop in an instant. It has momentum, so the patterns tend to persist, at least for a while. Of course, with no "self" to perpetuate them, the habits eventually dissipate.

Performing functions would be simpler. The functions wouldn't have meaning beyond themselves. Going to work would just be about doing a job, not about being in control, being seen as at 'the top of my game', etc., etc.. Oh, my what a simpler life it would be.

Yes; when the story "I need to be seen as at the top of my game" drops, and the story "I am in control" drops, the motives that support these stories also drop. Some people find they no longer desire to do the work previously engaged in; others find renewed energy for their work.

What other expectations do you have of seeing there is no self? How will you change? How will Life change?

After writing this, I am having difficulty generating the fear in order to look at it. I have to believe in the idea of a 'me' for the fear to kick in.

Good. And if the fear should reappear, I want you to say hello, invite it for a cup of tea, and ask it what message it has for you. Listen carefully to the message, and thank the fear for bringing it to you. Thoughts, including fear, are our children; let's treat them with care.

I continue to hold a safe space for you.
love
Nona

[Cazimi]

Thanks for the extensive response, Nona.

There actually is no self.

The watermelon analogy was perfect - I was reading this on my back deck and holding the imaginary watermelon in my hands. There actually is no self - that's it.

My stubborn refusal to just drop it pops up at these moments. The thinking voice pipes up, and I identify. This is my 'two steps back' thing. I won't bore you with the details, but this resistance arises. Very good to have the discipline of a daily response or I would have bolted tonight. And why is that? This is that place I come to. I would still articulate it as fear of loss of control, but the fear at the root seems pre-verbal, hard to nail down. I have read your post several times, and I recognize that everything is happening without me playing a role. And there is great relief/release in that seeing. But I feel like 'I' am looking in the window still. It's like an Escher print, I see it one way one minute, and then I see it the different way and I can't get back to the real view. All of these words just seem like the resistance, as opposed to being any kind of insight.

I still want something from other people, on that fear level. I can see that this is nobody reaching out to nobody, but I seem to have to internalize that. At the end of the post:

And if the fear should reappear, I want you to say hello, invite it for a cup of tea, and ask it what message it has for you. Listen carefully to the message, and thank the fear for bringing it to you. Thoughts, including fear, are our children; let's treat them with care.

So, that's where I am at. Rather than being led along blindly by the fear-child, saying hello and holding a space for it. When I ask for the message it has for me I just get something primal, something that desperately wants to be held and comforted, I suppose. He isn't yet down with 'There actually is no self.'

Appreciate the safe space, thank you

Richard

[nonaparry]

Dearest Richard,

The thinking voice pipes up, and I identify.

Of course!! Did you imagine that the thinking voice, the habitual commentary, would disappear? That the habit of "talking to your self" would drop because there is no self to talk to?
Did you read what I wrote about habit? I liken conditioned thoughts and behaviours to papier-maché: when papier-maché is applied to an inflated balloon and allowed to dry, it hardens into a shell. The balloon (belief in self) can be popped and removed, yet the hard shell (conditioning) remains. You can know there is no entity "self" that is responsible for doing, directing, controlling, observing, witnessing, yet the selfing-behaviours persist!
Well, duh. A lifetime of conditioning does not simply disintegrate; habit has a momentum! Habitual behaviours, such as talking to an imaginary "self" don't simply stop. BUT! Without a self as the core on which the shell is built, the whole structure begins to fall apart.
I had 58 years of conditioned thoughts and behaviours when I SAW the illusion. Some habits dropped soon; others have not yet dropped. And I have The Work to inquire into the leftover thoughts and behaviours, the "residue".

When we SEE through the illusion that we are or have a separate self, conditioned thoughts and behaviours still arise! When you see a Santa on the street at Christmastime, do you Believe that this is the character who lives at the North Pole and breaks into houses via the chimney to leave gifts? Or do you recognise that the guy on the street is portraying a fictional character, "Santa"? How about Tooth Fairy? Batman? Unicorn? Do these labels point to anything other than a fiction? "Self" is also a fictional character, but one which is constantly reinforced by our language, which insists "I" love, "you" love, "he/she" loves, "you (pl)" love, "we" love, "they" love, when in reality there is no one who loves; there is only love as part of the movement of Life. There is no one DO-ing love.

The "thinking voice" is never going to be down with "there actually is no self". Why? Because it is the thinking voice that is usually mistaken for a "self"; and it is self-protective.

Here at LU we urge inquirers to shift focus from thinking to sensation. We call the experience of sensation "direct experience". Direct experience is the experience of the senses prior to thoughts about it. The Uninterpreted Moment.
Sensation — seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching — is what is actually happening before thoughts arise to describe it.
You spent some time with Katie, you said; did you ever do the "Morning Walk" exercise? Labeling whatever came into view? If yes, then the coming-into-view is the sensation (of sight) and the label you apply to the object is thought. I want you to shift focus from your thoughts to sensation.
Why?
Because thought is what creates the illusion that you are or have a separate self in the first place. You can never SEE the illusion with the same thought that creates it.

Now this may feel dangerous, but I promise you are safe.
The thinking voice is certain that only by paying attention to it will you survive.
And it's right. Only by believing your thoughts will "you" as an apparent separate entity, survive. If you were to shift focus from thinking to sensation, you would become aware that the content of thoughts is imaginary — not findable in direct experience: there is no "you" that is in any way separate from the movement of Life. No "you" that controls, directs, observes, witnesses, intends. And because the thinking voice wants to remain powerful and in control of your beliefs and habits, it does not want you to SEE that the thinking voice is only a thought that arises, not an actual entity "self".

What do I mean by "the content of thoughts is imaginary"?
Think of a cup. Get a really good image of it. See its size, shape, volume, colour, decoration. Does it have a handle? When you see it clearly, answer this:
Can I pour real liquid into that cup? Can you drink from it?
No. It's imaginary. It's an image.
The content of every thought is an image; the thought itself is real — we can notice when we have a thought! — but the content of a thought cannot be apprehended by sensation: it is imaginary.
I invite you to check it! Select a thought, even one that purports to be about something "real". Is the thought the actual real thing? Or is it an image?

I promise you are safe here. If you SEE what I point to, you will not lose anything. "Me" is mind-made; it is a thought that points not to an actual entity but to other thoughts.
Check it! Right here right now, look around the room. Here are some labels that point to objects in reality: walls, ceiling, floor, furniture. When you read these labels, you can see and touch the objects they point to. (You could sniff and lick the objects, too, but it isn't necessary.) Now look around the room again. Here are some labels that don't point to objects in the room: I, me, self. Can you see, touch, sniff, lick an I, a me, a self?
What do these labels I, me, self point to? To other thoughts about self. To the thought "I did it" which gets attached after an event. To the thoughts that make up language with its subject/object structure.

Here is another exercise for you. You will need writing materials and 20 minutes.
For ten minutes, write everything that is happening around you using the words "I, me, my". Like this: I am typing on my laptop. I hear traffic noises. I am sitting in my chair with my feet up on my stool. …
At the end of ten minutes, switch to writing without the words "I, me, my". Like this: Typing on a laptop, hearing traffic noises, sitting in a chair, feet on a stool. …
How was that for you? What was different about writing the first way vs the second? Did one way feel true-er? Did the actual events alter because you failed to write "I"? Or did events simply happen, with or without writing "I"?

love
Nona

[Cazimi]

Thank you, Nona, for the impeccable guidance. Read this several times today, will reply and comment tomorrow.

All very gratefully acknowledged,

Richard

[nonaparry]

Thanks for letting me know, Richard. I look forward to your reply.

love
Nona

[Cazimi]

Did you imagine that the thinking voice, the habitual commentary, would disappear? That the habit of "talking to your self" would drop because there is no self to talk to?

Well, yes, actually, that was an idea. Ramana often spoke of cutting out the root thought; he usually spoke of it as "I am the body". If that foundation was destroyed the edifice would collapse. I kept thinking that it was an either/or - either I am Richard or there is just the Self. That idea has caused me a lot of grief; it kept me from just being with what was coming up. The selfing behaviors persisting is not the same as the self persisting - never saw that. It is easy for me to slip into some spiritual idea without looking at it because it is 'spiritual'. All ideas are ideas. End of story. And, thanks for the reminder about using the Work.

in reality there is no one who loves; there is only love as part of the movement of Life. There is no one DO-ing love.

Beautiful. No point in seeking approval, elbowing to the front of the line, being cloyingly charming, if the love just is. That pushes the reset button, for sure. A lot of habituated behavior in that bag.

The "thinking voice" is never going to be down with "there actually is no self". Why? Because it is the thinking voice that is usually mistaken for a "self"; and it is self-protective.

Yes, duh, did I really write that. Thank you for pointing out the glaringly obvious. Really important to stop giving the thinking voice a vote. It's always been difficult for me to listen with presence and love, but without compromise. That is a really deep pattern for me, enabling, co-dependent, blah blah. In an earlier post you said that thoughts are our children, listen to the message, treat them with care - but that doesn't mean let them drive the car and loot the bank account. Revelation for me.

Here at LU we urge inquirers to shift focus from thinking to sensation. We call the experience of sensation "direct experience".

Got it. Shift the focus from thoughts to sensation. That seems to be the natural result of dropping the idea of the self; it's always experienced as quiet mind, and everything else opening up. Allows just sitting anywhere to be really entertaining, no need for the usual distractions. The overall feeling is that it might just be okay to let it all go; a relaxing of that deep fear. Thank you.

The thinking voice is certain that only by paying attention to it will you survive.
And it's right.

Rereading all of this throughout the day is very useful. Especially when at work, there is a tendency to go on autopilot and slip back into an unreflexive identification as the thinking voice. What's really shifting is an awareness of the defensive movement of the t.v. right when it happens. I mentioned in earlier post about the two steps forward, two steps back. A more accurate description is nodding off during meditation. 'I' am still nodding off, but the I-am-ing is being caught much more quickly. Again, your advice to listen to the message, that thoughts are children - being gentle with my 'self' is very helpful in making the reactive t.v. so much less compelling.

If you SEE what I point to, you will not lose anything. "Me" is mind-made; it is a thought that points not to an actual entity but to other thoughts.

Yes. This is being seen; the fear still comes in waves, but the waves don't cover the whole beach anymore.

Doing the exercise was very good. When 'I' 'me' 'mine' is taken out of the equation there is so much more of a flow. Makes it so clear how identification is a powerful resistance to what is, and really narrows what can be experienced and seen. Thanks!

There was a realization on Wednesday evening that I have never really wanted to go through the Gate; I just wanted everyone to think I did. That dawning awareness that there is no me, no them and no gate - that is always experienced as such a relief.

I really appreciate this space, Nona. Thank you so much!

Love,

Richard

[nonaparry]

Dear Richard,

This is wonderful to read! Very nice work you are doing!

"thoughts are our children, listen to the message, treat them with care - but that doesn't mean let them drive the car and loot the bank account" — this is hilarious! I'm going to nick that last bit!

I have never really wanted to go through the Gate; I just wanted everyone to think I did.

Oh yes. And the hilarious thing is the "I" is what cannot go through.

That dawning awareness that there is no me, no them and no gate - that is always experienced as such a relief.

Good! Now look past the "awareness" to the experiential facts. In direct experience, in the uninterpreted moment, in sensation-prior-to-thought, which is all we can be sure we know — is there any me, them, or gate? Was there ever?

love
Nona

[Cazimi]

Thanks as always for your reply. I have been having trouble sleeping the last five or six nights, which leaves my mind foggy during the day. I can feel an old tension in the back of my neck. I have my terror thing coming up, which is in my stomach; hence, I feel, the difficulty sleeping. When I look at who is having these feelings, or, more accurately, when I look at who is determined to be at the effect of them, I have been hitting a wall. Some pretty deep resistance to letting go of the belief in authorship. The terror feels like a dam of a lifetime of unexamined stories about my life about to break, and there is a tremendously powerful urge not to go there, that if that dam breaks 'I' will be swept away, lost. As I write this that is, of course, seen as happening to no one - and then 'I' come right back. Is this an intentional thing on my part? I really do want to be free of this ignorance. Am I not seeing something really simple about how I hold on to Richard? AlternatelyI feel really close to some big 'pop', and completely in the soup. The difference between now and when I began working with you is that I don't believe 'Richard' for a moment, and yet I am still holding on.

Thank you very much, Nona, for your care and time.

Love,

Richard

[nonaparry]

Hi Richard,

When I look at who is having these feelings, or, more accurately, when I look at who is determined to be at the effect of them, I have been hitting a wall.

Well of course you're hitting a wall looking for a "who" is having these feelings or is determined. I've been pointing to the fact that there is no entity "who" has feelings or is determined at all! What would happen if you instead looked for what is having these feelings, what is determined?

I have my terror thing coming up
The terror feels like a dam of a lifetime of unexamined stories about my life about to break, and there is a tremendously powerful urge not to go there, that if that dam breaks 'I' will be swept away, lost.

Well yes, the unexamined stories are still here for your examination; whether you question them or deny them is yet to be seen.
What exactly will be lost if you examine the life-stories? How will Life be altered, different, with no "you"? Is there a "you" living Life right here right now? If yes, where is it? How does it operate?
Does a "self" show up, push Richard out of the way, and decide to examine life stories or not? What does a "self" look like? Is it bigger than a breadbox? Does it have identifying characteristics? What are its functions? Where did you last see it?
I ask these questions seriously, as provocation. It's safe here; nothing will happen to a "self" here — there is no such thing as a "self".

As I write this that is, of course, seen as happening to no one - and then 'I' come right back.

An actual entity "I" comes back? Or conditioned "I"-thoughts arise that you mistake for an "I"?
An actual entity "I" showing up will negate everything I've pointed to; a conditioned thought arising yet again will not. Did you imagine that habitual "I"-thoughts, would no longer arise? Have you any control at all over which thoughts arise and which do not? Can you stop a thought in the middle when it's unwanted? How will you know when you've seen through the illusion that you are or have a separate self?

Am I not seeing something really simple about how I hold on to Richard?

Yes. Body and sensations appear, habitual thoughts and behaviours show up. None of these is a "self" at all. You can't find a self, have never seen one, heard one, touched one. How simple is that?

I don't believe 'Richard' for a moment, and yet I am still holding on.

What is the payoff, what do you "get" for holding on to the belief that Richard is or has a separate "self" that is in control of a personal slice of Life?

love,
Nona

[nonaparry]

Dearest Richard,

It's been a long time. Are you still Looking?

love
Nona