Lingering Doubts

[Artst]

Hi, Zechs,

if anything let's be even more brusque: I really like the word but I rarely get to use it, so I very much appreciate having the opportunity to do so now.

haha! Perfect!

When I look to where I expect to find the emotion, there's nothing but physical sensation, but before I look, it's obvious that the emotion is 'there'. Afterward, it no longer seems to be anywhere, although it doesn't exactly go away because of that.

Interesting, eh?

Nada.

Great!

Thoughts are a reflex.

Beware of throwing in any info beyond DE; do 'you' literally observe that thought is a reflex or just find nothing causing it?

Zechs, can you say with a big fat yes that there is no I?

Sending love,

Robyn

[Zechs]

Hey Robyn,

Interesting, eh?

Yeah. I can see a clear analogy here between emotions and the self. Both are made up of thoughts - stories - about someone who's having these emotions or experiencing experiences. There is no concrete entity 'emotion' or 'self' to be discovered in direct experience. This is just a thought though; I can't say with confidence that the self does not exist.

Beware of throwing in any info beyond DE; do 'you' literally observe that thought is a reflex or just find nothing causing it?

Ah, yeah. I don't find a cause of thought in immediate experience, so I can't say I know what the mechanism is underlying thoughts, or even if there is such a thing.

Zechs, can you say with a big fat yes that there is no I?

I can't! D:

I can definitely say I'm agnostic regarding the existence of the "I". Whatever I was taking for granted to be or mean "I", "me" or "mine" were actually just sensations in the head and chest, and trains of thought and movement, accompanied by the thought of these labels. I don't find the source of the belief in the existence of the "I" in direct experience. However, the source of the belief in the existence of the "I" that is supposed to be found in direct experience is the definition of the "I". Logically, I can conclude that the "I" does not exist. This is a very small thin yes.

There is the thought of the character called Zechs. Thoughts come up that imagine what he might be thinking right now, or what he might say or how he might feel in different situations. There's a sympathy for whatever it is he's supposed to be going through, based on the storyline that's running at the time, in the same way in which I can sometimes feel very strongly for a character in a TV show based on the circumstances of their imaginary life. In the case of Zechs' story, this can really hurt, to the point that I believe the character must be real, otherwise why would it be so painful? Stories don't need to be about real people in order for me to feel real pain and sadness. There doesn't seem to be a reason why a story about Zechs would need for Zechs to exist in order for it to be possible to feel compassion for any suffering he might experience. Maybe Zechs doesn't exist. His story keeps going.

Before I learnt who I was, what did I think was happening when my parents spoke to me by name? My mom taught me how to read by pointing to the words on the page as she spoke them. I learnt how some of the words themselves pointed to or described the pictures that were also there. When I would put my hand up in class, I couldn't speak until the teacher pointed to me and said the word that is my name, the word that points to "me". I know that when the teacher would point to me, she knew where I was because she could see the same body that I see whenever I look into the mirror. Like my mom pointing to the word that pointed to the picture, I look at myself in the mirror and think "me". This is all learnt behaviour. There was once a child with a way of looking that was innocent of all this information. Perhaps he looked in the mirror without any label for what was being seen, and instead simply saw. Behind everything that I've learnt, this way of looking is still there. The Zechs show isn't over. Zechs isn't somewhere in the back of my mind, looking over my shoulder with me at his life and whispering director's commentary in my ear. He isn't real. The character Zechs does not exist. This is a medium average yes.

<3

Zechs, or maybe- nobodyyyy! oooOoooOOOoo ~

[Artst]

HI, Zechs,

I totally appreciate your candor!

This is just a thought though; I can't say with confidence that the self does not exist.

Does the fact that reporting about a direct experience involves thought negate the direct experience?

However, the source of the belief in the existence of the "I" that is supposed to be found in direct experience is the definition of the "I".

What do beliefs consist of?

In the case of Zechs' story, this can really hurt, to the point that I believe the character must be real, otherwise why would it be so painful?

This is great, Zechs, So, is it evidence for the existence of "I" that there are story thoughts and pain?

Before I learnt who I was, what did I think was happening when my parents spoke to me by name? My mom taught me how to read by pointing to the words on the page as she spoke them. I learnt how some of the words themselves pointed to or described the pictures that were also there. When I would put my hand up in class, I couldn't speak until the teacher pointed to me and said the word that is my name, the word that points to "me". I know that when the teacher would point to me, she knew where I was because she could see the same body that I see whenever I look into the mirror. Like my mom pointing to the word that pointed to the picture, I look at myself in the mirror and think "me". This is all learnt behaviour. There was once a child with a way of looking that was innocent of all this information. Perhaps he looked in the mirror without any label for what was being seen, and instead simply saw. Behind everything that I've learnt, this way of looking is still there.

Briliant. Yes!

The Zechs show isn't over. Zechs isn't somewhere in the back of my mind, looking over my shoulder with me at his life and whispering director's commentary in my ear. He isn't real. The character Zechs does not exist. This is a medium average yes.

Hahaha. Well said.

What is the last holdout in acknowledging that there is no I in reality?

Sending love,

Robyn

[Zechs]

Hey Robyn,

I totally appreciate your candor!

:D "I" inhale your compliments like vapour from a permanent marker.

Does the fact that reporting about a direct experience involves thought negate the direct experience?

No. What I meant was the report about direct experience I was making had only to do with what gets called 'emotion' in everyday experience. The extension of what was seen in that experience to what gets called the 'self' was only in terms of an analogy that occurred in thought. I did not mean to indicate that I thought in that moment that I had seen the non-existence of the "I" in direct experience.

What do beliefs consist of?

I was going to say "Thoughts," but I thought I should test this out first to really see what I mean by the word 'belief'. Beliefs have to do with anything not in direct experience right now. For example, there's a belief that on the other side of the window in this room, which I can just see the edge of in my peripheral vision, there is the outdoors. I imagine the other houses in the neighbourhood, the street I live on and some nearby trees. I remember that there's still snow on the grass despite the time of year and that it snowed while I was walking last night.

These reminiscences are all composed of thoughts and mental images.

The confidence that I have in their accuracy is an emotion. There isn't any kind of body sensation that in this context would likely be accompanied by a thought of wrongness. There's a story about my being able to go look out my window and see everything I've described thus far actually being there in direct experience. I imagine that, in the story where I look outside and almost nothing matches my description, that the character that I'm imagining is surprised by this turn of events.

A little more subtle than that example is my belief in the rest of the room behind me, or the back of my laptop screen here in front. I can infer to the existence of the rest of the room from the fact that the room temperature doesn't indicate that the wall behind me has disappeared, but I only believe that my dresser is still there because I imagine it to be so. I don't know that it's there until I turn to look. I can only imagine the condition of the back of my laptop screen unless I close the computer and see what it's like right now, at which point, while looking at it, the thought that it's known that it's there and what it looks like is true.

So, is it evidence for the existence of "I" that there are story thoughts and pain?

The thought of there being the experience of suffering on behalf of the character called "I" without the existence of that character in reality is difficult to comprehend. Otherwise, no.

What is the last holdout in acknowledging that there is no I in reality?

I can see that, if I'm not "me", then there shouldn't be a problem with seeing that "me" is just a character in a story that the mind has thought up to help make sense of its place in the world. This gets confused with the mind trying to incorporate new information about its experience into "my" story.

The problem is when it comes to trying to get "me" to acknowledge that "I" don't exist. As far as paradoxes go, does that make sense?

"I" can say with certainty that Zechs doesn't exist, but before there was Zechs, there was "me". In "my" story, "I" exist. "I" am right here. When I look in the mirror, there "I" am. If we were face to face, "you" would see "me" and "I" would see "you", as clearly as "I" see "my" hands typing and words coming up on the screen right now. "I" don't need to see "me" or feel "me" to know that "I" exist, because "I" am. Anything that comes up that seems to contradict this narrative eventually gets treated with a lot of fear and hostility. It starts to feel as though someone's trying to take away my livelihood, my home, my birthright. What "I" want is useful information, the kind of stuff I can use to impress people and make "my" place in the world more and more secure. When I read "there is no I in reality", the last holdout isn't really a reaction to the threat of total destabilisation that "I" can make it out to be. It's a feeling, akin to a sort of distastefulness, accompanied by the thought that, to "me", this information is worthless - it won't get "me" anything. Trying to get "me" to admit that "I" am not real is like trying to get a snake to swallow itself. At some point, the jaw would have to unhook so it could wrap around the rest of its skull. It's impossible. It's a paradox. It can't be done. I don't know how to get "me" to acknowledge something that doesn't serve "my" agenda, which means the emotion doesn't come up that makes sense in the story where "I" learn something that contradicts a formerly held belief. Even if I could, I doubt I would trust "my" answer.

<3

Zechs

[Artst]

Hi, Zechs,

:D "I" inhale your compliments like vapour from a permanent marker.

Cute. :-)

I did not mean to indicate that I thought in that moment that I had seen the non-existence of the "I" in direct experience.

Got it.

I was going to say "Thoughts," but I thought I should test this out first to really see what I mean by the word 'belief'.

Ok, nice exercise.

These reminiscences are all composed of thoughts and mental images.

Are mental images not a type of thought?

The confidence that I have in their accuracy is an emotion.

Look again. Emotions are things like sadness, anger, fear... I'm sending an exercise on thought at the bottom of this message.

The thought of there being the experience of suffering on behalf of the character called "I" without the existence of that character in reality is difficult to comprehend. Otherwise, no.
The problem is when it comes to trying to get "me" to acknowledge that "I" don't exist. As far as paradoxes go, does that make sense?

Is there an expectation that, when the illusion of "I" is seen through, thoughts of "I" and thoughts of beliefs about "I" will go away?

__________

Here's the exercise:
Sit quietly for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear. Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and just notice how they appear, without you doing anything at all.

Where are they coming from and going to? 

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?
Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?
Can you predict your next thought?

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts? 
Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?
Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? 

It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organized sequence? Or is that just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that ‘one thought follows another thought’?

Look carefully when doing this exercise and do it several times if necessary. Please answer each question individually.
_________________

Sending love,

Robyn

[Zechs]

Are mental images not a type of thought?

Yes. From now on I'll use 'thought' to refer both to discursive thoughts and mental images, instead of just the former.

Look again. Emotions are things like sadness, anger, fear...

Okay. I see this. What I was calling the emotion 'confidence' was in fact a story about the lack of surprise I imagined I would 'feel' were I to look out the window and see what I believed would be there. I think surprise is an emotion. Lack of surprise is not an emotion.

Is there an expectation that, when the illusion of "I" is seen through, thoughts of "I" and thoughts of beliefs about "I" will go away?

Maybe. I believe that there is a mechanism underlying thought, which will be influenced by the direct experience of not finding the "I" such that subsequent thoughts of "I" will be about a character who is aware of its own non-existence. There is an expectation that thoughts of "I" will change to reflect this experience. It may be that I expect my emotional reaction to seeing those thoughts to change because there will no longer be a story about "I"-thoughts being right or wrong. The latter might actually be equivalent to the expectation you've described.

Sit quietly for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear. Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and just notice how they appear, without you doing anything at all.

Okay. Here it goes!

Where are they coming from and going to?

The sound of a bird singing comes from wherever the bird is singing and goes to where my ears are. If there was a thought of birdsong, it did not come from the bird and it did not go to my eardrum. Nor is there seen or felt to be a medium along which thoughts travel, unlike how sound waves propagate through the air, for example.

Thoughts do not come from anywhere and they do not go anywhere.

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?

No. Although thoughts appear to respond to or have to do with what's going on in direct experience, whether or not a thought will come up based on any particular aspect of what's happening right now has nothing to do with me.

Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?

No, by the time the thought "I" has come up, the moment in which another thought could have been there before it has already passed.

Can you predict your next thought?

Haha, no. I don't know exactly what thought will follow after this one. It happens sometimes that something happens that causes me to check in with the story about how I think I'm supposed to react to that something in order for me to know what feelings I should have, which is weird because before that moment there's just the phenomenon, and somehow "I" am this performance that is contrived well after the fact.

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?

Not really. Certainly not without the thought of 'have only pleasant thoughts' coming up in advance without my being able to directly will it to be there. If I feel down, the thought might come up to look at something pleasant, and then I might remember something pleasant I can look at, but whether or not the thought that labels the feeling of being down ever comes up is in no way guaranteed by me.

Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?

No. That much is all too clear.

Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

No. The kind of thoughts that "I" can pick to arise now depend in some way upon the kind of thoughts that "I" have come up with before. After the "I"-thought, there's a sensation in the forehead and then another thought of a memory of a previous thought, and then a similar sort of thought to the one in the memory. That the thought that was similar to the one in the memory came up appears to have been conditioned by there having been a thought of that memory before it. When you told me to move my arm for the previous exercise, I read your words, then felt my arm moving. These discrete moments of thinking, seeing and feeling do not appear to cause each other directly, but they follow one another with sufficient regularity that I think to claim that there is no underlying causality or conditioning to any of it would be foolhardy.

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?

No. They just happen.

It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organized sequence? Or is that just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that ‘one thought follows another thought’?

Each new thought is seen to just appear on its own, without any previous thought causing it to do so. The impression of there being a relation between one thought and another is itself another thought. It isn't known what the relation is between one thought and the next, or if there even is one. I don't know how or if I could ever know one way or another, since I think that this is tantamount to perceiving one's own mind, which isn't possible. However, knowing as much seems necessary in order to conclude whether or not there is a self. After all, what am "I" other than that which makes thoughts and actions occur, even if I cannot perceive myself directly?

<3

Zechs

[Zechs]

After all, what am "I" other than that which makes thoughts and actions occur, even if I cannot perceive myself directly?

This was supposed to be a 'gotcha' for you, Robyn, but it really isn't right. "I" is a label. Nothing corresponds to it in direct experience. If something cannot be perceived in direct experience, it cannot be known. If it can be perceived in direct experience, it cannot be me. Nothing is seen in direct experience to be causing this body to move or this mind to think. The mechanism by which thoughts and actions are made to occur with the mind and body is just that. The wind blows, a cloud moves, the sunlight shines more brightly. No one makes this happen. It happens by itself. The fingers move across the keyboard to type these words just so without anyone telling them where to go.

The problem with calling it a mechanism is the connotation of physics and robots. Billiard balls bouncing around to create clockwork contraptions that comprehend counterpoint. Not too shabby, but far less than human. When someone figures out how it works, what happens next will look to us like miracles. But then what must the Amazonians have thought of airplanes?

Whence the hypothesis of a creator God but a drawn out analogy with human technology? Whence therefore the self?

The impulse is to match like with like. A voice is the sound of someone speaking in words. Thoughts that appear as words must be made by a speaking something, which could only be a someone, or so the thought goes. Sufficiently complex technology is indistinguishable from magic. Sufficiently complex processes arising entirely through and as living nature are indistinguishable from humans. There's no moment when the light from the sun that causes the plants to grow separates itself from that which gives rise to every lifeform on earth, including ourselves. Whether reality is meaningful or not in the story of an individual person does not change its being what it is, which is.

Call it mind or God or self or Zechs or me or my or I, it cannot be seen and it is not personal. By personal, I mean something that would correspond to the narrative 'being as or like a person', someone I could love or hate or help or blame or owe a debt to or hold a grudge against. The little man who I thought lived inside my head would have been personal. That which I imagine as living out the story of my life is a made-up character who gets called by my name. It's like a movie happening right in front of me whose main character I happen to identify way too closely with for any suffering they go through to make for a comfortable viewing experience. As long as I can remember I've been watching "my" life, to the point where nearly every situation is interpreted according to what I know of "myself". How would "I" react to hearing this? What am "I" supposed to feel when writing these words? It's all imaginary; it all gets made up after the fact and taken for granted in place of the truth of the direct experience it's meant to represent. How could I blame the clouds right now for covering up the sun? How can I blame a story for drawing me into its world? There's nothing to atone for because there's no one at fault. Whatever happens happens because that's how it is. "I" might find this scary were the thought to come up of what might happen in case something goes wrong but the fear doesn't need "me" to make it be there or to make it go away.

Things just happen and that's okay.
How could they happen any other way?
All you have to do is look and see
That it all happens without "me".

<3

[Artst]

Hi, Zechs,

"I" is a label. Nothing corresponds to it in direct experience. If something cannot be perceived in direct experience, it cannot be known. If it can be perceived in direct experience, it cannot be me. Nothing is seen in direct experience to be causing this body to move or this mind to think. The mechanism by which thoughts and actions are made to occur with the mind and body is just that. The wind blows, a cloud moves, the sunlight shines more brightly. No one makes this happen. It happens by itself. The fingers move across the keyboard to type these words just so without anyone telling them where to go.

Wow! Yes!

Whether reality is meaningful or not in the story of an individual person does not change its being what it is, which is.

Call it mind or God or self or Zechs or me or my or I, it cannot be seen and it is not personal.

The little man who I thought lived inside my head would have been personal. That which I imagine as living out the story of my life is a made-up character who gets called by my name.

There's nothing to atone for because there's no one at fault. Whatever happens happens because that's how it is.

Things just happen and that's okay.
How could they happen any other way?
All you have to do is look and see
That it all happens without "me".

Beautiful!

Zechs, I'm sending you the Bahia Sutra. I suggest reading it and let all this sink in and 'gel."

Then, will 'you' please write back tomorrow and give me an update on how things are?

Bahiya Sutra:

In the seen, there is only the seen,
in the heard, there is only the heard,
in the sensed, there is only the sensed,
in the cognized, there is only the cognized.
Thus you should see that
indeed there is no thing here;
this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself.
Since, Bahiya, there is for you
in the seen, only the seen,
in the heard, only the heard,
in the sensed, only the sensed,
in the cognized, only the cognized,
and you see that there is no thing here,
you will therefore see that
indeed there is no thing there.
As you see that there is no thing there,
you will see that
you are therefore located neither in the world of this,
nor in the world of that,
nor in any place
betwixt the two.
This alone is the end of suffering.

Sending love,

Robyn

[Zechs]

Hey Robyn,

Zechs, I'm sending you the Bahia Sutra. I suggest reading it and let all this sink in and 'gel."

Thanks for that. It was good to have in mind and inspired me to thoroughly look for and then through the remaining holdouts of a self view. The advice to Bahiya that this way of seeing was 'how he should train himself' was useful when repeating the moving arm exercise. I found it easier to separate out any stories about what was going on from the feeling of the arm moving in reality. There was less of a hang up over whether it 'felt like' I was making the movement occur, which allowed me to look directly at what was happening in order to see the exact moment where I was becoming confused.

When we first started, Robyn, I thought the problem was about finding the answer to a particular question, like this was a test and whether or not I knew the right response to give would somehow reflect goodly or poorly upon "me". Whereas placing the emphasis on training made it more about seeing what was happening, while holding a certain understanding in mind - "in the seen, there is only the seen" -, in order to discern whether that understanding was true or not.

Then, will 'you' please write back tomorrow and give me an update on how things are?

Some funny stuff happened today. First, to give a sense of how things were after I wrote my last post, I went for a walk for a couple of hours that night that went much more quickly in my perception than any walk I've taken in recent years. There can sometimes be a grueling sense of duration when I go for a walk where I'm so much inside my head that even just the first block feels like it takes an eternity. I won't really start to relax and ease out into the world until I'm almost home again, if at all. This time, I was remarking to myself over and over again how it seemed like no time at all had passed between where I found myself in that moment and when I started walking. Overall, there was this sense of 'just walking' without being caught up in mental struggle. Especially near the end, far more than any other occasion, I was just walking and looking at trees and grass and plants and streetlights and pavement stones without any especial concern or preference for what I was seeing. Nothing stood out per se or grabbed my attention. Everything was what it was where it was as it was and it was all good.

This afternoon, I thought it still hadn't been resolved whether or not or why I felt like "I" could control certain movements of this body. Like I said, I repeated the exercise of just moving the arm and seeing how that felt. There were two things that came together that made me realize "I" wasn't in control. The first was how the 'belief' I kept repeating to myself about being able to cause this movement took the exact same form as the one I'd thought up before about what I expected to find were I to look outside my window. There was a story that played out in the form of a mental movie, ie. thought, where I could see the arm begin to move, along with the thought being there that "I" was the one doing the movement. It became completely clear that that movie was not causing the arm to move, nor did its content necessarily reflect the truth behind what was happening. The second was the experience earlier on of thinking "I" and looking up toward the forehead and feeling in behind and around the eyes at the tension present there with the expectation of finding a "me" within. A few weeks ago, I had tried visualizing myself going in behind my eyes as though I was looking at the feed of a little camera floating through the inside of my head. When I came to where I thought "I" would be, I quite literally saw this little man standing there between the folds of my brain who quickly ran away when he saw me looking at him. Back then it seemed silly, but it turns out it was actually hilarious.

What happened was, when it 'felt like' this was a time when "I" would or could move my arm, the mental movie played of "me" moving it, and I could feel where in my arm it was thought the movement would be initiated from. It was thought that "I" would go or be in this place where the movement was going to start from, where I expected to first feel it begin to move. I was looking there, waiting for the sensation to come up that I expected to find when "I" caused the movement, just like I would look at my forehead, waiting for the sensation of body tension or the thought to come up that I expected to find when I looked for "me". I imagined the little man running from where he lived in my head, running to this place in my arm, where he would then push a lever or flick a switch causing my arm move. When I saw that I burst out laughing. I wasn't expecting that kind of reaction at all and I was completely overcome by it. For no apparent reason, I just started laughing like crazy.

Later on, when it felt like I could make or control certain thoughts, I looked and again imagined the little guy being there in the back of my mind, pulling a handle or pushing a lever that caused thoughts to come up and this time I absolutely lost it. I was laughing like a nutso freakazoid falling over and doubling up and almost sliding off the couch in the middle of watching TV. I have no idea what came over me but I think I now know why they call it the cosmic joke.

To test what had happened, I imagined a couple of what I think of as the biggest problems in my life. There were no longer the same menacing overtones that seem to perpetually lurk around these issues for me. When feelings of fear and doubt came up about whether or not this realization was really 'it' or what might happen if I were wrong, there wasn't anything behind those feelings to be protected or convinced. I kept feeling and looking around and nothing stuck out that was "me". There was just the room and the couch and the body and thoughts and feelings coming and going. There's a lyric in an Eminem song where he goes, "'Cause it feels so empty without me," which keeps playing in my mind and making me laugh and smile because it seems to mean something completely different now than it did before.

:D <3

Zechs

[Artst]

Zechs,

WOW!

Congratulations and thank you for the delightful sharing. You had me laughing right along with you! And tearing up.

The lyrics to the song from My Fair Lady suddenly popped in! Eliza, the student of correct English is singing "The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain" in perfectly pronounced English and the professor is singing in reply, "She's got it! By George, I think she's got it!" (This is an ancient musical -- probably lost on you, but it was fun for me! ;=))

Zechs, this seems redundant, but are there any questions or concerns left for you around the non-existence of a separate I?

If not, there are some final questions I will send you. I'll ask another guide or two to look them over and see if they think I've missed anything with you. Are you ready for them?

Sending love,

Robyn

[Zechs]

Robyn,

Congratulations and thank you for the delightful sharing. You had me laughing right along with you! And tearing up.

Aww! I'm glad you enjoyed it. This has meant a lot to me. Thank you for staying with me through the rough patches. I'm grateful for the dedication and kindness you showed me throughout this adventure.

(This is an ancient musical -- probably lost on you, but it was fun for me! ;=))

Haha, that was actually the first musical production that I saw put on by my high school's drama club. My best friend and I crashed their cast party that night and we had a blast.

Zechs, this seems redundant, but are there any questions or concerns left for you around the non-existence of a separate I?

I wonder - what happens next?

Something that came up last night while writing my last post was how perfectly reasonable it sometimes seems to my mind to think that there's someone in my head pulling all the strings. It's like imagining there's someone hiding behind a street corner and believing in the story where I'm going to look around and see them, while at the same time knowing that in reality no one is there. It's bizarre how the mental movie of what I apparently believe can seem entirely consistent with 'reality' despite knowing that it's false.

While falling asleep, there were some moments of mental struggle where it felt like I was supposed to do something to stop what was happening which transformed on their own into spaciousness and ease - do these moments of delusion ever go away entirely? It's funny because I don't see it as a problem if they don't; I'm just curious!

If not, there are some final questions I will send you. I'll ask another guide or two to look them over and see if they think I've missed anything with you. Are you ready for them?

It's the final round? Alright, let's go!

With love and heartfelt appreciation for your patience and commitment to guiding me to see thus far,

Zechs

[Zechs]

Where the devil are my slippers!?

[Artst]

Are you sure this message was meant for me? Hahahaha!!

I’ll send you the questions later today.

Love,

Robyn

[Artst]

Hi, Zechs,

that was actually the first musical production that I saw put on by my high school's drama club.

go figure...

Here are the questions:

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.

After other guides look over your answers and any points of unclarity resolved, you will be added to a couple of private Facebook groups, one of which is called LU Aftercare, which is a sharing site for people who have gated.

Enjoy!

Sending love!

Robyn

[Zechs]

Hey Robyn,

Are you sure this message was meant for me? Hahahaha!!

Aha, yeah it's the last line from the musical.

Here are my responses to 1) and 4); I'll finish the rest tomorrow.

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

This question is sort of funny. I feel like you're asking me if there is or ever was a little demon hiding behind my computer.

No, there is no separate self, "I", "me", subject, observer or controller of experience, of any kind, existing anywhere within or beyond the direct experience of what is being seen, felt, heard, tasted, smelled and thought right now. Nor was there ever such an entity that is somehow now gone because of something that happened while seeing.

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

It all came together very gradually, piece by piece, but the last piece in the puzzle was definitely thinking "I" was in control of the movement of my arm, then feeling in my arm to where I thought the movement would start from and imagining a little man running from somewhere inside my head out to that place and pressing a lever that was going to cause my arm to move. I don't know why I found that so hilarious, but I immediately went wild with laughter. It was like I finally saw for myself the form that belief in a separate self would have to take in reality in order to make sense of what I thought it meant for "me" to be in control of my actions.

The most important thing was that that seeing was based on following the actual sequence of thoughts and sensations that were occurring in that moment, rather than getting caught up in or indulging any sort of storyline about what would or should be happening.

If I could risk speculating as to why I started to laugh as if for no reason, I don't think at that moment that "I" saw anything, in the sense of there being any kind of story about what was going on. It was more like the being, or Being, which has amongst countless other things also taken the form of existence of this mind and body, saw something completely absurd appear under the guise of 'truth' and couldn't help but go crazy with delight at having told itself such a silly story. In all honesty though I have no idea why I found it so funny, because there was definitely no story coming up at that time about why "I" would react that way. Nor do I really think that the processes underlying my behaviour can be explained through reference to the humanist experience of some divine monist lifeforce. I just enjoy imagining things in this sort of way.

<3

Zechs