Requesting guidance

[Treelife]

Hi Jon,

Please forgive me if I cut to the chase and don't reply at length.

At this stage that really works for me!

stop doing that. Look without preconceptions about how it should be experienced.

Got it.

At some stage it becomes clear enough to say that there isn't a shadow of doubt that self is an illusion and not a real entity somewhere.

Ok. It is certainly clearer since last entry. Not much of a shadow.

You have to answer this.

I know.

I'd say, don't expect to address these oscillations through an inquiry into 'self'. It may be possible to look at these oscillations as they appear and disappear and to become clearer that these do not impact on the reality of no self.

Got it, just inquire into the moment as it arises - that is good with me.

seeing that 'self' is not a real entity, separate from experience, possibly living in the body, possibly as awareness or in some other disguise which maintains a notion of separate 'me-hood'.

Arises as an idea (in a story), known to be an idea, that is known to be false; shallow albeit useful, it is not believed!! That is where it is at when it arises this weekend.

Again thanks
Mic

[JonathanR]

Hi Mic

seeing that 'self' is not a real entity, separate from experience, possibly living in the body, possibly as awareness or in some other disguise which maintains a notion of separate 'me-hood'.
Arises as an idea (in a story), known to be an idea, that is known to be false; shallow albeit useful, it is not believed!! That is where it is at when it arises this weekend.

Good.

Now, are there not likely to be times when, for one reason or another, perhaps illness or some anxiety or excitement over money or relationship or whatever, thoughts about 'me' 'suffering' or 'me' 'in difficulty' will become prevalent?

Thoughts can get noisy and persuasive and then it seems perfectly possible to start believing the stuff about 'me suffering', for a while. But does any of this change what is increasingly seen? That there is, in reality, no self?

Will it be possible to prevent the re-seeing that there is no self, now that it is seen?

It's like a balloon. Once it is seen that the balloon was only ever imagined to be real, even though the idea of one can appear many times and even be mistaken for something real temporarily, its as if all the air in it has gone, or it has been popped, because how could there have been 'air' in an imagined balloon in the first place? :-)


Jon

[Treelife]

Thanks Jon,

Now, are there not likely to be times when,....thoughts about 'me' 'suffering' or 'me' 'in difficulty' will become prevalent?

Suffering or no suffering, difficulty or no difficulty, there are still times when thoughts about self become prevalent. They do tend to be less intense than I remember them to be. The story of Mic is not gone, it is just not believed to be true. The anx of daily grind can still arise, but underneath that is a core belief that everything is fine; that 'none of this matters', or even 'none of this is real'. It takes the sting out of problems.

Thoughts can get noisy and persuasive and then it seems perfectly possible to start believing the stuff about 'me suffering', for a while.

Ok, ye for a while yes. Ye I guess I do also hand problem solving over to the narrative self from time to time.

But does any of this change what is increasingly seen? That there is, in reality, no self? Will it be possible to prevent the re-seeing that there is no self, now that it is seen?

I am reminded of the buddhist parable about the snake that in a moment of light is seen to be a rope. That when the darkness quickly returns the monk knows it to be a rope so will never be fearful of the snake again.

My remaining fear is this, when the narrative self arises and, (1) it does not have the power it once had, or (2) I look at it and it melts (into a rope) am I being genuine or am I just telling myself what conclusion I want to form? Is the narrative self out-manovering the process? I know this is a question for me to ancwer, not you Jon.

Again thanks Jon,
Mic

[JonathanR]

Hi Mic,

. My remaining fear is this, when the narrative self arises and, (1) it does not have the power it once had, or (2) I look at it and it melts (into a rope) am I being genuine or am I just telling myself what conclusion I want to form? Is the narrative self out-manovering the process? I know this is a question for me to ancwer, not you Jon.

No but its a very good question actually. A perfect question.


Is there a 'you' to be 'genuine'? That's worth asking.

If there isn't, then how could something be 'outmanuvred'?

Jon

[Treelife]

Hi Jon

am I being genuine or am I just telling myself what conclusion I want to form?
Is the narrative self out-maneuvering the process?

All this questioning is thought, ideas - I guess none of it can be believed.

Is there a 'you' to be 'genuine'?

No

If there isn't, then how could something be 'outmaneuvered'?

Not sure I understand this question Jon. I think my orientation in asking the question was to be loyal to the process. To make sure I am not saying 'I see there is no I', when in actual fact the story of Mic is writing itself up as someone who is awakening. As this paragraph is being written there is a realization of how subtle the narrative of Mic can still be; yet when thoughts go looking for Mic then it is no longer there (or it melts into a rope).
"...loyal to the process..." who is there to be loyal, therefore what process?
"...make sure I am not saying..." who is the one to say?
Osculation's… hmmm, not gone but think they have just became a little clearer.
How to reconcile 'thinking', 'thoughts', 'beliefs', and the practicalities of daily living and communication; with "no I". The 'no self' is easier when I don't have to do anything or when staring at a blank wall. Is it enough to say that the beliefs don't believe their own content, the thoughts know they are untrue?

will give this some reflection.
Again thanks Jon,
Mic

[JonathanR]

Hi Mic,

As this paragraph is being written there is a realization of how subtle the narrative of Mic can still be; yet when thoughts go looking for Mic then it is no longer there (or it melts into a rope).

Right.

is it a thought that 'sees' a thought?

I think my orientation in asking the question was to be loyal to the process. To make sure I am not saying 'I see there is no I', when in actual fact the story of Mic is writing itself up as someone who is awakening.

Yeah but who or what is going to prevent this sort of story from appearing?

There appears to be rather good awareness of the story-writing tendency, hence an understanding that the write-up isn't necessarily true at all?

Is it enough to say that the beliefs don't believe their own content, the thoughts know they are untrue?

Do thoughts think thoughts?

Best, Jon

[Treelife]

Hi Jon,

is there a 'you' to be 'genuine'? That's worth asking.
If there isn't, then how could something be 'outmanuvred'?

Yeah but who or what is going to prevent this sort of story from appearing?

is it a thought that 'sees' a thought?

Do thoughts think thoughts?

Wow. There is an idea of 'self'. It is VERY subtle; embedded in thoughts, ideas, beliefs.
Every time there is a thought there is a possibility for the notion of 'self' to be hidden in there.
Of course thoughts don't think thoughts - the self may be said to think thought, BUT there is no self, so there are just thoughts that arise, and some thoughts contradict other thoughts. Even the thought that there is no self can subtlety hide an implicit notion of self.
There are brief occasional peak moments when there is an experience of 'no self', and then there is other times when the notion of self is met with a thought that states that the notion of self is not real. Where I am today is that there is no need to get to a state of 'no self', more it good to see how subtle all this is. By focusing on the 'subtle self idea', it melts.
When I take the focus off it, then it can return, but it is now more clearly seen for what it is - a thought.
In short, even when it feels like there is a self, still there is no self.

Thanks and Regards,
Mike

[JonathanR]

Hi Mike,

. Every time there is a thought there is a possibility for the notion of 'self' to be hidden in there.

Yes!

. Of course thoughts don't think thoughts - the self may be said to think thought, BUT there is no self,

Excellent.

. Even the thought that there is no self can subtlety hide an implicit notion of self.

So true.

. There are brief occasional peak moments when there is an experience of 'no self',

Is it an experience? How is it an experience?

. Where I am today is that there is no need to get to a state of 'no self', more it good to see how subtle all this is. By focusing on the 'subtle self idea', it melts.

That is really good.

. t is now more clearly seen for what it is - a thought.
In short, even when it feels like there is a self, still there is no self.

Great. This is important. Was there ever a self? Will there ever be one? How does it feel to see this?

We have often spoken and examined the role of thoughts but how about sensations? Is there any separate experiencer, however subtle, 'experiencing' sensations. Take a look, a walk in nature (which I'm sure I asked you to do before but still, take another one :-) .

There are lots of sensations, right now its 4.11 am for me and I'm awake early. The birds are singing loudly. There is warmth from my blanket. A tap is dripping. There is the glow of my mobile phone screen in the half-light. This is all experienced directly. Thoughts, too, appear. But what about the idea that 'I am experiencing'. ? What is 'separate' from all this, except as a thought about separation?

Jon

[Treelife]

Hi Jon,

Is it an experience? How is it an experience?

Very often there is a suggestion of self, either buried in thoughts or in sensation. However at times there is a total experience that points to there being no self, an experience of unfiltered perception. It is not an experience of 'no self''; more it feels like pure unfiltered experience, that happens to be absent of self. Going a step further I might add that it can be labelled differently, the mind might say this is an experience of 'no self', or the mind might go another direction and say something like 'I am consciousness'. It is not either of them in nature. I guess how the mind labels it, or what thoughts get put onto it can influence how it is shaped and obviously in following this process I look to see if there is a self and none is found. Oh and these are quite uncommon and usually in context of meditation or ongoing inquiry.

We have often spoken and examined the role of thoughts but how about sensations? Is there any separate experience, however subtle, 'experiencing' sensations. Take a look, a walk in nature (which I'm sure I asked you to do before but still, take another one :-) .

Sensations can imply there is a self, however I have come to the conclusion that it is untimely a thought that labels the sensation as a self.

I am being called away now, let me focus on the exercise you suggest for now.

Thanks
Mike

[JonathanR]

Okay Mike,

Will wait for your next post

Jon

[Treelife]

Hi Jon

Is there any separate experiencer, however subtle, 'experiencing' sensations.

But what about the idea that 'I am experiencing'. ? What is 'separate' from all this, except as a thought about separation?

I cannot find anything that is separate from the experiencing. Words like consciousness and awareness have been used in previous inquiry (not LU), but even in the highest peak moments none of these could be separated from experience.

I am reminded by some of John Wheeler's useful pointers which includes our 'aware awake nature, without the conceptualizing'. To me this presents as my fundamental reality of experience/existence. Yet thought always (nearly always) has a narrative response (implicit or explicit). My mixed up thoughts are incrementally reconciling the idea about having bullet proof realization of no self, reconciling idea that the 'self' is to be eliminated.

Listen. This FULL REALISATION has to go....
...Here at The Gate we simply point to no self, so that it starts to be seen that there is no self and never was. Its not an 'experience of NO SELF' .

Forgive me for returning to this point again but it does arise: I don't need to eliminate the idea, or sense of there being a self, in order to see that the self is not real.

Regards,
M

[JonathanR]

Hi M,

Forgive me for returning to this point again but it does arise: I don't need to eliminate the idea, or sense of there being a self, in order to see that the self is not real.

Don't know why I have to forgive you for this? It's great.

My mixed up thoughts are incrementally reconciling the idea about having bullet proof realization of no self, reconciling idea that the 'self' is to be eliminated.

So, not 'this', and not 'that'?

Not anything that the mind, thoughts, might struggle to define or label?

Thanks,

Jon

[Treelife]

Jon,
I cannot find anyone who is internally in control; pulling the strings.
Cannot find an experiencer of experiences.
The idea or sense of a self does arise but it melts with a glance - or certainly evaporates with a piercing inquiry.
There is a very strong belief that there is no self and that there never was a self. "Was", the past doesn't seem to hold much currency.
The feeling is a subtle difference, emerging over the last month or so; sometimes a little disconcerting, sometimes corresponds to a feeling of expansiveness. On a more macro level there is nothing for problems to get leverage into - because....nothing really matters. Certainly anything with a label on it no longer matters in the way it once did in the past.
Hmmm I think this is clarity for this leg of the process.
Mic

[JonathanR]

Hi Mic,

You're doing great. Really.

I will write this evening.

All the best,

Jon

[JonathanR]

Hi Mic,

I'm going to consult with one or two other guides to see if they may have further questions for you. Do check back here in a day or two.

All the best,

Jon.