Hi Elad,
There is no gate to cross. There is no one to cross it. There is just this … which is a mystery and is also apparently a human experience in this body with thoughts and conditions, which seem to come up randomly and arbitrarily.What reactions come up to the sentence:
"The gateless gate has been crossed (by none), it is clear that there is no separate self responsible and controlling things and never was".
I can feel mind kind of pulling, wanting me to question what I just wrote, saying it cannot be that simple! And I guess that is what mind will always do.
Yes! I notice that the drama (self judgement, self/other criticism) can surface, and then is seen for what it is, just a thought, sometimes tied to a negative self belief. It feels much less sticky.… AND: Just because there is no separate self, it does mean exercise stops being good for the body, meditation stops being good for the nervous system, study and practice is needed to learn certain new skills...
And the motivation for these can happen by itself with clarity and without drama...
Makes sense?
No, no need for self. It just happens. I have noticed that since I wrote the last response where I talked about lacking motivation, I have actually been doing more quite effortlessly.Like look today, when you do something genuinely useful or self-nurturing in the conventional sense. Is there a need for self to be there, for the motivation and action to arise?
There appears to be more ease.
Beautiful!
From one level of observation they have "one taste" - the taste of mysterious spontaneous nature without self.A question arises here: if there is no self, regardless of whether something is “self-nurturing” or “self-harming”, is there any difference? Is it all the same?
Tash liked the idea of a “self-nurturing” act just arising (like, if mind steps out of the way, the natural tendency will be positive. Is that true? Self-harm is also just happening, without self. Is there any difference here?
I can feel a kind of vertigo in the belly when looking at this, when contemplating that ‘self-nurturing’ and ‘self-harm’ can be seen to be the same thing. They cannot, surely?
On a different level of observation - equally important - they are certainly not the same thing. And it's felt in the heart directly, beyond ideas.
This is what Buddhism calls absolute and relative. In the "absolute level" all the same. But on a relative level everthing matters as it always did, consequences are real, love is real, and this is felt more clearly with less overlaying stories about self, not less so.
Here is a nice quote that express that:
"Although my view is higher than the sky, my attention to the law of cause and effect is as fine as barley flour."
- Padmasambhava
Everything still exists "conventionally" or "on the relative level" of communication, relational attuenement and etc: responsiblity, care, even "a self" in the sense that your thoughts are not mine, etc. And at the "on the absolute level" (direct experience here-now) it is clearly seen that there is no real separate self to be responsible.
Is this clear in direct experience?
Let me get back on this, but for now I think this video fits well to where you are at. Tell me how it lands!You have suggested that I look to the body, to feel what is here. Are there videos explaining more about this?
https://youtu.be/vJQcD588g2w?si=aI5UdDoPjSvzDqUr