I'd like to have a guide please

[Xain]

What is this self that is perceived, on any 'level'?

Xain ♥

[beverley]

So, after all of this, we are now saying something like: the illusion of a separate self (or seeing through that illusion) IS ITSELF just a thought, and the 'believing', or the 'seeing through', is only possible if there is an 'I' that's able to do such a thing, which there isn't. So it's not possible to see through the illusion - only for there to be a thought that relates to doing so. And non-acceptance (e.g. of things being the result of conditions) requires an 'I' to do the not-accepting. So: everything that happens, just happens. And we'll go on acting as if there's more to it than that

[beverley]

I mean - 'I' am saying, not we, but not literally, if that's possible anyway

[Xain]

So, after all of this, we are now saying something like: the illusion of a separate self (or seeing through that illusion) IS ITSELF just a thought, and the 'believing', or the 'seeing through', is only possible if there is an 'I' that's able to do such a thing, which there isn't. So it's not possible to see through the illusion - only for there to be a thought that relates to doing so.

What you are saying is right, but I feel we must break it down a bit so I know that you have a clear understanding.

Is it clear to you that there is no separate 'I'/'me' OF ANY KIND now, in the past or in the future?
When we say 'I' to communicate (like the writing here on this screen), or a thought appears that says 'I', that is all that it is; Simply a thought. The word does not point to a real 'thing', ever. Is this clear for you?

At the very highest level EVERYTHING is a thought. However, we must use language 'I', 'me' e.t.c. here in order to communicate.
So your statement 'It is not possible to see through the illusion' is correct if it is realised that there is no 'I' here capable of doing it.
We say 'Going through the gateless gate' in a similar way as a metaphor, as when you 'go through the gate', it is clear that there in no gate to go through, nor was there ever, nor anyone here to go through it. :-)

If you said to me, 'I saw through the illusion - I made the realisation that all 'I' ever is, is just a thought', we would both understand each other, and at the same time, realise the words do not point to anything real. Does that make sense?

Xain ♥

[beverley]

Yes, that there is no 'I' or 'me' is clear, and there never was or will be. Anything relating to such a self/other is just a thought, and the word 'I' does not point to a real thing. This is all clear.

So going through the gateless gate is like seeing through the illusion of self with eyeless eyes, or with sightless sight.

Yes that makes sense, and I think it's this apparent contradiction you describe that I was struggling with slightly, but it's now clear ;-)

[Xain]

So . . .

'And it has been very useful to examine my experience of 'making a choice', and to understand the difference between relative (myself making the choice) and absolute (it just happened)'

Could you have another look at this statement and give your perspective on it now, please?

Xain ♥

[beverley]

Hi Xain, I'll be away for two weeks, I may be able to reply in that time but I'll probably have to reply in January. Sorry to break continuity, speak to you soon, Bev

[beverley]

It is a false distinction: both 'relative' and 'absolute' are thoughts, concepts, relating to things that happen. To say 'relative' attempts to imply that there is some other category of stuff happening, but there is no other category. Everything just happens, and some thoughts (like the concepts of relative and absolute) might give 'us' the impression that we understand what's taking place, but thoughts also just happen, and there is no 'us'. Us is a thought too. Any concept of 'choice' is also just a thought. The thing that happens merely happens. And to distinguish between 'things' is also just a thought, and a false distinction. But my saying so - my saying any of this - is also mistaken/inadequate (I can't think of a better word). There are merely concepts occurring within thoughts, whilst fingers type, and also, as you say, the words written here don't point to anything real. All of these things, explanations, concepts, and beliefs about self and about understanding things, arise within thought without autonomy or design.

[Xain]

Hi Beverley

Thank you for your reply, which is excellent and shows your complete understanding and realisation.
Our conversation, and my guiding comes to an end. ♥
Thank you for your patience and perseverance.

If you are on Facebook, I can add you to our 'further looking' and 'aftercare' groups if you wish. Please let me know your Facebook name/page link in a private message if you wish this.

Xain ♥