Enter a "direct pointing" process here!

[Walbart]

it's clear there is an instinctual self-protection mechanism at work—that's normal and is no problem here. What is behind it?

Hi Matt, thanks again for your time. This is strange, it does seem like there is an "instinctual self-protection mechanism", yet if there is no self to protect then it can't be real. There's not an ego worrying that it may be destroyed, or a pretend self trying to assert itself, this is crazy. There is nothing fighting for its survival, it is just programming playing out its programme. This seems right. Which is hilarious as I can even now see myself struggling. Just thoughts reacting to thoughts. If someone says "there is no you" but I'm used to assuming there is a me all my life, the reflexive response will be "yes there is". When told to look, I look and see that there is no me, but the reflexive responses keep coming anyway. An imaginary self that thinks it is real. But there's no one thinking, just all raw data, like you say.

Walbart wrote:
All these objects, raw data, thoughts, awareness of things.... which part is me then?

This part doesn't make too much sense to me. Are you asking which part of a thought is 'you'? Like, which part of a random grain of sand is 'you'??

No, this was me still trying to hold onto something, anything. I think that the "feeling of being me" must be located somewhere, but I see now that it is only in thoughts of me that an actual "me" exists.

Yes, like a movie seems to be "personal" or refer to personal reality, but when you look closely, it's really all pixels. When you see it's all pixels, does the screenplay permanently disappear? Take a nice long look at this, and let me know.

When I watch a film I suspend my belief for the duration, regardless of noticing the pixels and knowing that it's just actors and sets. I guess this thing I'm trying to do here is the opposite of that. My belief throughout my life that I am a person with a soul has been constant. How do I see through a constant belief? Just examine it I guess, chip away at it and look at the evidence. It should be obvious to me after all these months now, and I see that the only thing stopping me from seeing this is the familiarity of my beliefs. Like I said earlier, I don't see reality, ever, there is always this huge buffer of thoughts and hopes and imagination protecting "me" from what is actually the case. And this seems to be everywhere, in all aspects of my life, relationships, work etc. It's all conceptual, and wrong.

why not try out what you're imagining here. See if you can identify with space or awareness. Is it even possible to convert an object (space) into the subject ('I')? And if you were an imaginary movie-character made of pixels and vibrations, would you need to identify with this or that? As you're starting to see, it's just thinking. Thoughts without a thinker that you can find. Can you prove to me that there's a thinker of thoughts?

I can't prove a thinker of thoughts. I try to, I insist that I can and that I am in control, but really when I do this it is only a reaction to being asked this question. I try to create a unique thought now, but that's still a response to you, based on what has already been experienced. The human brain can imagine, conceptualise and create, but that is one of it's tricks and in no way proves a thinker. It's all just input/output.

My thoughts are habitualised and ingrained. I can see them, but still think "I" might be something that sits behind them and watches them.

[Matt]

Okay, so it seems sometimes the conceptual part of this is clear, and sometimes it seems there are experiential glimpses—is that accurate? And there's also protection, 'hanging on'. So we need to investigate the protection more deeply, even if you've done this before. Can you tell me what are the sensations that goes along with this impulse to protect, or fight, or flee, or dissociate, or hang on?

Sit with it, let the sensations of fear, numbing—whatever comes—let them be. If at first you need to stimulate this mechanism, you can always try asserting, "There is no 'I' anywhere, and there never has been!" Then sit and watch. What happens next? What raw sensations appear?

[Matt]

By the way, by "sensations" I mean uninterpreted phenomena, like heat, tingling, heaviness, fuzziness, the impulse to escape, etc.

[Walbart]

Hi Matt,

Right now, I say to myself, there is no me. The thought appears as if spoken in my head, followed by the thought "this is just thinking, doesn't mean it's true". The appearance of these thoughts seem personal, as if they contain a taste of me-ness. Watching them appear, I feel more me-like than ever. This is all bullshit.

There is no me. The thought. Then a gap while I wait to see what happens, what sensations appear. Resistance. Just a head talking. Looking around all these familiar things seem to verify my presence throughout the house, and my life. There's the trajectory of an organism at the centre of it all. An organism that has self-centred thoughts. I'm straying a bit, you were after sensations. Uninterpreted phenomena.

There is no me. Nothing happens. Thoughts appear again, no real sensations besides the feeling of just sitting here. "I" is just the body/mind referring to itself. Isn't that correct? That's what I am. I don't get it.

If there's no I anywhere... isn't this just word-play? This body is here, it exists, it has thoughts running through its brain in relation to its surroundings. Doesn't that make it an I?

I'm struggling again. Maybe this is what you meant? Whenever I say "there is no me" all these thoughts rush in and try to explain things.

There is no me. Breathing. table under hands. Knees. Computer humming. The gap after saying it is just filled with physical sensations. Sights. Thoughts. I don't know what else.

[Matt]

...There is no me. Nothing happens. Thoughts appear again, no real sensations besides the feeling of just sitting here. "I" is just the body/mind referring to itself. ....

There is no me. Breathing. table under hands. Knees. Computer humming. The gap after saying it is just filled with physical sensations. Sights. Thoughts. I don't know what else.

Okay, would you be willing to continue along this line of inquiry? Do it over and over, don't follow the road of doubts and interpretive stories. Just pose the sentence as you did, and then observe the thoughts and sensations appearing and disappearing. You can even do this like Buddhist meditation, labeling what comes up: "now a thought of doubt...," "sensations of contraction...," "thought of boredom...," "memory of the past...," etc.

And you could include any brief insights that might come up, like you said above: "I is just the body/mind referring to itself", but great not engage in a discursive thought-struggle. The insight also passes, and the sensation of hands on the table fade in, everything always shifting and changing, as you stay with watching, observing, looking.

I agree with what you suggested above, what we call 'I' is just sensation/thought referring to itself.
Thank you for taking this step closer to the Gate-less Gate.
M

[Walbart]

Hi Matt, sorry for the delay. I've been a bit stuck. I've done noting before but I'll give it another bash.

Pose the sentence, then observe the thoughts and sensations appearing and disappearing.

There is no me. I sit and stare across the room, there's a chair and a window. There is no me, but there's this thing here that turns all these shapes and colours into things. The world appears as it does right now because my brain is processing faster than I can imagine, labelling the trees outside and the cars and the fence and the sky. All this is happening. There is no me, but because this body with a brain and eyes is here, everything else is being experienced right now, there's awareness of all this stuff because I can can see it. I can label it, because I have learnt the words and names.

But looking at a chair and knowing it's a chair is just a slap-back, a reflection of previously learned knowledge. The same as assuming there's a me. That's just familiarity with this perspective, maybe. I don't know anything. I had a glimpse early whilst eating a bowl of soup, where everything just became another thing and there was only the colours and shapes.

I'm sorry, but I don't know how to progress from here. When I say there is no me, I just want to curl up and disappear, it's hard work and I'm lazy. I'll keep going, but feel like I'd progress quicker if I really had something to stick my teeth into. This is all very vague.

[Walbart]

See if you can identify with space or awareness.

Nah, I can't. It's not like I can relocate myself to something else, because there's nothing to move. I can't be space or awareness. I really don't think I'm anything, but I'm still not getting this. There's no shift. Confusion there, as I've been told there is no shift, then other people say there's definitely a shift. I don't think I've shifted.

There is no me. Hands frantically typing, doubt in background, music playing, sore back. "There is no me" is a thought reflected off the idea that I'm searching for an answer to a question. With no question there's no struggle.

[Matt]

The world appears as it does right now because my brain is processing faster than I can imagine, labelling the trees outside and the cars and the fence and the sky. All this is happening. There is no me, but because this body with a brain and eyes is here, everything else is being experienced right now, there's awareness of all this stuff because I can can see it. I can label it, because I have learnt the words and names.

Yes, it's true, and the 'I' is just a label, the brain processing and interpreting appearances as a separate 'me'. 'You' are actually seeing this already! Seeing already sees it.

everything just became another thing and there was only the colours and shapes.

When I say there is no me, I just want to curl up and disappear, it's hard work and I'm lazy.

More labels, brain is processing, interpreting. But seeing is still just seeing, nonetheless, without a real 'lazy self' obstructing the process.

I'll keep going, but feel like I'd progress quicker if I really had something to stick my teeth into. This is all very vague.

You're doing fine. All thoughts and feelings are fine. Thoughts may describe a self in a predicament, but as it's already perfectly obvious to you, the label "predicament" is itself not a predicament. The label "vague" is not pointing to substantial vagueness. The label "me" doesn't refer to anything that can be honestly called 'me'. It's just a label. This is already seen. You are already clear. Nothing you say can prove me wrong. Let the mind get tired of this. It won't deny the truth forever. You remain clear.

[Matt]

See if you can identify with space or awareness.

Nah, I can't. It's not like I can relocate myself to something else, because there's nothing to move. I can't be space or awareness.

Thank you. Keep looking at the evidence and tell me more about why this is so.

There's no shift. Confusion there, as I've been told there is no shift, then other people say there's definitely a shift. I don't think I've shifted.

Who really cares about a shift? A shift might be perceived when it is seen that there is no one to shift, and that there is no independent seer seeing this.

With no question there's no struggle.

Good, so maybe you're ready give up the struggle to modify or shift the sense of self—shifting sensation and interpretation is ultimately a joke, and yes, as you say, it brings confusion.

Walbart, do you, and did you ever, exist as an independent entity? Look closely, and give me an unqualified, honest answer. If you say "but," again, maybe it's time for a break.

[Walbart]

I can't be space or awareness, as they aren't "things" as such. I am the processes of this human body and brain. Awareness comes when my sense receptors send info to my brain. No sensory info (inc. thoughts bouncing around), no awareness. Awareness is just information exchange. So I'm not that.

It's been a long day, reading a few one-on-one's here, as well as Ilona's blog. I feel like I'm really close but I don't know how to finish this. I'm looking at sensations directly, been doing it for hours, but there's still this fugue that I can see through. I know everything I need to know about this, but there's still a block. I'm not joking either.

Did I ever exist as an independent entity? My honest answer is: I don't think so, "but" I haven't seen enough proof to convince myself yet.

Ok let me rephrase that. There's no sign of a me anywhere, but a foot is still on the gas of this assumed self.

[Walbart]

there's still this fugue that I can't see through

[Matt]

There's no sign of a me anywhere, but a foot is still on the gas of this assumed self.

What is this "BUT" thing? If there's no sign of you, how could you possibly know that there's a foot on it? Really, how do you know? This isn't about guessing or thinking, it's about looking at direct evidence.

"There's no sign of a you anywhere." Okay, it sounds as if you're looking, glimpsing there. Stay there.

"BUT..." Then you're choosing to leap into interpretation, as if the brain can offer an alternative that is more true than direct evidence.

Yes, indeed it is no joke: you can see through the fugue—the moment before the "but" convinces the brain otherwise.

I give you one more chance to answer without any "buts". If you're not up to it, take a break and simmer a while.

Look now, can a real self be created by belief? Do not second-guess it. Let it be.
Look again, is there any evidence of an independent "looker"?

[Walbart]

Matt, I get the impression you're losing interest, you keep asking me to take a break. I say I feel like I'm close, you say take a break? Seriously, if you want to take a break or leave this conversation I won't be offended. Maybe we're not compatible or something. I'm all for continuing though.

There has never been a sign of me, it hasn't stopped me from assuming it though. This is obvious. A self cannot be created by belief, that is totally not the issue here. I can see the self isn't real, but I am operating as if from an assumed self. This is where I am stuck. I can explain it away all day, but nothing changes.

There is no evidence for an independent looker, but the lifelong feeling that I am one is very strong. This is breaking down and being worn away gradually I think, but I'm not getting this final confidence to say, yes, that's what this is about. I really don't want to be here chewing my own brains out, and to be honest I'm tired of begging strangers for guidance on these forums. I appreciate your time, but I cannot fully see yet that there is no me. Even if I can't find a self the problem seems to be the content and stickiness of the thoughts of "me". So yeah, if you like, I can answer your question: there is no me.

But I'm still not done.

[Matt]

Matt, I get the impression you're losing interest, you keep asking me to take a break. I say I feel like I'm close, you say take a break? Seriously, if you want to take a break or leave this conversation I won't be offended. Maybe we're not compatible or something. I'm all for continuing though.

My friend, taking a break could help you get past the 'but' thing. If you want to stay in inquiry, please stay in inquiry. Your 'but' stuff is leaving inquiry, as is this paragraph above.

There has never been a sign of me, it hasn't stopped me from assuming it though. This is obvious. A self cannot be created by belief, that is totally not the issue here. I can see the self isn't real, but I am operating as if from an assumed self. This is where I am stuck. I can explain it away all day, but nothing changes.

Right, explaining your thoughts and doubts doesn't change anything. It's not inquiry. It's fundamentally dishonest. It's keeping you thinking you're stuck.

There is no evidence for an independent looker, but the lifelong feeling that I am one is very strong.

I asked you not to add a "but" a couple times, and you did again. Therefore we're taking a break. You need to simmer. Not ready yet for the gate. Push yourself for a while to attain white-hot honesty. Don't give up, and utilize the pressure of your frustration. Perhaps you can cry for a breakthrough, or pray your head off if you believe in prayer, or ask yourself inquiry questions or meditate your ass off for a while. How ever you do it, kick this "but" thing into submission. Keep looking with all your might. Come back to me or someone else when there is no more possibility for 'but'.

I appreciate your time, but I cannot fully see yet that there is no me. Even if I can't find a self the problem seems to be the content and stickiness of the thoughts of "me". So yeah, if you like, I can answer your question: there is no me.

But I'm still not done.

Thanks for your time too. You have my full respect and friendship.

[Walbart]

Thanks for your time.