The Gate

Hi Nona,
Here's a big one that must be related, even before addressing your other questions/suggestions. Have been really aware of the thoughts that are fantasized relating to others, even those as benign as imagining how I'm going to describe an experience to you. Made a note to myself: NOTE Thinking about relating is not real relating. Relating on the basis of thinking about relating is not real relating. Thoughts about relating are also thoughts defining “me” and the fantasized “other”. Thinking about relating is therefore always destructive except when the purpose is genuinely generous....(and there is some doubt even about that).

Then, as part of the assignment to keep focusing on the I, asked “Who is it that wants to disengage from thoughts that are imagined relatings to fantasized others?” The answer is “I do!” And this I feels very strong, like “Me”. Like a central column running through the center of the body, from which everything else is hung.
Feels like the first real ‘’I that has been found. That it is really Me. Feels good, assertive, strong, in charge. When affirmations are made “I will do what I will to do, and I will X”, this is the I that is being bolstered, empowered, defined. Who is it that is determined to become empty/enlightened? Me! Who is it that is commited to following Nona’s guiding? Me! I am! Feels good, but o shit, is it so strong that it cannot be seen as illusion? Who would see it as illusion? (yep, I realize that last question has probably gotta be the key, but even the intellectual understanding is stymied here. wow.)

Love,
P.

Hi again,
Another quick note.

Without reference to sight or to memory, is there in your direct experience an in-here that is inside the skin which is completely separate from an out-there which is outside the skin?

Yes, I can say (with disappointment) that absolutely there is that direct experience, of proprioceptive feedback from all over the body, all inside the skin.
OK, so how about sounds smells etc that are only happening inside the skin but appear as if happening out there?
Next object of contemplation.
Cheers,
p.

Hi again,

it seems you are going to continue clinging to the feeling of me as an actual entity me. I'm assuming you have not yet read my words about the rubber hand experiment and the mirrored box experiment.

Yes, I’ve read your analogies, and think I understand them. Yes, I’ve been talking about the “feeling of me”, because that’s all that’s been there. No ‘me’, just a feeling of me, or an implication of ‘me’, but no me. Not in the sense that ‘here is a hand, here is a glass of water;. Until the part about “Who is it that is determined to become empty/enlightened? Me!” That actually seemed to be a real thing. Of course I say “seemed”, because I know it has to be a mirage. If I didn’t know that colors and sounds exist only in the mind, I would say ‘of course they exist out there, because I experience them being out there!”. But that experience is misleading. So I say they “seem to be out there”, just as I say “That actually seemed to be the real thing.” It is in this sense that I refer to the “feeling of me”,

On another note, today worked on just experiencing in the moment, without focussing on ‘self’. Not easy, but there seemed to be hints/whiffs of truth. . Very challenging to stay in the present moment, though. Ilona said elsewhere

trying to stay in the present moment takes a huge amount of energy. Noticing though is effortless.

Do you think it might help if you could expand on/clarify this?

Gratefully,
P.

Dearest Pablo,

A very quick reply as I am quite tired. I will respond more fully tomorrow.

Yes, I’ve read your analogies, and think I understand them. Yes, I’ve been talking about the “feeling of me”, because that’s all that’s been there. No ‘me’, just a feeling of me, or an implication of ‘me’, but no me. Not in the sense that ‘here is a hand, here is a glass of water;. Until the part about “Who is it that is determined to become empty/enlightened? Me!” That actually seemed to be a real thing.

There is no "who"; "who...?" is a question that is as meaningless as division by zero.
Do this for me: ask “WHAT is it that is determined to become empty/enlightened?" and write what you find. And whenever a question beginning "who" arises, change the who to what, and observe what happens.

Will post more tomorrow.

love
Nona

Yes, yes, of course, of course. Who indeed! It's a what. It's an elephant that feels like a tree. A stick that looks like a snake.
How helpful!

Sleep well!!!!

Lovingly,
Pablo

Dearest Pablo,

Going back to your 7th April posting,

I forgot to say that often the experience of me/I I now seems to be just implied, like it’s not part of the experience but is implied by the experience.

Two things here: one is seems; you will find that everything in thinking seems to be something. Have you ever mistaken one thing for another? Ever? I see a dark spot on the wall or floor and mistake it for an insect. I don't mistake it in reality; only in thinking. In reality, when I approach the spot it is clearly seen to be a bit of debris, not an insect.
Second, we mental types just LOVE to announce that Y is implied by X. It's not. That's a concatenation of thoughts. Check it!! There is driving, but there is no driver. The "driver" was "never observed to be actually in the driver’s seat." There is no separate DO-er of Life. No separate experiencer that is implied by our thoughts about an experience.

is the "distinct feeling" an entity? Or is it just sensation?

Under observation, it quickly becomes a sensation. And, as noted elsewhere, the observer becomes the “thing” being observed.

Exactly.

"Observed" and "observer" are the same experience! It's only thinking/mind that separates them!

Whoa. Guess that can’t be observed, because that would require an observer!

No; it wouldn't require an observer. Observing happens in our direct experience without a separate entity doing the observing.
Identify a sound that is separate from the hearing of it except in thinking! A sound is heard; mind labels it sound + hearing. But that's a lie. Without hearing it, how, in your direct experience, can there have been a sound?
I have recently experienced ear infections that left me deaf as a post. My husband heard the door buzzer, the microwave beep, the noisy football supporters celebrating in the street. But those sounds were unheard by me, and so do not make up part of my direct experience.

in your direct experience there is a sound that is actually separate from your hearing it.

No, but there does seem to generally be some kind of an immediate automatic non-verbal reflection on the sound, which overlays and obscures the experience.

And that "immediate automatic non-verbal reflection" is in thought, not in direct experience. If you permit your thinking to "overlay and obscure" your direct experience every time, you will not see through the illusion.
When my guide said LOOK, she meant look with the eyes in your head; experience directly! Until I stopped Thinking About what she said and surrendered to direct experience, I was lost in a mental understanding.

Without reference to sight or to memory, is there in your direct experience an in-here that is inside the skin which is completely separate from an out-there which is outside the skin?

Initial answer is yes,there does seem to be

And is "initial answer" from your Direct Experience?? Or is it really from your thinking? Check it!!

Write what you are experiencing now using words I and me. Get right to the point, no past or future fantasy, just a plain description of what's happening here and now….Now compare these two ways to label experience—does one way feel more separate than the other? If so, which one?

Please do this exercise as soon as possible. Until you get free of believing your thoughts, you will continue to get stuck in thinking when direct experience is what is called for.

Maybe I should take some time observing/considering/experiencing through the questions/exercises you have suggested before we go on to further ones.

Yes; perhaps I have loaded you with too much to experience at once. I will not give you more until you have completed these.

This coming Tuesday thru mid-day Thursday I may be totally out of internet access.

That will give you plenty of time to do all the exercises, more than once! The second time you do the experiment, it is not with the same thinking with which you did it the first time; these experiments alter our perception.

NOTE Thinking about relating is not real relating. Relating on the basis of thinking about relating is not real relating. Thoughts about relating are also thoughts defining “me” and the fantasized “other”.

Good stuff!

Thinking about relating is therefore always destructive except when the purpose is genuinely generous....(and there is some doubt even about that).

This sounds like something you Thought up! Beware of any sentence with a therefore in it; it is probably a deduction rather than an observation.

Yes, I can say (with disappointment) that absolutely there is that direct experience, of proprioceptive feedback from all over the body, all inside the skin.

No you can't. Proprioception is a thought exercise. There are stimuli which occur as sensation, but the perception which organises them into position and location and orientation and movement of the body and its parts is mental, not physical. Furthermore, the "information" which is believed to have come from stimuli is, itself, manipulated by thought.
Check out Lorimer Moseley, an Australian neuroscientist who studies pain. He explains that perception itself occurs in thought and that it "massages" the stimulus data based on memory of previous experience before the data are sent to be processed. Most interesting!

so how about sounds smells etc that are only happening inside the skin but appear as if happening out there?

"Appear" to be happening "out there". Do appearances verify a reality?
Where exactly does sound happen, does smell happen in your direct experience?? Check it!!

On another note, today worked on just experiencing in the moment, without focussing on ‘self’. Not easy, but there seemed to be hints/whiffs of truth. . Very challenging to stay in the present moment, though. Ilona said elsewhere

It's not remotely challenging to stay in the present moment; that's where you already ARE. What is challenging is to resist the habit of allowing focus to wander off into thought. And the more you are able to stay focused on direct experience, the more you will experience peace.

It's a what. It's an elephant that feels like a tree. A stick that looks like a snake.

It IS a what. And just like the blind men with the elephant, we compare what we think about this experience with a previous, remembered, experience: tree. Or mummy saying "who is that? It's Pablito!" Teachers, respected authorities, telling us we are separate entities that are wholly responsible for a slice of life that is in our control. They tell us that because they believe it themselves! Only they are wrong. And we can find out what is the case by simply LOOKing.

love
Nona

The doer vs process exercise:

Right now I am listening to Gustavo and Karen talking, the fountain bubbling, a ringing in my ears. The floor is cool on my bare feet. My arms are resting on the desktop, my wrists on the computer keyboard. Typing I feel the pressure of the keys on my fingertips. I hear some wind in the trees. I’m having the thought ‘there are not many of them’. I hear somebody practicing a drum in the distance. I’m having the thought of telling you this happens all the time, always somebody drumming. I’m having the thought ‘that’s irrelevant, it’s like showing off. I’m so cool I live someplace where drums are happening all the time.’ I’m smiling at the feeling of embarrassment of having that thought. My legs feel…funny. In the calves. My back is a little sore. My belt is tight. My jaw is a little tinght. Now I am purposefully relaxing it. T take a deep breath, and breathe more deeply and slowly. I hear Gustavo and Karen but cannot understand what they are saying. I feel a breeze come thru the window and enjoy it and think this feels good. I’m trying to hear what G and K are talking abot. My neck is a little sore, I drop my head forward to stretch it a little. That causes some discomfort in my back, which I have problems with because I won’t don’t exercise even knowing it would help. Always thinking ‘I’ll start tomorrow.
‘my toe needs to heal’. I can’t tomorrow because we have to go visit some other towns in the mountains to see community projects there. I sense a dim thought about what does Nona thinkof this. Maybe she thinks I’m a good guy. I’m thinking that’s irrelevant. I’m thinknig about what you said about …now I forgot. No feeling a little annoyed that I lost my train of thought. Now thinnking that today have been more focussed on pure experience. Feel somehow ‘getting there’ a bit, but now remembe the thought was about what you said about old cognitive and behavioral habits persist even after noself is fully seen. Did’t want to believ it at the time, now see very clearly. Those were’nt self, so why would they go away when self is seen clearly to be never been there. Okk, I want to go to the next part of the exercise.

The feeling of awareness is a bit more clear. G and K still talking, attention moves toward that. Back a bit uncomfortable. Feelings of discomfort change, fluid. Attention shifts all over the place. But more general awareness. Still a distinct feeling of what’s in this skin vs what’s outside, but today that difference has been much lessa at times. The sound of th fountain, a distant bird. Some muscles just relaxed. Awareness of less boundary between ‘out there’ and ‘in here’. Dim thoughts of telling somebody something. Or just a voice speaking. As if it were speaking to someone. Shifts in the visual field, vague shape shifting, color shifting. Atttention moving, soemtimes unnoticeably when thoughts have much attention. Now a conscious determination appears to focus more on ‘external’. Internal awareness does not go away, but what’s internal external less distinct. The thought that the awareness of ‘external’ is only internal, in this brain and conscious awareness. Same place thoughts rise and fall. Same place selflike feelings arise and fall, just feelings. Verbal areas of brain still getting lots of attention. Right now. Even when no distinct words are there, still a feeling of vigilance for what might arise. And a feeling of preference for awareness to be everywhere else but the verbal space. That now history,was just a thought, a description label of what was happening. Desire to open eyes, be more in touch with bigger picture. Eyes opened. Focussed on the screen. Corrected a typo. Cursor blinks. Can only be blinking ‘in here’ but appears to be out there. Knowing there’s smoething out there that transforms into visual blinking ‘in here’. Or ‘in there’. ‘in there’, interesting. Out there, in there. Rather than in here. Desire to think about this. Feeling of need to get back to chores.

Now addressing you, Nona. Yes they feel very different. Even while writing the first was feeling of having to ‘force’ it. Writing the second more in touch with artificiality of out there/in here.
Your persistence about out there/in there has been helpful. Much focus today on direct experience of ‘out there’. Thoughts coming and going. A memory of hearing that Inuit have or had concept that thoughts are just in the air, some appear in awareness some don’t. like all signals from all the million radio stations that are coursing through everything, but only get turned into sound waves, and then “sound’ with the proper apparatus.

The idea that the community of ‘me’s is an emergent phenomena, with a ‘mind’ of it’s own. That very much affects the physical world and causes pain and suffering. Something unreal that affects the real. Ok so it is real, not unreal. Just as a movie is real, but it’s not ‘reality’. Or ‘truth’. Well, yes it is, it’s happening. It’s the thoght/perception that it’s reality/truth that causes the suffering.

Getting too verbal.

‘In there, in consciousness’. Interesting.

Think you use ‘thought’ differently than I. I always use the word to denote verbal occurrences in consciousness, but also expand it to refer to the images and feelings that co-occur with the verbal thought.

Too verbal for now.

More later,
Love,
p.

Two hours later:
Walking.
Is this body walking, or is Everything just moving in such a way that the apparent relative motion of this particular part of It (body) is "walking".
Same with thoughts--at least now and then.
Things are changing.
p.

Gonna be offline for a couple days.
Tired. Peaceful. Much of the time, at least to some degree, thoughts are happening “in there”.
Love,
p.

Hi Pablo,

Enjoy your offline time!

Much of the time, at least to some degree, thoughts are happening “in there”.

Are you sure? With eyes closed, can you locate a boundary of "in there" and "out here"? Check it in physical sensation. Also check Where do thoughts come from?

love
Nona

Ok, no self anywhere, thanks.
But most of the time seems to be yes a definite in-skin and outside-skin, though that is becoming at times a bit more fluid.
Will now watch that especially.

thoughts? where do pimples come from? clouds?
everything is a confluence of influences which are themselves confluences of influences.

love,
p.

Dearest Pablo,

most of the time seems to be yes a definite in-skin and outside-skin

With eyes closed, without reference to memory, is there skin at all?? Is there a boundary of body? Check it!!

thoughts? where do pimples come from? clouds?
everything is a confluence of influences which are themselves confluences of influences.

Nice.

Keep LOOKing; stay in direct experience.

love
Nona

Nona,

Thank you.

With eyes closed, voices and noises from another room still seem ‘out there’. Feelings of cool air on skin vary from feeling like that is the feeling of skin, to those are internal perceptions.
Will persevere.

Yesterday so peaceful, with many understandings, but were questions about how the perspective/knowledge would hold up under stress. Now feelings of anxiety and depression that began after annoyance at wife was accompanied by feelings of blaming her. Like realization must be shallow, circumstance dependent.
Advice?

Grazi,
p.

Dearest Pablo,

With eyes closed, voices and noises from another room still seem ‘out there’.

SEEM. They seem 'out there because you have been taught to identify sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and touches as originating somewhere "outside".
You hear a noise and you think "that sound is in another room". But where exactly is the hearing occurring? Is hearing occurring in the other room? Or is it occurring in direct experience here and now? Does a hear-er get up and go into the other room to hear the noise?
Isn't the noise and the hearing of it happening simultaneously? Without separation? Can you identify, in your direct experience, where the noise ends and the hearing begins?
Isn't it truer that the noise and the hearing are the same experience, and that only thought and language separate them into noise and hearing? Please check it!

Feelings of cool air on skin vary from feeling like that is the feeling of skin, to those are internal perceptions.

Do you actually feel "cool air"? Or are you actually experiencing a difference of temperature that you label "cool air".
Do you actually feel skin from inside it? Or are you remembering having seen skin and assuming that the temperature difference you are experiencing is happening to or on skin?

questions about how the perspective/knowledge would hold up under stress

Do you believe there is a real entity "unicorn"? If I ask you to bring one or to photograph one, will you tell me it's a fairy tale?
If so, then consider this: how does the perspective/knowledge that there is no such entity as a unicorn hold up under stress?
Replace "unicorn" with any other fictional character: Santa, Batman, Sponge Bob, tooth fairy. How does the knowledge these are fictional hold up under stress?
Replace "unicorn" with "self". There is no self in reality. It's a matter of fact, same as no unicorn, no Santa. Body exists, and is part of Life happening. Thinking exists, and is part of Life happening. Stories of unicorns, Santas, selves, are part of Life happening.
Life doesn't change when it is seen that unicorns and Santa don't exist. It won't change when you see clearly that self doesn't exist as a separate entity, either. Life will happen just the same; only you will know with complete certainty that "self" is a mental construct made up of thoughts and language that has no control over anything in your experience.

feelings of anxiety and depression that began after annoyance at wife was accompanied by feelings of blaming her. Like realization must be shallow, circumstance dependent.

Is there a belief that with realisation of no self all conditioned thinking and behaviour drops away?? Why would a sixty-something-year-long habit labelled "blaming" stop just because you now have awareness that you have been mistaken all this time in believing you are somehow separate from Life happening?
Realisation is only this: a subtle shift in perception. It doesn't confer sainthood, you don't get a halo. What you do get is the constant opportunity to notice that wife doing or saying something you label "annoying" just happens, and your upset just happens; no one is doing anything to any one. You are not in control of your behaviours or reactions any more than she is. This is the gift of seeing through the illusion; Life is just happening, and no one is in control of or responsible for it.

love
Nona

Dear Nona,

Can you identify, in your direct experience, where the noise ends and the hearing begins?
Isn't it truer that the noise and the hearing are the same experience, and that only thought and language separate them into noise and hearing? Please check it!

Yes, yes. I realize this is a common misperception, but please believe that all that has long been well known to me. Absolutely. But has not evolution put ears on both sides of our head in order to locate the direction from which sound waves come, and wired our brains to use that and other info from those waves to assemble a quale of that the sound as out there, “in that direction, approximately so far away” so that even a non-verbal species can more easily locate prey or predator? Just as the brain assembles incoming stimuli into a picture that, even though it may known to be a mirage, is still the only picture that appears in consciousness? To me, right now, it seems that thought is required to distinguish mirage from non-mirage, as the direct experience of both in consciousness can be indistinguishable.
Or, perhaps, only indistinguishable to the untrained perceiver. Because on the other hand, I have had, without thought, brief direct experiences of at-least-near disappearance of what the previous paragraph would suggest must be a hard-wired perception of the boundary between out-there and in-here. Wonderful glimpses of one-ness, which I would like this exercise to bring more of. It is with disappointment, not argument, that I report that they seem to be outside. At any given time in our work, I’m doing my best to report the nature of my direct experience. Just as when I say self “seems to be” or “is implied by”, that doesn’t mean I believe it is, but only that that is how it is happening in my direct experience. And how I would like this direct experience to become more congruent with the truth. Increasingly over the last week, and especially for the previous two days, direct experience was more aligned with truth, and it was wonderful. But the experience yesterday was also affected by desire for something that was threatened by my wife’s reaction. And during the wonderful two days, I wondered what would happen when something like that inevitably happened but it seemed at the time that my “seeing” was too strong to be affected. But it was affected, and that was disappointing. And that the craving for what I wanted still caused pain. Today it is better, but that may only be because I’ve figured out a way to more likely get what I want. Notice I said “I’ve” figured out a way, even knowing that that could not have happened because “I” do not exist. Figuring out just happened. But it felt like it took intentional effort. And I examined that experience at the time it was happening, and discovered that even “knowing” that “I” do not exist, it still felt like the presumption of this hypothetical “I” was necessary to figure out how to get what I want. Like some kind of thought gimmmick “think of it this [untrue] way and it’ll be easier to see”.
Does that make sense?

So, work in progress.

Do you actually feel "cool air"? Or are you actually experiencing a difference of temperature that you label "cool air".

Absolutely—of course that’s a label. Thanks

Do you actually feel skin from inside it? Or are you remembering having seen skin and assuming that the temperature difference you are experiencing is happening to or on skin?

Very good. Must be true, and I’ll examine it that way.

Thinking exists, and is part of Life happening. Stories of unicorns, Santas, selves, are part of Life happening.
Life doesn't change when it is seen that unicorns and Santa don't exist. It won't change when you see clearly that self doesn't exist as a separate entity, either. Life will happen just the same; only you will know with complete certainty that "self" is a mental construct made up of thoughts and language that has no control over anything in your experience.

--Yes, it’s just that kind of like after I realized that “God” could not possibly exist, I still found myself at times with doubts. “No atheists in the foxhole” they say. Maintaining new understanding requires use of glucose resources in the pre frontal lobe until they are consolidated in other parts of the brain and no longer require such PFC maintenance. Under stress, glucose resources are depleted by other brain activities, interrupting that consolidation process. Before yesterday, all kinds of thoughts were seen as just thoughts, even annoyances, cravings, disappointments, judgements of others. It was wonderful. Then yesterday I was just disappointed that they’d not already fully consolidated. Writing this, that is seen as silly. Funny, because I was always explaining to clients why they could not just trust that new understandings (especially those contrary to old assumptions) would be automatically hard-wired. That takes time and intentionality/motivation. Fortunately, my motivation to consolidate the understanding of No-Self is a thousand times stronger than that to consolidate No-God. So back to work. (insert smiley face here).

Is there a belief that with realisation of no self all conditioned thinking and behaviour drops away?? Why would a sixty-something-year-long habit labelled "blaming" stop just because you now have awareness that you have been mistaken all this time in believing you are somehow separate from Life happening?

Of course you are right.

Realisation is only this: a subtle shift in perception. It doesn't confer sainthood, you don't get a halo. What you do get is the constant opportunity to notice that wife doing or saying something you label "annoying" just happens, and your upset just happens; no one is doing anything to any one. You are not in control of your behaviours or reactions any more than she is. This is the gift of seeing through the illusion; Life is just happening, and no one is in control of or responsible for it.

Yes, that was clear until the event yesterday. Again, back to work. Not all the way back to square one!

Thanks, and love,
Pablo

Dearest Pablo,

I realize this is a common misperception, but please believe that all that has long been well known to me.

What you 'know' intellectually is not always true experientially. I am well aware that you understand the illusion; I am pointing you to SEE, to observe the illusion in action.

has not evolution put ears on both sides of our head in order to locate the direction from which sound waves come, and wired our brains to use that and other info from those waves to assemble a quale of that the sound as out there

That's one Story, yes. And it's only a story. All explanations are stories. Is this story 'true'? Maybe. And it doesn't matter at all for the purposes of our inquiry. Hearing never happens "out there"; hearing and sound occur together simultaneously within experience; only thoughts about hearing/sound separate them.
We are not exploring the WHY questions; those invariably get answered with stories. And I am a fan of some explanatory stories, particularly those that come from neuroscience. But here we are concerned with what is happening right here now.

I have had, without thought, brief direct experiences of at-least-near disappearance of what the previous paragraph would suggest must be a hard-wired perception of the boundary between out-there and in-here. Wonderful glimpses of one-ness, which I would like this exercise to bring more of.

Excellent! In that case you are well aware that your idea of "a hard-wired perception of the boundary between out-there and in-here" is necessarily false; that it exists only in Thought.
Do again all the exercises I've given you, and notice the difference between your Thoughts About your experience and your actual experience. No worries about exhausting the exercises: you can never do the same exercise twice—these exercises alter perception, create new neural pathways, making it impossible to "step into the same river twice".

At any given time in our work, I’m doing my best to report the nature of my direct experience.

Yes, I'm sure you are. And sometimes you use the words "seems" and "like" to offer metaphors about direct experience rather than simply reporting your experience. It's just that SEEing through the illusion, rather than simply believing there's an illusion, happens in direct experience, not in thought, so I keep directing you to look at your experience, not your thinking.

If you wanted to SEE the Eiffel Tower with the eyes in your head, I would direct you to Paris, not to a picture-postcard stand. Same here. If you want to SEE through the illusion that you are or have a separate self that has some control over an individual slice of Life, you must go to direct experience, for that is where this can be SEEN.

when I say self “seems to be” or “is implied by”, that doesn’t mean I believe it is, but only that that is how it is happening in my direct experience.

How an event happens in ones direct experience doesn't "seem to be"; and any implication is necessarily in thought, not in experience. Seems and implies are linguistic constructs, metaphors, that skirt around what is the case rather than stating it. Direct experience can always be reported in verbs.
For example, my direct experience in this moment is feeling pressure of bum on chair, wrists on computer, fingertips on keyboard. Breathing is happening. Reading the words showing up on the screen is happening. Thinking is happening, and, amazingly, the words thought of are showing up on the screen as fingers dance across the keyboard.

Increasingly over the last week, and especially for the previous two days, direct experience was more aligned with truth, and it was wonderful

I don't understand how direct experience can ever be misaligned with truth.

it seemed at the time that my “seeing” was too strong to be affected. But it was affected, and that was disappointing. And that the craving for what I wanted still caused pain.

Again, "Why would a sixty-something-year-long habit labelled "blaming" stop just because you now have awareness that you have been mistaken all this time in believing you are somehow separate from Life happening?"

And that the craving for what I wanted still caused pain. Today it is better, but that may only be because I’ve figured out a way to more likely get what I want.

Please write out exactly what you want.

Notice I said “I’ve” figured out a way, even knowing that that could not have happened because “I” do not exist. Figuring out just happened. But it felt like it took intentional effort.

It felt like it took intentional effort. We experience many of these mental "feelings", but they are not actual feelings; they are not physical sensations or emotions. They are thoughts that we label "feel" or "seems" as metaphors in an attempt to equate them with sensation, to make them more real.
Check this. Close your eyes, and locate these feelings: pressure of bum on chair, movement of chest during breathing, location of tongue in mouth. Check emotions, too: what if any emotions are present? Then check for "feeling of intentional effort".

even “knowing” that “I” do not exist, it still felt like the presumption of this hypothetical “I” was necessary to figure out how to get what I want. Like some kind of thought gimmmick “think of it this [untrue] way and it’ll be easier to see”.

"It still felt like..." Where exactly is a presumption felt? Can you find the feeling of a presumption? Anywhere?

Do try not to Think this all through so much. It only makes thought tangles that prevent you from experiencing directly the fact of the matter: "I" is a label. There is no "I" outside of thought/language.
No hypothetical I can ever assist you in directly experiencing the fact of the non-existence of an actual entity "I".

Maintaining new understanding requires use of glucose resources...

Sweetheart, did you ever "maintain new understanding" that Santa was a fiction? That Batman is a character in a story? That unicorns, for all the pictures on packaging, do not exist in reality?
There is no maintenance of understanding of no self required when it has been directly experienced as an illusion. This is why I keep pointing you to direct experience and away from Thinking About it.

yesterday I was just disappointed that they’d not already fully consolidated. Writing this, that is seen as silly. Funny, because I was always explaining to clients why they could not just trust that new understandings (especially those contrary to old assumptions) would be automatically hard-wired.

No self is not a belief; it is a fact of Life. "Understanding it" is not the same as directly experiencing it.
Consider gravity. If you were to launch your body out of a moving swing, you would fall. I can tell you this, and you can believe it, but until you experience it for yourself, it is only a theory. You don't even have to understand how gravity works to experience it directly. Same with seeing through the illusion of self.

That takes time and intentionality/motivation.

Not in my experience. What it takes is SEEing there is no entity self anywhere in experience at all.

my motivation to consolidate the understanding of No-Self is a thousand times stronger than that to consolidate No-God.

That's fine, and it's entirely outside of the scope of this inquiry. I don't care if you ever understand no self; and I'm knocking myself out Pointing you to SEE it, to experience it directly, not to Think About it!!!

Realisation is only this: a subtle shift in perception. It doesn't confer sainthood, you don't get a halo. What you do get is the constant opportunity to notice that wife doing or saying something you label "annoying" just happens, and your upset just happens; no one is doing anything to any one. You are not in control of your behaviours or reactions any more than she is. This is the gift of seeing through the illusion; Life is just happening, and no one is in control of or responsible for it.

Yes, that was clear until the event yesterday.

What direct experience of yesterday obscures the fact that Life is just happening without any direction from "you"?

Love
Nona