The Gate

Hi Kevin,

Great, I am so glad we are on the right track.

When I say there is no you, that it's only a thought, and that you have never existed, is the fear coming up again?

Not so much a fear as some discomfort in the solar plexus area. As if something tries to say "yes, I is only a thought, but it does exist as a useful idea! Like number 1, for example - not material, but important nevertheless!" It's an empty cold balloon feeling in the stomach, and then it also goes to the back of the neck like something is grabbing it with a cold hand, and the spine freezes for a moment.

But then with "never existed" part another fear comes up - a confused fear in the chest area "how to live without an I? What are the rules of the game then?" Like I am on a battlefield without a weapon. How am I supposed to fight? I could do something wrong, and I can never be wrong! I must be right and always know what to do! That's what comes up and presses down on my ribs, making it hard to breathe and think. It's the fear of the unknown, a subconscious reaction to freeze and play dead.

I did watch my fears closely in the past and they just evaporated after a while. But returned back. As a matter of fact, I was completely, freakishly fearless for a couple of years after the first enlightenment. Never thought it would come back again.

I will do more of this and let you know what comes up next.

As if something tries to say "yes, I is only a thought, but it does exist as a useful idea! Like number 1, for example - not material, but important nevertheless!"

Tell me how, "I", which you have identified as only a thought, is important.

Best,
Kevin

Tell me how, "I", which you have identified as only a thought, is important.

I am going to play devil's advocate here for a moment...

"I", "mine" is a repeating abstract thought, i.e. a concept, and is a crucial part of the model of the world by which thinking process operates. The modern adult life is full of abstractions, which need to be understood and manipulated by mind in order to keep everything in order. Jobs, bank accounts, property, relationships, responsibilities, hobbies and so on. All are abstract concepts. "I" is one of them, and it seems to keep this shaky structure intact, although at the very high cost. Job needs to be attended so that money flows into the bank account so that food appears on the table. How is it going to happen without abstract planning? The actor called "I" comes into play and lubricates/glues it all together. Without "I" there is so much friction in thoughts that they simply don't take off the ground of the immediate physical reality, which essentially makes you an idiot.

As they say in statistics, all models are wrong, but some are useful. I've been relying on "I" out of necessity to make sense out of this mess called life. I did try to learn how to constantly keep in mind that all these abstractions are constructed only for convenience, there is no actual entity behind them, but it just does not work for long. The illusion is too powerful for my brain not to start believing in it when it is in automatic mode.

There is another viable model though. At one point there was a drastic shift of attention in my world from the "point of view" to the "field of view" where everything, including myself, was clearly seen just as equally unimportant self-aware actors on the invisible stage, the "big mind". There was still abstract thinking, but it was more like a silent voice coming out of nowhere and belonging to nobody, not to "Andrei" who was just an actor playing a role. That's the closest to an "I"-less world that ever manifested in this experience, and as you probably can sense, it is a very fond memory of mine. But it's just a memory. Not a direct experience anymore. And I am here for a direct experience of whatever it happens to be. So no more philosophical essays.

All I am trying to say is that I don't try to get rid of "I", just see it for what it is, preferably not only when sitting on a meditation cushion. Fair enough?

When I say there is no you, that it's only a thought, and that you have never existed, is the fear coming up again?

Still nervous. Feeling like standing on the brink of a dark abyss. Wanting to jump, not knowing how... Strings attached. A sense of mental modeling going on, constructing the "non-existent I". You know what? There is a feeling that this chasing of my own tail can go on indefinitely, but that's just another thought-projection, making future out of now. A cardboard house. So close to the rabbit hole... Will sleep on this feeling.

Hi Andrei,
Excellent answer to the second question--right from the heart--perfect.
Great idea to "sleep on this feeling."
Pose the question to yourself again tomorrow about what comes up when you discover I is only a thought.
Report back on it
To the first question.
Right when you said I'm going to play devil's advocate you bounced off the spring board of direct experience into a pool of deep thought, filled with abstracts, conceptualizations and dream work.
Look back on it and see how fast you lost the moment.
You won't find the truth in a great narrative, no matter how well it's written.
I'm going to ask you to return to that question and give me an answer drawn from direct experience..
Tell me how, "I", which you have identified as only a thought is important.
Keep digging,

Kevin



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Pose the question to yourself again tomorrow about what comes up when you discover I is only a thought.

I actually woke up at 4AM feeling that there is no fear of never having an "I". It simply hides a question what to do with all other things related to it. Willpower came to the front. Can't imagine willpower that does not belong to someone. That's more thinking, of course, but the felt sense behind it is the fear of losing something crucial. Which brings us back to the "importance". I took that as a theoretical question, so I gave a theoretical answer. "Importance" is another label, just like "I". A label accompanied with bodily sensations. Mention it, and a felt sense arises inside, which causes another thought, and so on. Thought-feeling-thought-feeling. Each of them is meaningless on its own. Their pattern is the meaning.

OK, here is something that I just don't get. Attention. As long as it is focused on something real, all this "I" nonsense does not matter. But it cannot be controlled - by whom? It does not even exist. Attention is simply "what is", the form of the present moment. Screen. Keyboard. "I" can't choose what comes up each moment, but somehow it is supposed to be "real", not "thoughts". Both are just empty forms. The current feeling is that the head is going to explode. Can't understand a thought with a thought. Everything is already happening by itself. Impulses to think, like attempts to gulp air when drowning... Seizure of the thought process. Silence...

Tell me how, "I", which you have identified as only a thought is important.

I don't know. Don't feel like thinking about it now.

I don't want you to "think" about it.

Keep looking.

Andrei,

This question is not "theoretical."
You raised it in your July 14 post when you said:

As if something tries to say "yes, I is only a thought, but it does exist as a useful idea! Like number 1, for example - not material, but important nevertheless!

So my question is:

Tell me how, "I", which you have identified as only a thought is important.

Explain in direct experience, please.

Thanks,

Kevin

Kevin,

I don't want you to "think" about it...Tell me how, "I", which you have identified as only a thought is important.

That's the thing, it's no longer important... or not important... Simply irrelevant. Something gave up on this kind of thinking, at least right now. And the subject is no longer relevant to anything that is going on. Important, not important, who cares? The word "important" itself does not make any sense right now. What is importance? No feeling comes up. It's just an idea, a sound.

So let's go back to the original question.

What comes up when you discover I is only a thought.

Okay. A thought "I" emerges. A familiar "something" starts moving in the chest. So? Inconsequential. It just stops right there. "I", feeling, done. Something has burned out. The magic is over.

"I never existed". Woo-o-o, spooky :) A scene from a thriller movie, yawn. I am not 6 anymore.

Hi Andrei,

Let's take a look at what experiences.

• In direct experience, can you find an “I” that experiences experience?
  
  
• Is there a seer separate from the seen?
  
  
• Is there a hearer that hears?

Remember, just draw from direct experience.

Best,

Kevin

In direct experience, can you find an “I” that experiences experience?

No, of course not. "I" is the experience when it is thought.

Is there a seer separate from the seen?

No seer, no seeing, just what's seen.

Is there a hearer that hears?

Only the sound.

Afterthought follows, and then there is no seen, no heard, just the thought itself. One experience at a time.

Hi Kevin,

Sadly, this isn't quite "it". This is a very liberating state indeed, but already there is a sense of attachment to it and expectation+fear that it will end as spontaneously as it began.

Can I ask you to guide me a bit longer, please?

Thanks,
Andrei

Hi Andrei,
Glad to hear your experience is very liberating.
But we're only getting started.
Okay if we continue for a while?

Great.

In the above, you say:

No seer, no seeing, just what's seen.

Does it not feel more accurate to say there is no seer, no seen, just seeing?
It's okay if it doesn't, just checking.

Is there a hearer that hears?

Only the sound.

And here, only the hearing?
I only ask--and this is purely my personal view--but to me it feels like there is no subject or object, just perception.
That's me though.

Good stuff,

Kevin

Ah, it was liberating while it lasted. This morning, a headache, the usual thoughts and sense of choosing something that is not here. Samsara is calling :)

Does it not feel more accurate to say there is no seer, no seen, just seeing?

No, it doesn't. All of these are wrong. The experience is what comes first and it cannot be labeled at all. It is already as complete as it can be without any labels. After that, a thought - an attempt to classify and label the memory of it. By that time the experience itself is already gone. So "tell from the direct experience" is a joke. But it helps...

The seen, seeing and the seer are the same thing. But the seeing and the seer are absent of any distinct properties. They just "must be there". Describe them if you can! Only the seen manifests as something. That's why I say there is only seen, heard, smelled, thought, whatever is the current form of the moment. And I don't mean it to be some "object". Just the experience itself. Black! White! Oh, but this is a "letter on the screen", perceived in the act of "seeing" by "me". Afterthoughts.

To me it feels like there is no subject or object, just perception

.
Perception, as opposed to what? Have you ever encountered anything that wasn't a perception? That word is also redundant...

And yet, all this is just a philosophy again. Yesterday something tripped my mind over to just drop it all and smell the roses, so to speak. Today, back in cage. Don't know how it happened yesterday, don't know how it happened today... Sad.

Hi Andrei,

You're back into analytical thought.
We will make no progress if you can't dig deep and speak from direct experience.
Do you think you can do that?

In DE, answer these:
Is there a separate you?
Is there a separate other?

Thanks,
Kevin

Yes, thank you for reminding, I needed that. I want to dig deep and speak from direct experience, but that is what comes out, with a feeling that I am scratching some hard surface.

Is there a separate you?

A mental image comes up, a shadow, a fuzzy ball of smoke. Does not feel personal anymore. No "me". Oh, here it comes, the personal feeling. But it still does not feel separate. There is nothing but the sense of me.

Is there a separate other?

There is a sense of separation. A sense of "something-looking-at-something". A distance. A subject-perceiving-an-object, but neither of them is "me". Weird.

It feels that these two do not mix. When I feel "me", I don't feel "other". When I feel "me-looking-at-other", I don't feel "me". But both feelings can still be evoked, one at a time.

Thanks,
Andrei