Kiwi

[Nemo]

Hello Mike!

Really nice work!

In response to your question, yes, that is pretty much what I am saying in my blog post. Only you take take this line of investigation even further, especially in relation to no-self - that "my reality is different to your reality", because to start with of course, there is no you or I... therefore, "my" reality doesn't actually exist, except as a story or an unverifiable concept in "your" reality - which isn't your reality at all, it's the only reality. Does that make sense?

And the rest of your post is also really terrific, really solid and clear. Wonderful!
There are two points that it would be great if you could elaborate further on though. I think I understand what you are getting at, but I would like to be certain, and as thorough as possible :)

• I am what is being directly experienced by me right now. Totality, everything and nothing, what is. Truth.
• My reality is not your reality. Although we are the same consciousness, our direct experiences (and therefore our realities) differ. I cannot access your reality so it is not real to me

~Nemo~

[Nemo]

Whoops, sorry! Just one point, the first one. The second point I spoke about above.

[Kiwi]

Hi Nemo

Didn’t express too clearly, did I? I reread it and scratched my head also!! Please don't apologise for thoroughness - every question clarifies things for me

I am the totality of that which is being experienced – which is awareness. In the case of “I am walking”, there is no I, there is simply walking – but there is more than that, as walking occurs within awareness, and I am that also. In other words, I am everything that is occurring at the moment of experience – before any illusion of separated objects arises.

I could have saved a lot of words be simply saying: I am awareness!!

I had a moment this afternoon that illustrates what I’m trying in words to express. Walking to the local library, in the sun I saw a small lizard basking. I stopped and looked at the lizard – he looked directly back at me. After a minute or so, a sense of “Knowing” occurred that I was that lizard and that lizard was me – and I had the rather odd feeling that I was looking at myself! Later as I mulled that over, what else could have occurred except that the awareness that both of the “lizard” and “me” are, had “seen itself”

It was a strangely delightful moment

Mike

[Nemo]

Hey Mike,

I'm glad we're being thorough as we get a chance to look for any lingering identification, and something interesting has been uncovered here that I'd love to take a look at with you.

I am the totality of that which is being experienced – which is awareness. In the case of “I am walking”, there is no I, there is simply walking – but there is more than that, as walking occurs within awareness, and I am that also. In other words, I am everything that is occurring at the moment of experience – before any illusion of separated objects arises.

It is common, as a final stand, for self belief to attach itself to and identify with awareness. Once no-separation is seen - which is what you are looking at right now with such brilliant clarity - it is easy to see oneself no longer as a separate self, but as everything, the totality. "I am awareness" is also a pointer used by a lot of teachers to help people shift their perspective, but it is still not the moon, it's just the finger. If you look a little deeper at the words "I am awareness", you can see that "I" is simply being used as a synonym or label for awareness, and really it doesn't have anything to do with self any more at all. So it's a little like saying "wood is timbre" or something like that. There really is no need, and in fact it can be a little confusing. So the logical next step, when coming to the realisation "I am awareness" is to drop the "I am" part for good.

So take a good look at this, be discerning and honest, and see if this is just a language thing or if there is some residual identification with awareness happening here. What is believed? Closely examine the "I am" and what it means, why it was placed where it was amongst your words, and tell me what you find :)

[Kiwi]

Hi Nemo

Thank you for the feedback. An “ah ha” moment for me. The grammatical “every verb must have a subject” convention is a hard one to break. Looking certainly reveals no self to “own” anything, so it is only the convention when writing (or thinking) about it, that someone has to – hence the erroneous use of the pronoun. But you’re absolutely right that using the construct “I am (something)” as in “I am awareness” is leaving the door open for the self to continue an identification with a “thing”. At best, it is confusing. My bullet point should have been simply written “There is Awareness, the experience of everything, Life. – and to hell with the grammatical convention!!. There is no self to “own” anything and the “I am” is both redundant and potentially troublesome as it leaves an “I” standing with the potential to bite. You’ve clarified why Maharshi’s famous “I am that” troubles me – he is pointing to some-thing – “that”. The finger, not the moon. Fewer words are better!!

Thanks

Mike

[Nemo]

Haha! Wonderful. Grins from ear to ear here. I giggled at "You’ve clarified why Maharshi’s famous “I am that” troubles me – he is pointing to some-thing – “that”. The finger, not the moon." because those famous words have long troubled me also. :)

Okay, I have one last question for you, to give me your best rant yet.
Do you exist?

[Kiwi]

Hi Bonnie

I'll be sad if this is a last question, as I've enjoyed them immensely and have learn heaps from answering the questions you have posed. As a question, this one Do you exist is a beauty

To begin with I simply wanted to say “No, I do not exist” – and leave it at that. But this question revealed more dimensions than were first apparent, so I’ll drill down on what was revealed.

As a separate and individual entity – the answer is an unequivocal “no, I do not exist”

As awareness, the answer is that the “I am” exists in all things (including while it is alive, in the body called Mike), as life itself, as the Absolute Truth. So, as the “I am” there is existence <grins widely> and it exists gloriously, boundlessly, timelessly, tranquilly, contentedly and serenely

A body apparently exists that, through sensory input and thoughts gets things done each day using the name “Mike” and the identity of “Mike” that has been developed over many years by Mike’s “self”. The “I am” exists, albeit temporarily, in this apparent body called “Mike” but certainly does not require the body/mind of “Mike” to sustain itself, nor does it control own, or feel responsible for the myriad of actions performed by this body/mind identity called Mike. Eventually the body of Mike will outlive its usefulness and die, at which time the mind (which has never existed) will cease providing succour to the illusion of “I as a separate entity”. The illusion of its “existence”, in short will collapse. With the death of the body, the “I am” will return from whence it came, the formless/void (or whatever term is in vogue at the time!!). In other words, the “I am” will continue to exist after the collapse of the illusion but who knows what happens then!!

Someone has somewhat crudely (but accurately enough in concept), described the relationship between the “I am” and the mind/body as being essentially parasitic: neither is responsible for the other, neither one knows of the existence of the other and yet they both depend upon each other: the “I am” draws upon the body/mind for the range of experiences that the body/mind vehicle is able to provide in this lifetime, while the body/mind draws upon the “I am” to animate and make conscious the intricacies of the body machine’s systems so that it can participate in “the game”

Thank you, infinite, for that!!

Summary (in case my ramblings have muddied the water)

• 1. I do NOT exist as a separate, illusionary “I”
  2. The body/mind identified as “Mike” is a “short term” separate participant in the illusion. So the body/mind of Mike does NOT exist either
  3. There is existence as the constant, ever-present and timeless “I am”, Awareness.

[Kiwi]

Hi Nemo

I answered your last question, but included in it a “hook” that I would like to now explore. The “hook” was the paragraph which floated the idea that the “I am does not require the body, but the body requires the I am to become animated so that it can, as a player experience life” I would like to tease this out

Awareness requires no body. I mean, at some stage in the autolytic inquiry, the “I”, the body, the mind and the self are all seen as completely irrelevant to the truth of I am. They simply do not exist at that point. So why did the Infinite manifest them to the non-realised and make them appear “real”? Why did not the Infinite simply dispense with all of that which is illusionary and allow awareness to simply “be” – it certainly is within the power of the Infinite to do exactly that. McKenna leaves this one more-or-less unanswered, as does Rose. So the question remains, why is there a body at all? Awareness certainly doesn’t need a body in order to be awareness. So why is the body/mind still here?

Stephen Smith in his “Butterflies are free” advances a model to answer that question. He picks up on McKenna’s notion of the “human child”, notes that the definition of a “human child” has nothing to do with their chronological age, but everything to do with the limitation that they experience. In Smith’s model, humans have been created to enable the Infinite to experience that which they (the Infinite) cannot possibly experience: limitation. Ancient vedic texts propose that “life is a game” and Smith advances this thought. The “I am” requires no body/mind – it is liberated from limitation. The “I” requires a body/mind through which it has never-ending experiences of limitation that are “sent back” to the Infinite which is thereby able to “experience” limitation vicariously, through the “I”. The human child body/mind is designed to experience limitation. After realisation, the body/mind remains simply to allow the realised to continue having experiences, of no-limitation

The “Gate” is simply the entrance to the experiences of no limitation. It is the “journey home”. The human child is left behind and the exploration of the limitless potential that “I am” can deepen to the point that McKenna and Smith (and others throughout history) have reached.

At this point, I feel very little limitation – if any at all (right now I can’t envisage limitation of any sort, but given the nature of life, there may well be a few experiences remaining, so the spiritual autolysis process continues! I can, however, relax and curiously explore (rather than intensely “seek”), knowing that if there are a few experiences of limitation in store for “me”, they will be “fine tuning” and that the remainder of my human experience will be one of growing into greater and deeper non-limitation

The “seeker” is often portrayed as a person who’s very intensity works against their ever realising that which they are seeking. The seeker is simply experiencing limitation – which is their “job” They are doing nothing wrong, they are doing what the Infinite designed them to do. Once the thought occurs that the individual and separate “I” they think themselves to be is illusionary rather than real is the start of the journey out of limitation, out of human childhood. Once that thought turns into a “knowing” that they experience, they have emerged from the darkness of limitation into human adulthood, where limitation does not exist.. Some may even want to move further.

And on that enigmatic note, I’ve run out of fuel. The “rant” ends. I’d love your thoughts.

Mike

[Nemo]

Hello Mike, apologies for the delay!

A wonderful inquiry, with some very interesting paths of exploration, and ideas that I have not thought to touch on myself. A pleasurable and thought-provoking read.

I really like how you described this particular shift - "I can, however, relax and curiously explore (rather than intensely “seek”)" and your following thoughts about the seeker identity. It is definitely in this experience, and I have seen it happen many times in others now too.

As awareness, the answer is that the “I am” exists in all things (including while it is alive, in the body called Mike), as life itself, as the Absolute Truth. So, as the “I am” there is existence <grins widely> and it exists gloriously, boundlessly, timelessly, tranquilly, contentedly and serenely

You speak of the "I am" a fair bit, and I know we have already spoken about this, but the "I" is the primary focus of this investigation so we need to be super clear on it, for ourselves as well as anyone else who might be reading this. As we have seen, linguistics can make things unnecessarily tricky. So, would you say you could interchange "I am" with "That which is" or something similar? Or could you elaborate a little more on what you have written above, explaining the "I am" as thoroughly as you can?

Love,
Nemo

[Kiwi]

Hi Nemo

Thanks for the feedback. What delay?

Without the need to write but to simply “be”, there is the quite subtle knowledge that whatever is watching or thinking life unfold is life itself. Life is not personal and hence the “detached” – no “ownership” of anything is involved, nor is there any sense of “personal; doing” There is simply life taking a detached curiosity to the unfolding of itself.

The use of the “I” construct lingers because of the written language requirement that a verb needs a subject. This is a bit of a paradox – “I” has no truth to it any more, but without the pronoun in writing about the truth, that truth is easily submerged beneath the stilted and/or confusing English

So when the “I” construct is used, what is that able to be interchanged with?

It interchanges with the Infinite, to that which cannot be defined, has no boundaries, is Unity, One-ness. the formless - at one and the same time, - everything and nothing.

To interchange with “what which is” expression you gave as an example, is a little confusing simply because the word “is” points to something (as does “I am that”) that implies the existence of form, of separation.

The Bart Marshall translation of the Ashtavakra Gita has Ashtavakra plugging away at the truth-realised King Janaka until the latter completely drops any notion of the personal. Janaka eventually realises that a truth realised being has no personal dimension. The Truth cannot point to anything that is not itself. There is no “pointing” as there is nothing to point to!

The Buddha is said to have defined what enlightenment was through the use of a negative construct (“the end of suffering”). Essentially a non-definition that left his followers to find out what it meant for them as individuals
In similar fashion the use of the personal “I am” could be used interchangeably with “the absence of form” or the more positively expressed “that which is ever constant and never-changing”. In short, every instance where the "I am" is used is always interchangeable with “Absolute Truth”

Nemo, much like Ashtavakra, you are guiding me to the seeing that nothing is personal, the "I" has no place, even in writing. The Truth is never partial and the use of the “I” construct, no matter how well intentioned, is both confusing and no longer appropriate without great discrimination

In gratitude

Mike

[Nemo]

Hehe, yes, we have definitely put the "I" construct through the wringer together! And I agree about the "that which is" expression. Things can always be condensed, simplified further it seems. Sometimes I feel this really is the simplest thing there is, and it never ceases to amaze me at how much we manage to complicate, distort, overstate, etc etc... ah, but it can be fun to do so!

I also find it amazing at how we, as people, so often take life for granted, it becomes mundane to us, and since the dawn of mankind we have continuously created mystical and majestic concepts and labels such as religion, God, the soul, the source, etc - we ascribe such divine attributes and labels to 'life' that we seem to forget it is already divine beyond words! :)

Thank you for your dedication, honesty and integrity here Mike, it's a true pleasure... So, how are you feeling? Do you have any lingering doubts anywhere at all? Any questions you might want to ask me?

[Kiwi]

Hi Nemo,

Gratitude seems a barely adequate word to describe the gentle discernment, empathetic and persistent approach that you have used to guide me throughout our dialog. You made the process a profound and extraordinary one. So, with love, thank you

There have been two pivotal moments during our dialog: the first came after reading that sentence on your blog and resulted in awareness being seen through the illusion. The second came barely four days ago when the legacy remnants of “I” were confronted and disappeared. What is left of the illusionary self? Nothing. What is felt? A tranquil contentment and a complete acceptance that everything has always been perfect and will always be so.

No doubts exist.

In Jed McKenna’s trilogy you’ll recall that a student told Jed that he was “done”, his inquiry had ended. Nemo, if you were to ask me whether I was “completely done”, the honest answer would be “no” The gate may have been traversed but there is more to inquire about. Truth is simple but it has many facets to its simplicity.

What’s next?

With love

Mike

[Nemo]

Ah, music to my ears... the gratitude is mutual. And thank you for pin-pointing the key moments of the shift too, it is often a question we ask at this point and you have instinctively gone ahead and answered it!

As for being "done", and honestly answering "no", is even more music to my ears! I myself still would answer "No". It is understood what Jed means when he uses the word "done" but it should not be taken too literally either, for surely the only "done" is death itself. I much prefer how Jed describes it as the first-and-last step, rolled into one.

What's next? Well, seeing as you have expressed an urge to pay it forward and have a go at guiding (which is absolutely wonderful) we will get the ball rolling there if you like! I found more than one person with your name on facebook and couldn't figure out which one was you, so PM me and I'll join you up, you can cyber-meet the rest of the gang ;) and we'll turn you "blue" here. Also, have a good read of the guidebook pdf I sent you too, if you haven't already.
And don't forget, you can email me any time. The journey continues...

Much respect and love my friend. Welcome.

*Bows*