The Gate

I guess I must have great proprioceptive senses -- I've repeated that exercise several times with the same results.

So, moving on ....

When I point to that place in my chest, I can't see a "me." And I don't imagine that a surgeon would find a physical mass that corresponds to "me" either.

When I point to that place in my head where my ego seems to reside, I see my finger pointing at a spot in the center of my forehead. Actually I SEE 2 fingers (double image) and I'm able to see through each of those images. Again, I don't imagine that there's a physical mass that corresponds to an "ego" that could be located via MRI or during surgery on my head.

When I close my eyes and visualize a watermelon, the image and sensations are quite vivid. In fact, I'm actually able to taste it. So sensations can feel very real, even if the object is imaginary. The test of real versus imaginary is whether I'm able to SEE it.

I will admit to having some skepticism about this definition of "real." There are many things that I can't see that I would say are real. All forms of energy, for instance. I can't see electricity, but I know it's real because my lamp comes on when I plug it into an electrical outlet. I can't see things like bacteria or other microorganisms with my naked eye, but I know they're real -- I've seen them under a microscope. Even something like an odor -- I can't see it, but I can smell it. So is it not real?

I will admit to having some skepticism about this definition of "real."

Do you mean this one?

"Real is that which does not disappear if you stop believing in it."

Does energy disappear when you stop believing in it? Electricity? Bacteria or microorganisms?

Somehow you seem to have read something i didn't write. What i did write is that Real can be directly experienced.

Real is not "everything you can see with your eyes"; and i concentrate on visual experience because the brain will accept as true something it sees even when what is seen is patently false.

For example: At the moment, the right hand of this body has a severe injury. At the physiotherapist's office, i put my right hand inside a cardboard box that has a mirror on the outside that faces my left hand. i was given a ball for each hand and instructed to manipulate the balls. i could see my left hand, but not my right. While manipulating the balls, i was asked to look in the mirror where my 'good' left hand was reflected in reverse. i "saw" a right hand moving freely. Brain thinks, ahhhh, that's better! and right hand loosens up a bit. Brain is no longer locked in the belief that right hand 'does not work'. (Patients with phantom-limb pain are given this exercise to fool the brain into believing it can 'ease' the missing limb—and it does!)


i ask you what may seem to be silly questions about a doctor finding a 'real' me or ego because i want you to SEE, not merely think or believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt that these do not exist in the physical.
You warned that you tend to intellectualise; look at the physical evidence, then—no distracting thoughts there!

This process is "stacked"; each unlocking leads to another tier of unlocking. i ask you to bear with me, and play along enthusiastically.
Earlier you said

I feel like a detective, trying to find clues, really looking without any preconceived ideas.

That wonderfully openminded looking is necessary here.

one just needs a clear intention to finally see the truth, no matter what distractions stand in the way.

To continue...

Actually I SEE 2 fingers (double image) and I'm able to see through each of those images.

Excellent!!! Great reporting of direct experience!

When I point to that place in my chest, I can't see a "me." And I don't imagine that a surgeon would find a physical mass that corresponds to "me" either.

No. There is no 'me' in or on your chest.

So if 'you' are not where you pointed, where are you? Could 'you' be the same stuff as the imaginary watermelon?

When I close my eyes and visualize a watermelon, the image and sensations are quite vivid. In fact, I'm actually able to taste it. So sensations can feel very real, even if the object is imaginary.

YES!!! Exactly. Now apply that discovery to image of 'self'.

the image and sensations are quite vivid.

Isn't that also true of self? The image and sensations of 'me' that you experience in your chest and head are quite vivid. i know this because you described them to me vividly. These are your go-to places for guidance and ownership.

sensations can feel very real, even if the object is imaginary.

Indeed.
So imaginary things, like cups and watermelons, FEEL real, but can be SEEN to exist only in imagination, in thoughts.

'Self' is another imaginary thing that can be seen to exist only in thoughts.

If there isn't a me, then who/what is the entity that feels what I'm feeling, sees what I see, hears what I hear? It certainly seems that there is a separate entity that is experiencing those things.

Will you take a stab at answering your own question?

i very much look forward to your response!
love
Nona

Nona,

Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding. I'm not sure where that came from, but I'm glad that I voiced my skepticism because it was definitely getting in the way. Thanks also for explaining that this is a "stacked" process -- that helps me understand what's going on. I'm definitely on board to play along enthusiastically. And I'll also tell you when I'm getting bogged down, so you can set me straight again :)

So, yes, I can absolutely see that vivid images and sensations that I have of a self are very similar to those I had of the imaginary watermelon. I also agree that the self and the ego do not exist in the physical.

Regarding answering my own question about who/what is this entity that is experiencing what "I" experinece -- I don't know. I'd have to say it's some form of consciousness or life force or energy. When it's within my body or sharing space with my body, the illusion is created that "it" is "me." But if that's the case, it's still something that doesn't exist in the physical, I'm not about to visualize it -- all the things we're saying about the self. So how is that any different? I'm just getting myself confused here!

Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding. I'm not sure where that came from, but I'm glad that I voiced my skepticism because it was definitely getting in the way.

Thank 'you' for stepping up and saying your piece! We're stuck with language to communicate with, so there's bound to be some misunderstanding!

Thanks also for explaining that this is a "stacked" process -- that helps me understand what's going on. I'm definitely on board to play along enthusiastically.

Yay! This can be So Much FUN!!!

And I'll also tell you when I'm getting bogged down, so you can set me straight again :)

i genuinely appreciate the opportunity to Clarify.

yes, I can absolutely see that vivid images and sensations that I have of a self are very similar to those I had of the imaginary watermelon.

Yes. Sense of self is real — same as sense of watermelon. 'self' is imaginary; same as imaginary watermelon.

Please describe Catherine for me in these terms (vivid images and sensations, real vs imaginary). How is it that a sense of self is mistaken for a real self?

If you like, you may go back to the time before Catherine was 3 yrs old, when baby Catherine first 'learned' that there was an entity 'Catherine' that was 'in control of' and 'responsible for' "her" actions. How did parents and family, and later teachers, create a story of Catherine that has been believed unquestioned for all these years?

I also agree that the self and the ego do not exist in the physical.

i'm going to question your language here: i am not looking for agreement. This is not a belief or consensus statement; it is a physically verifiable FACT: there is no self or ego in the physical. None. We can go back and LOOK if necessary.

Regarding answering my own question about who/what is this entity that is experiencing what "I" experience -- I don't know.

Good. "I" is no longer an unquestioned assumption; 'Don't know' is a good place to be!

I'd have to say it's some form of consciousness or life force or energy.

Is it Personal? Is there a little chunk of consciousness or awareness or some other vague term that is separate from all other consciousness or awareness? Is it 'my' consciousness? Is it 'owned'?

When it's within my body or sharing space with my body, the illusion is created that "it" is "me."

GOOD!

But if that's the case, it's still something that doesn't exist in the physical,

Yes indeed!!! Doesn't exist and never did!

all the things we're saying about the self. So how is that any different? I'm just getting myself confused here!

Please ask yourself this:
Have I ever, even once, come across anything more real and solid than a thought when looking for the 'me'?

Can it be that 'self', 'me', is merely a thought? a story? a fiction, like Batman or Santa Claus? That there is not and never has been a separate 'me' outside of a thought?

Hi Nona,

Long day today, so I don't have much energy for this post tonight. But I will sit with this and answer your questions tomorrow.

Something I need some help with -- you asked "Is it Personal? Is there a little chunk of consciousness or awareness or some other vague term that is separate from all other consciousness or awareness? Is it 'my' consciousness? Is it 'owned'?"

My inclination is to say no, it's not personal, it's not separate from all other consciousness. But I can I experience this directly?

I can see that it's not "mine", I don't "own" it, because those are just labels which are just thoughts. And the labelling is done by the ego, which is just a thought also. But how can I SEE that this consciousness is not separate from all other consciousness, that it's not personal. Is this just a process of elimination, or is there a way for me to see this directly?

Thanks for your help. I'll be back tomorrow.

I will sit with this and answer your questions tomorrow.

No worries. Thanks for letting me know.
Some of this processing takes time; some seekers take days off to consolidate their learning! This is okay; just let me know.

And the labelling is done by the ego

No, it's not.

Labels are attached through thought. And where do thoughts come from?
Can you control thoughts?
What influences thoughts?
Do you know what your next thought is going to be?
Can a thought be stopped in the middle?
What do you know for sure?

Notice that thoughts come and go by themselves. They are just thoughts. And there is nothing that controls them, they roll one after another and there is no way to stop or get rid of them. Like a river that is running freely.

Look at thoughts as the labeling mechanism. Experience happens; labeling follows. Noticing, observation, witnessing happens; labels pop right after.

Notice body breathing. Look, is it breathing by itself of is there a breather? Label says “I breathe”. Is there an I that does the breathing? How about when you sleep? Does breathing need a breather?

Same with walking, eating, listening to music, dancing.
Every experience is followed by “I did this” comment. But look closer; is there a walker, an eater, a dancer?
Play with the labeling for a bit, notice that label "I" is just a label, a word that precedes other words in the label.
Right now reading happens effortlessly, and if you just stop for a second, thoughts appear and start labeling… I is one of thoughts.  I read. Really?
Can a thought think? Can a thought do anything?
So if "I" is a thought and thought does not think, there is no thinker? Is it true?

Check it out!

Looking forward to your post!!

Hey Catherine, how's it going?

Hi Nona,
Sorry to bail on you like that -- some unexpected stuff happening that needs my attention right now. I'll be back next week. Thanks for all your help so far.

No worries—thanks for letting me know!! See ya next week, then.

How are you going, dear one?