The Gate

Lets honestly look at what we have right here/now... All you really know is available via the senses that we have named seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling... and then there is thought.
The experience that is available via the 5 senses is exactly the same no matter if you are the Buddha, Obama, Trump or Amnon. The only real difference is the thought structures that are put on top of experience - your interpretation of it.
The wrong interpretation of experience is the same as what some teachings call ignorance. There is no ignorance anywhere else, its only in the acquired knowledge, in the interpretation of experience.
Now this network of interpretations can be seen through - by simply looking at direct experience you come back to reality. When you really look at anything that is happening and compare that to what thought states about it then you will find that basically everything that you know is only conventionally true and applicable. It is true in our world of rules and ideas, of I, me and other. But when you are ready to really question these ideas than you will find that ALL of them are just a story, that simply are not reflected in direct experience. Experience, what is, itself is an attribute-less is-ness (as a good friend of mine recently said) and when fully considering this you will find that everything, all your beliefs, your struggles, your path, whatever, is just a thought game. Yes, we are all playing it, so it is not very obvious that it has nothing to do with how things really are. But some question it and go looking for answers. The ultimate answer is that there really is no question at all - its all just a strange game we are playing. You cant really stop playing, but you can see that this is not "real". Reality holds nothing for you - it is, thats all. It can be scary to see that "you" have no place in reality - that there is no place to find a foothold - that thought is completely useless - that there is no hope... but when there is no hope then there is also no fear, no suffering, no problem. No you...
Now there are certain ways of eliminating or disarming these ignorant thought processes - direct pointing with the aim of you looking at what is pointed at seems to be the most effective way of seeing through these veils of interpretation - of seeing them for what they are - just thought structures that have only value in another thought based system - but never in reality.
So all you can really do is look - and stop taking thought as such an overly important part of your existence. It really is not more important than the sound of the rain or the whooshing of the wind...
Maybe you could try to find one thought based interpretation a day that you then explore in direct experience. Write down your interpretation including your expectations of what you might find in experience. Then look and note what is truly there. Perfect honesty is paramount and really looking into direct experience as well. Maybe you could do this for a few days and then come back with what you have found? For the start try to keep this inquiry in the area of the separate self/I. Look at interpretations like "I am looking at a tree." or "I am feeling sad." or "I can think only happy thoughts." etc...

Ok, I'll do as you suggest and set time aside to do the inquiry. At times, motivation to do more inquiry is difficult to find since it feels I know in advance what the results will be, i.e a few moments of noticing the experience or thoughts/emotions without latching on to them followed by "me" returning to center stage from buying into some selfing thoughts. It feels like no measurable progress can be made. Yes, I'm aware this itself is another story about what is experienced but this observation doesn't dislodge the story teller, let alone dissolve it.

Experience, what is, itself is an attribute-less is-ness

I'm not sure I understand the attribute-less part. The, experience of a certain color is different than that of another color which is itself different from the experience of a sound or a smell. I can't describe any of them in words or fit them into any concept that will catch their essence, but they are known by their different qualities - aren't those attributes? Or does the fact that they can be distinguished hint that thought is still involved?

Anyway, I'll continue noticing what comes up as I guess there's not much else to do, and report should anything surprise me...

Thanks for your help so far. Let me know when you decide my ignorance is uncrackable... :-)

I'm not sure I understand the attribute-less part.

This is not meant to be understood in a logical way. It should only point you to the realisation that all knowledge is for the conventional, conceptual spheres only. What do you think that this "not-knowing", that most sages have referred to, stands for? Its not a stupid state of having lost all knowledge, it is the final realisation that there is nothing like real knowledge at all. Everything that we "know" is only an interpretation that works well for our conventional life, but it has no truth to it. There really is nowhere to stand, there is no place for a foothold - and if you think you have found one then inquire into it... Look if it is really there...

That the "experience of a certain color is different than that of another color which is itself different from the experience of a sound or a smell" is your interpretation of what is. If you would have no idea what a sound, a smell or a physical sensation is then this interpretation would not arise. When you deeply look into this experience, can you really find a separation between sound, smell, vision and sensations? A step above complete attribute-less is-ness stands diversity - which is still not separation, which again is another level more abstract...
It really is only about adding more and more layers of interpretations on top of "what is"... Peel all layers away and see what you are left with... and in all this "experience".. where is the I to be found? In which layer of interpretation is "me/I" turning into something tangible?

Everything that we "know" is only an interpretation that works well for our conventional life, but it has no truth to it. There really is nowhere to stand, there is no place for a foothold - and if you think you have found one then inquire into it... Look if it is really there...

Doesn't the fact that it works well imply that there's at least some truth to it (even if it is in a limited perspective/context)?
You can't land on Mars based on falsehoods, nor can you build a computer - but there's no need to go that far as you can't even know how not to walk into a wall if an interpretation has absolutely no truth to it. Our interpretations are constrained to what our senses show and what our mind has been conditioned to see, but to say it is not based on any truth is something I find hard to digest.

No need to mention that it's my mind talking here - maybe to get past it I'll have to somehow convince my logical processing to let go by letting it chew on something that will force it to give up, since I currently see no other way to bypass the mind's guard.

If you would have no idea what a sound, a smell or a physical sensation is then this interpretation would not arise.

The same could be said about what idea I'd have of sensations before this body was born and after it will die, but at my level of understanding the question is still theoretical and meaningless.

It really is only about adding more and more layers of interpretations on top of "what is"... Peel all layers away and see what you are left with... and in all this "experience".. where is the I to be found? In which layer of interpretation is "me/I" turning into something tangible?

The "I" can be found at the very basic level where sensations are in opposition to what the body/mind process deems as good, and the sharper the contrast between what is beneficial to continued existence of the organism and what is happening, the more prominent will be the feeling of an "I" that wants to change the situation. I don't know how many layers already exist at that point, but I think it's basic enough that it is not limited to something only humans experience, and hence neither is the experience of suffering.

I try to examine all sensations, "good" or "bad" to get to the bottom of what they are, before they are labeled but when I "return" it doesn't seem that anything substantial has changed in my understanding. One moment I can see the neutral quality of a sensation of pain in my leg and the next I'm back to being anxious/suffering about some thing or other, making me wonder if I've learned anything at all (which in itself is another form of suffering).

Our interpretations are constrained to what our senses show and what our mind has been conditioned to see, but to say it is not based on any truth is something I find hard to digest.

The truth that can be found is always only a conventional truth - it works when based on our conceptual structures of how the world and the universe function. But truth only works in this duality - what can you do with truth if there are no objects, no things to apply it to?

This doesn't meant that one doesn't recognise a wall as a wall - it simply means that this experience is completely empty of "walls". A "wall" is purely a conceptual structure, which doesn't mean that one cant walk into it and hurt his head while doing so... The head as well as the pain are also just ideas, in reality there are none of these things...

I try to examine all sensations, "good" or "bad" to get to the bottom of what they are, before they are labeled but when I "return" it doesn't seem that anything substantial has changed in my understanding. One moment I can see the neutral quality of a sensation of pain in my leg and the next I'm back to being anxious/suffering about some thing or other, making me wonder if I've learned anything at all

There is nothing to learn. The "right understanding" comes not form learning something new. It comes form looking which will result in its own truth.
The "I" doesn't have to understand - it might even go on doubting and questioning and covering up what has been seen - all you can do is to be aware of this happening. Seeing, looking, bringing things to the light of clear presence, will result in understanding. It doesn't require a "logical" chain of thought that is full of substantial proofs (like a mathematical equation) - the proof is in the experience itself. When it opens up the "proof" has been found - don't try to find a logical proof of why things are as they are. Its not about why, its only about "what is". Look at "what is" and strip away all your ideas from "what is" - what is left?

The truth that can be found is always only a conventional truth - it works when based on our conceptual structures of how the world and the universe function

This "conventional truth" is the basis for everything. This entire correspondence would have been very short (and rightly so) if there were continuous contradictions in everything I wrote, or if I told you every time I responded that I lied about the previous response and I'm not really doing anything that was suggested but just making up answers. One reason I don't lie is because I believe that any lie is just a lie to yourself. That doesn't mean I don't unconsciously lie to myself - the very fact that I'm still searching for Truth probably means I'm still lying to myself about something (namely, that there's anyone to lie to). I have no idea what this ultimate Truth is in the sense that you mean, but if it has absolutely nothing to do with "conventional truth" I'd be really surprised, not to mention totally confused...

A "wall" is purely a conceptual structure, which doesn't mean that one cant walk into it and hurt his head while doing so...

A unicorn is also purely a conceptual structure, but I'll never walk into one. The truth that I'm referring to is not the concept or interpretation but whatever it is that gives rise to the concept or interpretation. In the case of a unicorn, it's just a thought that gives rise to it. In the case of a wall, it's also just a thought - a concept that represents something, but while I can never tell you what a wall ultimately is, I can tell you that its more than just the thought of it. If that wasn't the case then I should have been able to see people walking through walls by now.

Look at "what is" and strip away all your ideas from "what is" - what is left?

I wish I could strip away all my ideas from "what is", but I feel like I'm hopelessly stuck in a cobweb of conceptualising. You say 'the "I" might even go on doubting and questioning and covering up what has been seen - all you can do is to be aware of this happening' - well, how can there be awareness that this is happening while this "I" is ruling the show and taken to be what is true? I don't expect an answer that will miraculously unveil the obvious, just want to make sure that the only thing to do is to continue to notice when opportunity allows.

This "conventional truth" is the basis for everything

Yes, true, its the basis for every thing.
But do you really find things outside of thoughts?
The discussion we are having is like thought ping pong... its a thorn used to remove a thorn. At the end you discard both.
It is not necessary at all, but it happens anyway... that seems to be the game we are playing...

I have no idea what this ultimate Truth is in the sense that you mean, but if it has absolutely nothing to do with "conventional truth" I'd be really surprised, not to mention totally confused...

I am not saying that I can offer an ultimate truth, all I can offer is help in deconstructing all conventional beliefs. What you are left with is truth/reality" which is not something to be known/understood by the mind...

A unicorn is also purely a conceptual structure, but I'll never walk into one.

Haha... yes, one will hope...

The truth that I'm referring to is not the concept or interpretation but whatever it is that gives rise to the concept or interpretation. In the case of a unicorn, it's just a thought that gives rise to it. In the case of a wall, it's also just a thought - a concept that represents something, but while I can never tell you what a wall ultimately is, I can tell you that its more than just the thought of it. If that wasn't the case then I should have been able to see people walking through walls by now.

Yes... I see your point... So please show me this "whatever it is that gives rise to the concept or interpretation".
Where is it, What is it?
If there would be a real object then your conclusion would be solid, but first find the object then look if the interpretation is feasible... What if you cant find any objects? Is there still something left that could give rise to a true/accurate interpretation?
Well... we could maybe say that what gives rise to the concept or interpretation is direct experience...
So how does this work... when walking into a wall there will be certain physical and visual perceptions happening. Do they have anything to do with the concept "wall"? There will be some shapes/colours... and then there will be some physical sensation of pressure, maybe pain... What follows is interpretation... a wall is made of something solid, concrete, and I cant walk through it. When I walk into it I will hurt myself... etc etc...
The concept is here so we can talk and think about it, but you don't need it to not walk into a wall, do you?
Once you run into a wall once or twice as a child there will be a different kind of learning and knowing - a learning by experiencing, not by thinking about it (this is where all true knowledge comes from). You don't need a concept "wall" to learn that this thing called wall is something solid and that you cant walk through it...
Even if someone would tell you all about walls and their properties you would most likely still walk into one if you would have never seen one before...
The concept of "unicorn" is not so much different to the concept "wall" - the only (seeming) difference is that you have not seen/experienced one for "real", so you might not instinctively know what to do with it in case it appears in front of you... you might approach it like a horse or some other animal, but that is really all you can do...
So... in some way "wall" seems to be a concept that relates closer to reality/experience than "unicorn", but as a concept itself they are exactly the same - just a thought structure that tries to describe an experience - but both descriptions will never be it. Also, for there being a real difference between the concepts of wall and unicorn it would imply that you have been experiencing "wall" in the first place - but, have you ever? Or have you only experienced some color and some physical sensations, but not an object "wall"..? When you experienced "unicorn" you might have experienced some colours (in a book?) and some sound (movie?)... Is there a real difference?

Anyway, direct experience is never of things - all things are just objectifications of "what is". We believe that our conceptual descriptions are the thing or that they at least approximate it, but how can any description be more than a convenient way of categorising certain patterns that we have learned to recognise and which we then conceptualise as "things"? Does a pattern that seems to arise as part of experience really qualify as a separate "object/thing"?
I know this does not go down well when using logical thought - there has to be some solid base we can build our thought structure on... but what if there is none and all that we have is our ideas and beliefs..?

how can there be awareness that this is happening while this "I" is ruling the show and taken to be what is true

Well.. every time you think that this "I" is ruling the show, look for it... Really look and see if you find it... If its not there, then how can it rule anything? If all that you can find are thoughts then its time to see them for what they are - just guest, not the master of the show.

So please show me this "whatever it is that gives rise to the concept or interpretation".
Where is it, What is it?

Where is it? Everywhere where time,objects and someone who notices them are believed to exist (i.e all of duality)
What is it? It is an unbreakable law that governs the consistency and interdependency of appearances. Penetrating the depths of that law is the goal of physics.

I'd always hoped that since even duality itself can't be something which is separate from what ultimately is, getting to the bottom of this law would open the gate to transcending the duality game - sort of cracking duality from within so to speak. In a way, I guess that's what I'm still trying to do, i.e somehow use thought to see beyond thought.

how can any description be more than a convenient way of categorising certain patterns that we have learned to recognise and which we then conceptualise as "things"?

It can't and I wouldn't suggest that it can. What I am saying though is that unlike a dream or wishful thinking, the patterns themselves (unlike what we use to describe them) are not something we make up. There's a consensus about which patterns are noticed. It doesn't matter if I ask someone from a remote "primitive" tribe that never had contact with western civilization and has a completely different set of values and interpretations to reality, or whether I ask a cosmologist, both will agree that if I pick up a "stone" and let it go, it will end up on the "ground". While there may be a completely different interpretation of what "stone" and "ground" essentially are, as well as what causes the stone to consistently end up on the ground, the fact remains that both will know it will consistently "fall" (whatever "fall" might mean to them). This globally agreed upon consistency is the truth I referred to upon which different interpretations are built, and while this truth can only exist when there's a subject to notice it while watching the interplay of objects, I've always suspected following it to it's source would reveal a deeper truth that would unlock this whole subject/object game.

Does a pattern that seems to arise as part of experience really qualify as a separate "object/thing"?

Yes - what better definition of an "object/thing" is there than a pattern that seems to arise as part of experience? This "object/thing" pattern can appear in a dream or while awake, the difference is always consistency, my measuring stick for what is true (within duality) - a stone pattern will never suddenly change into a potato pattern or fall up when I drop it.

When you experienced "unicorn" you might have experienced some colours (in a book?) and some sound (movie?)... Is there a real difference?

Yes, since the unicorn is a fictional and artificial entity, the difference is the ability to interact with it and study its responses, the ability to show it to others that will agree with me that it is there. There's a Yiddish saying that "a cake in a dream is a dream and not a cake". I guess that more or less sums up my feelings about it. Yes, you could say that the "unicorn experience", the "wall experience" or any experience for that matter requires awareness to exist, but that does not make what the experiences represent equally "true" to me.

I know this does not go down well when using logical thought - there has to be some solid base we can build our thought structure on... but what if there is none and all that we have is our ideas and beliefs..?

I'd accept that if it wasn't for beliefs that are demonstrably false, while others that seem consistently true, which implies an inherent truthfulness or falsehood not to the beliefs, but to what the beliefs point to.

I am sure you have seen these video games before, the ones that show everything from a first person perspective. You see your hands in front of you, you hear your breath and you see the scenery in front of you. It seems as if you are looking out of the eyes of this guy in the computer that is exploring the virtual scenery. I remember playing maybe the first of these games some 25 years ago when still attending uni - after playing for a little while you are fully immersed into the game, you have identified with the character, you are afraid when something spooky happens, you seem to be looking out of this eyes, moving these hands and making decisions based on the virtual scenery in front of you. There are walls and all sorts of things and they behave according some physical (or program based) law - so you can't walk or see through walls, you will fall into a hole if you are not careful etc etc...

Now imagine there is a belief that this character in the game is making his own decisions, that the thoughts that appear are his thoughts, that he can move these hands and feet according to his own free will... that all these things, walls, houses, whatever are real and that he is afraid to die any minute... The watcher/player outside of the game is completely forgotten.
Where do all these virtual objects belong to? Where do all physical laws belong to? To the game or to the player?

When realising that you are not the "character in the game" but the "player" that is really not part of the game at all then all these logical conclusion, stories and beliefs that only have value inside of the game will not be seen as truth any longer (they will be seen for what they are, conventions that work in the game, but have no relevance outside of it).
What is left is experience itself. But not as the character, not in a way where the rules of the game hold any real truth, but simply as what is experienced in an impersonal way.
Yes, in the game there might be certain repetitive patterns (the character itself is one of them) and this will lead to thoughts about identification, the ideas of me and other, subject and objects, but for the witness these patterns have no deeper meaning, they are for the story of the character only.

Of course this video game story is just a metaphor - all we can do is talk in a representative or symbolic way of something that can only be pointed at, but not directly understood. There really are no entities at all - no separate player at all (and no separate character either)...

I understand the analogy and have even once attempted Douglas Harding's headless experiments which try to drive the point home by taking it beyond the analogy and making one notice they actually don't have a head in real life either... Of course, this could not defeat my "yes, but" attitude and while I understood the idea and even agreed with it, it didn't really make much of a dent in my feeling of being a separate individual.

Incidentally, it seems we both attended uni around the same time - well, the at least both make-belief characters in the game, to be more accurate...

"what is experienced in an impersonal way" is a great phrase :-) seems like a total oxymoron and yet I understand what is meant by it from memory fragments of less-ignorant moments and the "I" wants these moments back... just wish I could laugh at the futility of all this instead of being frustrated by it. The absurdity of this thought that "maybe if I just run on the hamster wheel just a bit longer or a bit faster I'll finally get there" must be really funny to one who's not on the wheel.

When realising that you are not the "character in the game" but the "player" that is really not part of the game at all then all these logical conclusion, stories and beliefs that only have value inside of the game will not be seen as truth any longer (they will be seen for what they are, conventions that work in the game, but have no relevance outside of it).

I assume "outside to the game" is also an analogy as there's no inside either, and this "player" that's not part of the game is also an analogy considering the "player" is not a part of anything else either.
I'm trying to bridge the chasm between "my" conscious experience and consciousness: One usually says that they're only conscious of their own private experiences and so any talk of some unified infinite consciousness just sounds like mumbo jumbo. Would it be sort of accurate to say that, "personal consciousness" is consciousness (the knowing, all-encompassing, unfathomable, ineffable one-with-no-other is-ness) somehow interweaved with a personal story (which itself is part of consciousness too, but that's for the advanced course...) and the only way to understand consciousness is to remove the "personal" from "personal consciousness"? Not expecting this will give me a ticket to freedom, but I'd like to know if the general direction is correct (allowing for language limitations) or that this is yet another story to put aside...

Yes, in the game there might be certain repetitive patterns (the character itself is one of them) and this will lead to thoughts about identification, the ideas of me and other, subject and objects, but for the witness these patterns have no deeper meaning, they are for the story of the character only.

Still, I can't help but be curious as to why the pattens that are noticed have to be a certain way and can't be another, why the rules of the game have been set up as they are or why the game exists in the first place. Of course all these are irrelevant when there is no one to ask the question but I wonder if any character in the game can understand why they materialised into it and what insights about reality, subjects and objects the future will bring when the rules of the game are deeply understood. When you played the video game you mentioned, there was a reason you couldn't run through walls, and that reason is that the programmer who developed the game decided you could not go through walls. In the same manner, I'd like to know what it is that makes the concepts real and consistent. Perhaps this will teach me about why what is real is so, though I'm starting to think that perhaps it will just show what props up the story but not what it essentially is.

while I understood the idea and even agreed with it, it didn't really make much of a dent in my feeling of being a separate individual.

Maybe you are tricking yourself into believing that you are "feeling like being a separate individual"?
How does it feel to be an individual? Can you please describe this feeling of individuality?
Please really look for it, try to find it. What in this experience qualifies as a feeling of individuality?

"what is experienced in an impersonal way" is a great phrase :-) seems like a total oxymoron and yet I understand what is meant by it from memory fragments of less-ignorant moments and the "I" wants these moments back...

No, the I can't have it back. Not now, not tomorrow, never! Forget it, drop it, leave this idea behind. The (belief in an) I has to go only then will these "moments" be unveiled. It is not even a moment, it just is. You just believe that an experience is in some way personal - but it isn't! Try to find anything personal in seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. Where is the personal experience to be found if not only in thoughts about it?
Now, when thought says "Yes, true, it is only thoughts, but I am powerless, thoughts are stronger, I will never overcome them, The I is here to stay!" - DONT BELIEVE IT! It is not true. Thought has no power, it is weak and you can simply ignore it. Refrain from feeding it energy by putting too much attention on it (or by trying to stop it) - attention is energy (and trying to stop something is also attention) - simply ignore these thoughts. They are not true! Don't feed them.

The absurdity of this thought that "maybe if I just run on the hamster wheel just a bit longer or a bit faster I'll finally get there" must be really funny to one who's not on the wheel.

Well... then why don't you stop running and see what happens?
Stopping to run doesn't mean to stop thinking - trying to stop thinking is the same as keeping on running.
Stop running means to stop putting attention and thus energy into thought. Let it just run its course and be alert about the fact that you don't feed it. Thats how you stop running - stopping to run is not something that is done actively, it cant be forced, you can only see that running is happening and this attention will eventually lead to a stop as the absurdity of running is seen and understood.

I'm trying to bridge the chasm between "my" conscious experience and consciousness: One usually says that they're only conscious of their own private experiences and so any talk of some unified infinite consciousness just sounds like mumbo jumbo. Would it be sort of accurate to say that, "personal consciousness" is consciousness (the knowing, all-encompassing, unfathomable, ineffable one-with-no-other is-ness) somehow interweaved with a personal story (which itself is part of consciousness too, but that's for the advanced course...) and the only way to understand consciousness is to remove the "personal" from "personal consciousness"?

Yes, this is not a bad way of looking at it. There is no "my" in any conscious experience - the me/my is always only a belief. The "personal" aspect only exists as an idea, as a story, but when you look for it, it cant be found... So, yes, remove, drop, see through, the belief in a separate, personal self and what remains is consciousness (= experience). Sounds even logical, great :-)

Still, I can't help but be curious as to why the pattens that are noticed have to be a certain way and can't be another, why the rules of the game have been set up as they are or why the game exists in the first place.

Yes, it is interesting to find patterns and to try to find explanations for them. But only as long as you remain open enough to see that these explanations are only temporarily and conventionally applicable. They will be superseded by other explanations, if not tomorrow then most likely in another 100 years, and there will be other explanations after that... Progress will be made based on new explanations and that is fine, but the real progress is to see that the road doesn't lead anywhere - you are already there. Always.

Just wanted to note that my frequency of writing does not indicate the frequency of trying to see what is pointed to, it's just that when it feels as there's really nothing new to report, I don't...

Maybe you are tricking yourself into believing that you are "feeling like being a separate individual"?
How does it feel to be an individual? Can you please describe this feeling of individuality?
Please really look for it, try to find it. What in this experience qualifies as a feeling of individuality?

Thoughts, emotions, desires etc. and taking them to be what I am give rise to a feeling of individuality. The feeling of individuality is one of "I'm completely alone in knowing this experience, no one else has access to it and I don't have access to anyone else's" or the result of the "I want this experience / I don't want this experience" feeling. The idea that I am the same consciousness that knows "my" experiences and anything and everything is not really convincing to the self story which is taken to be real. I'm trying to be more aware of who is seeing the thoughts rather than whose these thoughts claim to be.

Now, when thought says "Yes, true, it is only thoughts, but I am powerless, thoughts are stronger, I will never overcome them, The I is here to stay!" - DONT BELIEVE IT! It is not true. Thought has no power, it is weak and you can simply ignore it. Refrain from feeding it energy by putting too much attention on it (or by trying to stop it) - attention is energy (and trying to stop something is also attention) - simply ignore these thoughts. They are not true! Don't feed them.

I think I'll change my desktop wallpaper to a sign "DON'T BELIEVE IT" as another reminder... What exactly is meant by "ignore these thoughts"? Making them go away is not practical, and just accepting them is quite a challenge in times when they appear menacing and fierce. I know logically that they are not what I am and have no power beyond the power I give them and I know it's only a story, however it is an amazingly convincing one... I'll continue to try and watch who is it that knows these thoughts whenever possible until there's some shift.

The thing is, I've never experienced any "spiritual breakthrough" or know what the heck people who speak of "amazing insights" during meditation are talking about - things have always been more or less the same for me, the only difference being an increasing conviction of the truth of everything you speak of, but its more like a background gut feeling of "yes, this is true" than anything experiential.

stopping to run is not something that is done actively, it cant be forced, you can only see that running is happening and this attention will eventually lead to a stop as the absurdity of running is seen and understood.

I understand - time will tell if I'm seeing the running enough.

Yes, it is interesting to find patterns and to try to find explanations for them. But only as long as you remain open enough to see that these explanations are only temporarily and conventionally applicable. They will be superseded by other explanations, if not tomorrow then most likely in another 100 years, and there will be other explanations after that...

Yes, I understand and agree the explanations will never be able to capture what it is they're trying to explain. A thought structure, which is just a part of reality will never be able to capture that in which it occurs in and owes it's existence to, but I find it interesting that with time as the thought structures have improved and refined, there are quite a few physicists that claim that these ideas seem to point to the same reality non-dual texts point to. Of course, I'm in no position to make any claim either way as I'm not a quantum physicist nor a sage, but it does make me curious. Anyway, this has nothing directly to do with what this conversation is about - just wanted to mention it.

The idea that I am the same consciousness that knows "my" experiences and anything and everything is not really convincing to the self story which is taken to be real.

Yes, it is not convincing and it is also not necessary to replace one belief with another one. Just simply look at what can be found and then you might not need any convincing anymore. Can you find something like consciousness that knows experience? When you look at the tree over there, or the car or the lamp... is there a consciousness knowing experience? Are these distinct parts - consciousness/knowing/experience - really present in "what is"? When you look at something, what is the only thing that can really be found? A self/consciousness? The looking? Or simply the seen?

The feeling of individuality is one of "I'm completely alone in knowing this experience, no one else has access to it and I don't have access to anyone else's" or the result of the "I want this experience / I don't want this experience" feeling.

Do you have access to "knowing this experience"? Where is this knower? Or is there simply experience, full stop. No knower, owner or controller...

Yes, this I want/don't want certain experiences is another layer of selfing that can be seen through... This pushing/pulling at experience and the belief that there is something like desire and aversion that leads to a certain reactivity can also be inquired into. Unfortunately in daily life this is difficult as in most cases reactivity happens so fast that the chance to inquire is over before it is even realised what is happening. But you can also induce this artificially and then look at it in lab like conditions.
I think I have mentioned that before, the first step would be to find a current situation that results in aversion and then to (negative) reactions. You could for example use your meditation practice and after a while simply intone a sentence like "I don't like sitting in this position anymore.". When these uncomfortable physical sensations come up then you will also see certain thoughts appearing "Why am I sitting here? It is useless. Lets move lets change to a more comfortable position... Etc". When this happens, don't move, but look for the trigger, for the emotion, the aversion, that "connects the dots" - that leads from the current uncomfortable situation to the reaction. Look for the one that decides and thus initiates the reactivity (of moving or whatever else). Let me know if you would like to explore this in some depth.

What exactly is meant by "ignore these thoughts"?

What I mean with that is watching these thoughts without pushing them away but also without inviting them to stay. You simply see that they are there, a bit like the sound of the rain or the wind is there, you wouldn't try to push away the sound of the wind would you? You also wouldn't try to hold on to it... its the same with thoughts. Treat them like the sound of the wind.

The thing is, I've never experienced any "spiritual breakthrough" or know what the heck people who speak of "amazing insights" during meditation are talking about - things have always been more or less the same for me

Insights don't have to be like huge fireworks, they can simply be a aha-moment... I was once sitting on the edge of a cliff looking down to the ocean when I saw a bird hovering close by, I thought "This is a falcon looking to catch a mouse!". A few seconds later it hit me... this is all just story! I have no idea if this is a falcon at all, I don't know what he is doing there either, he might be just hanging out there having a good time... when inquiring further it became obvious that this is not the only story that we tell our selves... it became obvious that all thought stories are exactly like that. No real truth to be found in any of them, just more or less interesting stories... so why put so much trust and value in them? An insight like that will not destroy all knowledge, it will just readjust your perspective - this might happen many times and with every little insight things change a little until life just is what it is... without the need for ongoing interpretation...

When you look at the tree over there, or the car or the lamp... is there a consciousness knowing experience?

Isn't the moment it's identified as a "tree" or "car" or "lamp" already too late, as they are concepts too, just like the concept that is believed to be seeing them?

Unfortunately in daily life this is difficult as in most cases reactivity happens so fast that the chance to inquire is over before it is even realised what is happening.

Exactly...

But you can also induce this artificially and then look at it in lab like conditions.
.
.
.
When this happens, don't move, but look for the trigger, for the emotion, the aversion, that "connects the dots" - that leads from the current uncomfortable situation to the reaction.

As I mentioned in one of my previous replies, I think this is what I tried to do while meditating and in a more extreme way in the "cold shower episode" :-) My attempt was to watch the origin of the discomfort, catch its essence and see who it belongs to. I might have misunderstood but at the time, you said that moving away from the discomfort is the natural thing and trying to face it is reactive thought, so now I'm not sure at which point not moving away from discomfort (for inquiry, not as a test of egoic will power) is the correct course of action and when it isn't. At any case, as I've also mentioned before, the "I" thought has it's methods to belittle any insight gained from not moving to a more comfortable position and seeing the experience as not belonging to anyone, usually in the form of "Ok you so called no-self, now lets see you understand putting your hand over a flame as an experience that happens to no one..."

Let me know if you would like to explore this in some depth.

Yes, I would as for one, it seems discomfort is the only thing that is stronger than the noise of my thoughts. Another reason is that when doing this, thoughts can't "change the subject" - they are stuck with trying to "make this go away" which is an opportunity to try and surrender to the situation. The problem that even a small success will be frowned upon by the ego as I mentioned earlier. It's funny in a way - the story wants enlightenment for itself to be fearless and invincible when the only reason that fear and death exist are belief in the story. I hope Consciousness is happy with this mess it created...

A few seconds later it hit me... this is all just story! I have no idea if this is a falcon at all, I don't know what he is doing there either, he might be just hanging out there having a good time...

I understand. Reflecting a bit more on this, it is apparent that it doesn't stop there: "he might be just hanging out there having a good time" is also a story, any conceptualization is also a story - even the idea that everything is a story is yet another story. It's the prison of thought and there's no way out using words or ideas. I've known this for a long time and want out (yes, another story :-) ... )

Isn't the moment it's identified as a "tree" or "car" or "lamp" already too late, as they are concepts too, just like the concept that is believed to be seeing them?

Its only too late if you got lost in the concept. Concepts can be used without getting caught in the belief that they truly reflect reality.

My attempt was to watch the origin of the discomfort, catch its essence and see who it belongs to. I might have misunderstood but at the time, you said that moving away from the discomfort is the natural thing and trying to face it is reactive thought, so now I'm not sure at which point not moving away from discomfort (for inquiry, not as a test of egoic will power) is the correct course of action and when it isn't.

What we are trying to do now is not really about looking at the discomfort (even this might in the beginning seem so) but rather at the belief that something like "discomfort" exists in the first place and that this assumed discomfort is ultimately causing a certain reactivity. This reactivity is not really the moving of the body into another position (which will eventually happen as a natural response), but the reactive thought patterns that arise. A reaction happens primarily in thought and manifests only secondarily in physical activity. I guess until now you have put your success or failure on the physical part, success = the body doesn't move, failure = the body moves. Right? But this movement is only secondary, the much more important reactivity is the thought patterns that arise. We will have to look if the physical sensations require these egoic thought patterns or if they are completely redundant. We will also try to find this "discomfort" that leads from physical sensations to a reaction - that triggers these negative thoughts.

Ok, so when you meditate again, please simply do one thing. Look at these physical sensations and feel how they change over time. When thoughts like "Ok, this is getting uncomfortable, lets see how long you can sit like that!" arise, simply see them but don't follow them. Go back to the physical sensation. Soon another thought will pop up "Ha, I am sure you can't do that much longer.".. Now try to find this discomfort itself. Look at the sensations and the feeling that triggers these thoughts. Look if the physical sensations are really connected via "discomfort" to these reactive thoughts... Where is this glue that sticks these two sides together?