The Gate

Hi Mic,

Yes, the word 'Self' does begin to sound meaningless. We sometimes speak in terms of 'I' or 'me' as alternatives.

The trick in this stage of the inquire is to be able to sport the ‘self’ that is identified with. Once it is spotted then the enquiry does it’s thing reasonably effectively a reasonable amount of the time.

Yes. But is it a trick? Tricks are part of the reasoning modus whereby it is imagined that by some sort of wangle someone somehow can make something happen so that they gain enlightenment, (or whatever).

Perhaps it's not so much that someone 'spots' the 'self' that is 'identified with'? (At least, this way of putting it still suggest a someone.) Could the same thing be said and expressed by the phrase just: 'noticing identification'?

Best wishes,

Jon

...In other, perhaps less complicated words, where's the entity?

Jon

Hi Jon,
Sorry for the delay in getting back, difficult to get time on the PC over the last couple of days.

Perhaps it's not so much that someone 'spots' the 'self' that is 'identified with'? (At least, this way of putting it still suggest a someone.)

Yes, action presupposes a self that is doing the action. In fact the act of looking to see if there is a separate self has the implicit assumption that there is a looker. Slightly shifted the question to, "who is the one who might see the one who is looking for the self"; "who is the one asking the question of there is a one", or other variations of that. There is certainly an argument for, stop looking; of course this makes the perfect paradox.
The separate self does not exist and yet here is something that doesn't exist looking for something that doesn't exist - itself (which doesn't exist). It goes round and round. Every time there is looking to see if there is a separate self, low and behold there is non to be found, yet the 'sense' of a separate self, the implicit assumption is quite pervasive - which in turn leads to a notion to look. ...who is the looker, how can the looker and the looking be the same? (I know these questions are for me).

Yes. But is it a trick? Tricks are part of the reasoning modus whereby it is imagined...

"Reasoning modus", you mentioned before a quote from Alan Watts, "lose you mind to come to you senses". There is a noticing of the difference in the inquiry experience when shift from inquiry with focused attention, versus periphery awareness. Periphery awareness has less intrusive "reasoning modus" (albeit focused attention can maintain focus on the question).

As mentioned before the 'sense' of self has become stronger and more privileged over the last week, as you suggested am being quite relaxed in it, to the point that it is starting for the outcome to not matter as much any more. Anyway for now the driving mantra is:

where's the entity

Much thanks and warmest regards,
Mic

Hi Mic

Gonna keep it brief

. stronger and more privileged over the last week, as you suggested am being quite relaxed in it, to the point that it is starting for the outcome to not matter as much any more.

Good.

Look at 'stronger and note privileged'. It appears that there exists something that is strong her and more privileged. There are thoughts that say this.

What is it that has become more prevalent or noisy? A separate entity self, or thoughts?

All best

Jon

HI Jon,

It appears that there exists something that is strong her and more privileged. There are thoughts that say this.

Yes it is thoughts (or implicit beliefs) about the object. Belief that it represents a Mic.

What is it that has become more prevalent or noisy? A separate entity self, or thoughts?

A few days ago it was sensation of 'energy field' that seemed to represent the 'sense of self'.

Now it is clearer that underpinning every 'sense of self' or privileged object there is an image of a Mic, of a person.

There is a realization-experience that there is no such entity as 'no self', more there is noting an absence of a self. So it is not about "Oh look, there is the experience of no self"; more it is the case that any sense of self is seen to be not real, that on scrutiny there is no substance of self that underlies the object or thought.
Of course you have probably said this many times...but really Jon there is nothing to find. In fact the idea of a 'sense of self' fills the emptiness of the place where the self was expected to be, and even that 'send' is not real. Hmmm, that doesn't seem quite right...eh there is no emptiness (well not in this current inquiry anyway) there is just objects (including 'sense of self').

Ok, 100% there is no separate self!!!

Regards
M

Hi Mic,

Its great that you can say that there is no separate self so confidently.!

. eh there is no emptiness (well not in this current inquiry anyway) there is just objects (including 'sense of self').

Do you mean that 'emptiness' (as in some kind of experience of whatever that is) was expected?

When you say 'just objects including sense of self'. Do you mean experiencing sensations plus thoughts about a 'me'?


Thank you.

Jon

Hi Jon,

Do you mean that 'emptiness' (as in some kind of experience of whatever that is) was expected?

Not exactly emptiness as such. Realizing that there was some vague expectation or something recognizably different - be that emptiness or something else.

When you say 'just objects including sense of self'. Do you mean experiencing sensations plus thoughts about a 'me'?

Yes. Thoughts or a subtle and implicit belief that a particular sensation/energy points to a self.
Whereas now, even if a sensation does point to an implicit belief of self, the personification of that belief is seen to be nothing other than an idea. Framing it differently, it has all become a lot more visible.

Regards,
Mic

Hi Mic,

I have sent you a PM. Have a read if it.

Best wishes

Jon