The Gate

without the "I" thought...is there just experiencing happening?

yes, are you labeling or is labeling happening?
Can labeling be known to be accurate...eg. fear, hurt, suffering....are you creating those labels or is it thoughts naming it? Can those labels even be accurate or just habits of thoughts labeling, just like the label "self" or "I"?

yes all-one-happening, can you experience there is "no one" really there yet it is connected as it all?

let me know what else is arising there...what are thoughts saying today in looking here, does it feel clear or any questions arising?

open space wrote:
without the "I" thought...is there just experiencing happening?

Yes, there is.

- The labeling just happens.
- Those labels exist only in thought, which arises on its own. In the absence of thought, such labels have no meaning.

No, I cannot yet experience the connection to all. Conceptually, "oneness" makes much more sense to me now than it did before I began this process, but I do not yet perceive it directly.

But especially today, as I was looking with the interest in connectedness or oneness, the thought of "boundaries" arose. Particularly as I noticed the pressure of my feet against the ground, my arms against the desk, and so forth, thoughts arose about the ways in which a body may or may not be separate from other things.

1. YES, and is there "someone" really there or is it ALL just experience happening? honestly look...yes or no?

2. When the thought "someone" arises in This, "someone" happens and then "someone" with thought stories attaches to this thought "someone", isn't that the beginning story of "someone", separation?

3. Look, notice the effect of the thought "someone"/"me", what happens, describe?

4. What happens when that thought story "I" , "Me" is seen thru and not believed...what is experienced as you walk to the kitchen, eat or drive, walk or be in nature without believing this story of self?

yes, is there any purpose to "fix" thought stories/labels about "someone" "yourself", do they really have meaning or are they just thoughts like "you" and "me" that happen?

1. Who can perceive this? Doesn't it just arise and show itself, listen is there a "I/"me", ""self" there behind thought, or is it all manufactured from thought perception?

2. If there is no "you" found, how can separation exist?

3. Aren't you then all of this happening, all that appears in this?

4. If the answer is "no" and that is welcome too, then where is this separate self, where is the proof?

1. In direct experience, where is body?

2. The thought "body" arises and then is believed and yet is it true?

3. Who is there for body to identify as?

4.Where is "boundaries" then, isn't that a thought?

open space wrote:
1. YES, and is there "someone" really there or is it ALL just experience happening? honestly look...yes or no?

2. When the thought "someone" arises in This, "someone" happens and then "someone" with thought stories attaches to this thought "someone", isn't that the beginning story of "someone", separation?

3. Look, notice the effect of the thought "someone"/"me", what happens, describe?

4. What happens when that thought story "I" , "Me" is seen thru and not believed...what is experienced as you walk to the kitchen, eat or drive, walk or be in nature without believing this story of self?

1. No, there is not "someone." Experience is all that's there.

2. Yes, that's true. The thought of "someone" begins with separation.

3. There appears a strong desire. "I" desire to experience or possess something, or "I" desire to avoid something.

4. The strong desire isn't there. There is a feeling of relief instead.

open space wrote:
yes, is there any purpose to "fix" thought stories/labels about "someone" "yourself", do they really have meaning or are they just thoughts like "you" and "me" that happen?

No, there is no purpose. They are just thoughts. "I" have no way to fix them "myself" anyway, because "myself" is also just a thought.

1. Who can perceive this? Doesn't it just arise and show itself, listen is there a "I/"me", ""self" there behind thought, or is it all manufactured from thought perception?

2. If there is no "you" found, how can separation exist?

3. Aren't you then all of this happening, all that appears in this?

4. If the answer is "no" and that is welcome too, then where is this separate self, where is the proof?

1. No one can perceive it because perception has no doer. Thoughts manufacture the self.

2. The concept of separation does not apply to "me" apart from the "self" thought pattern.

3. In the absence of self, the "all" just is.

4. A continuous unit of identity, a self, does not exist.

open space wrote:
1. In direct experience, where is body?

2. The thought "body" arises and then is believed and yet is it true?

3. Who is there for body to identify as?

4.Where is "boundaries" then, isn't that a thought?

1. In direct experience, the concept of a body's location lacks meaning.

2. The thought certainly arises, but the thought is not necessarily correct.

3. The body itself doesn't identify as anyone. Identification occurs in thought processes.

4. Yes, it is a thought.

1. share here what is the experience
with these answers posted here as you do your day, wake up and flow into the day
with what is shared below...knowing there is no one really there, only experience?

1. If there is not "someone" there, is there really "someone" there in an "other"?
2. Could it be that you are all of this experience, and this experience arises as ONE whole experience, including "me" and "others" and "objects" and there is only ONE awareness of this?

3. Is there anything else that separates to look at that moves from this awareness, please share?

Today I noticed it is becoming easier to focus on experience itself without the filter of the "I" concept. Thoughts of various sorts are arising, even stories about "me," but now I feel can ease into the awareness of non-self experience with less difficulty. The difference is that it no longer seems like a struggle to wrestle attention away from falsehoods. Of course, there never really was a struggle to begin with — that was merely an idea all along.

2. Could it be that you are all of this experience, and this experience arises as ONE whole experience, including "me" and "others" and "objects" and there is only ONE awareness of this?

You said it could be, describe in your words, what is non-separation, Oneness?

The last question I asked was do you feel that there is now a clear experience of non separate self instead of just an intellectual understanding as you first shared in coming to LU?

Is there anything sticky or creating confusion from fulling seeing or experiencing this?

Do you have an experience of "no one" there, just experience?

While I was looking around at objects in the room, it struck me that I couldn't distinguish the difference between the process of seeing and the objects being seen. For a moment, looking, being-looked-at, walls, computer, etc. all seemed like one and the same experience.

This isn't as dramatic as certain accounts of "oneness" that I've read about, but in any case, I feel I'm personally, directly beginning to understand how "one awareness" can be the truth.

Yes. Non-self is no longer just a dogma or conjecture to me. It is clear.

Not really. Thoughts continue to arise, including thoughts about "me," but I do not feel this impedes knowledge of the nonexistence of self. Non-self is a truth that has always been there — mere observation reveals it. I just need to continue becoming acclimated to it.

Thoughts stopped arising, leaving no self, only experience. "No one there" is the perfect description for the sensation. After a while, thoughts began arising again.

beautiful, yes...all senses...seeing, feeling, touching, tasting, hearing, thinking...happening with no one "doing it" or it happening to "someone"...pure seeing....see what happens to play with all these senses with "no one there" as they arise, what is noticed/experienced?

1, Yes, notice thoughts again that arise that focus on comparison of "others" and oneness,
isn't that just more thoughts to distract from oneness and pull u into two, and
thats ok "no one" does that either?

2. who experiences oneness ultimately anyway in those accounts :) ?

3.Isn't it what is known always, yet can easily go "unnoticed" when thought/stories arise about a "you"/"me" that make you feel like "someone" that creates an experience of "two" instead of One?

yes it is not something to read about that is to attain or work toward for "someone" , it is what is true, what u really are,
love how this has come in to be clear, and did "you" do that, show u how clear it is :) ?

1.Clarifying when you said "mere observation reveals it", this non existence of self.....who observes this?, are you using the word "observation" to describe direct experience to discover this truth?

beautiful, yes the I arising and disappearing, and experience happening all along as One, is there "anyone else" really that is here, or is it all one appearance , one awareness? what do you find in direct experience here?

What arose in the looking here?

1. You're right, thoughts in which "I" compare "myself" to "others" really are not in accord with an experience of oneness.

2. If oneness is the truth, then surely oneness must simply experience itself.

In direct experience, it really does seem to be all one thing.

I notice that when looking stops, the old habits of mental chatter reemerge quickly. It's in this mental chatter that the sense of an "I" gains strength. Non-stop looking appears to be the solution.

Is Oneness the truth there then in your experience, you said "if" it is the truth, will u clarify from direct experience?

look in direct experience with the absence of the imagine separate self, I....
you said it "seems" to be all one thing, is it all One or not? sit here...and share

So who is doing the looking?
When non stop looking happens, what are you looking for?
What is happening that the I needs to be looked for?

there doesn't seem to be any point of reference with which to affirm either "separateness" or "oneness," which are concepts. What is just is. There is no experience of anything else.

- There is nothing in particular to look for. It's just a matter of letting experience happen without mental commentary that promotes the illusion of a "self."
- Now that you mention it, it strikes me that there is no need to look for an "I." It doesn't exist, so there is no point in looking for it now.
Re:

yes, and if looking happens, who is doing that?

How is it going, your answers feel clear here in the seeing thru I.

Are there any other questions arising there where it is not clear?

Well, there really is no one "doing" the action in the sense of consciously initiating it and controlling it.

It feels like the illusion of the self is fully seen through now.

No questions concerning the "self" are arising now.