Looking for a guide to help the process. Would appreciate any tips.

[SeeEye]

I have here what you originally posted, to remind you of what you are looking for.

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
That the idea of "I", "self", "me" are concocted over time, and have become ideas that have taken a "life of their own." That life happens without any individual "doer" or "somebody" behind the perceived action or reaction.

These next 2 quotes....

This was the part where you were supposed to say, yes, get back to me when you get it. Not "keep trying". ARRRRGH

I "feel" like I'm straddling two worlds right now, and the lazy part of me just wants someone to kick me through the gateway. But am told it requires "me" to investigate honestly and thoroughly, so am looking for tips, advice, and guidance instead.

I am saying the following with no judgment, just connecting some dots you put out. There is very good news at the end, just be open to this next little bit here. I may use it for what we are doing.

I am not forcing you to do this. If you don't want to do this, or can't be responsible for even remembering what you are trying to do, then you should decide what you want for yourself. You are being lazy in that you are not taking ownership for your results.

Can I be a stickler here and say you're talking about "yourself" and "your life"? And what does that mean, exactly, if there is no self?

Sure. First, talking about my "self" is a convention that makes communication possible. I have a career, marriage, interests. The organism has emotions, feels pain. Second, you are going to wake up into the life you already have. Since you are straddling both worlds, I can communicate to you as such. While you have no self, the self you "act as if you have" has patterns, moods, whims, beliefs, problems. These are also almost entirely thought-based also. You are correct in that by using the words "I" and "mine" that these do not point to anything that exists.

In terms of suffering....and having it decrease over time - this is based on the knowledge of no-self, not on the concept of it. With the knowing, you can use that as a foundation to get rid of the "self" and ego problems. If you don't see the truth, then it is the same as before.

What I'm grappling with is what I stated above, I'm starting to lose sight of what I'm supposed to be looking for. If maybe if you can remind me what you mean when you say "the self"...that would help. Because I go back to the body as the definition when no internal self can be found.

Y1) es, you are losing sight of it. You are supposed to be looking for the "owner" of the self. The owner of problems, slights, suffering. When you get angry you might say "It matters to ME" . Who/what/where is the ME?

Did you get angry when I said you were lazy and not taking ownership for your results? Who is offended?

-

So, when I was sitting today, looking, the "pure" act of looking seemed like it was just that, looking, without being burdened or glued to anything at all. The "self" only came up as a thought. Cool, cool. This happened for a while. Not being able to find anything.

Read what you said about sitting....Sandee, your glasses are on your head right here.

You are expecting trumpets to let you know that you are seeing it.

I know, I know, you are going to have a thought that says..."This is it? BS!" "It has to be more!" -Well, I'm onto your thoughts and they should be concerned at how predictable they are to a stranger who has only known you a very short time.

2) Can you extend this "pure act of looking" to times beyond your sitting? How about looking at George? Is it not the same unburdended "just being" as in sitting. Remind me to talk more about George.

3) Experiment: Stand up, feet together. Clear your head, take a nice breath, and walk.

Which foot moved first? Did "you" make this happen? Did walking happen on it's own accord? Was it possible to move without a thought?

Much Peace

[Sandee]

I am not forcing you to do this. If you don't want to do this, or can't be responsible for even remembering what you are trying to do, then you should decide what you want for yourself. You are being lazy in that you are not taking ownership for your results.

Yes, though I have been "looking", I can't deny this. I can certainly look further. Though now there are issues with this (explained later in this post).

Sure. First, talking about my "self" is a convention that makes communication possible. I have a career, marriage, interests. The organism has emotions, feels pain. Second, you are going to wake up into the life you already have. Since you are straddling both worlds, I can communicate to you as such. While you have no self, the self you "act as if you have" has patterns, moods, whims, beliefs, problems. These are also almost entirely thought-based also. You are correct in that by using the words "I" and "mine" that these do not point to anything that exists.

Ah, thanks for the explanation.

Y1) es, you are losing sight of it. You are supposed to be looking for the "owner" of the self. The owner of problems, slights, suffering. When you get angry you might say "It matters to ME" . Who/what/where is the ME?

Did you get angry when I said you were lazy and not taking ownership for your results? Who is offended?

An irritation arose, a feeling of self-righteousness. Then, embarrassment, then laughter, then agreement. Nobody is offended. There was an idea of being offended.

You are expecting trumpets to let you know that you are seeing it.

I know, I know, you are going to have a thought that says..."This is it? BS!" "It has to be more!" -Well, I'm onto your thoughts and they should be concerned at how predictable they are to a stranger who has only known you a very short time.

Lol. What seems to be expected here is a sense of clarity. Of certainty. But those are thoughts too.

2) Can you extend this "pure act of looking" to times beyond your sitting? How about looking at George? Is it not the same unburdended "just being" as in sitting. Remind me to talk more about George.

Yes, looking around while walking, working, living. Things are just happening, thoughts are coming and going.

3) Experiment: Stand up, feet together. Clear your head, take a nice breath, and walk.

Which foot moved first? Did "you" make this happen? Did walking happen on it's own accord? Was it possible to move without a thought?

Left foot moved. It just happened. It's all possible without thought.

And this issue now, that was expressed earlier, is:

thoughts of *I* keep occurring because of being told *I* should *look*. The the idea of *I* (as the looker) appears, and then the idea that this *I* is looking for *I*. So this thought of *I*, the looker, seems like the self.

But *I* can never find it (or not find it) because *I*, the looker, "trying so very hard to look", doesn't exist.

Incidentally, when sitting down and looking for Santa (or evidence that Santa didn't exist), there was the thought this was absolutely the stupidest exercise ever. But looked, and found the same process occurring, the very same one that makes the "I" seem real. "Santa doesn't exist" > "Where is Santa, where is Santa...hmmm" > "Oh wait, there's an image of Santa in my head now" > "Santa DOES sort of exist, or at least the idea of Santa exists" > "It kinda 'feels' like Santa kinda exists if an idea of Santa exists?" and then confusion. But Santa doesn't exist--the mind just wants to try and find any way for Santa to exist...and no idea why it would do that, other than a very strong tendency to play devil's advocate in many situations.

[SeeEye]

Incidentally, when sitting down and looking for Santa (or evidence that Santa didn't exist), there was the thought this was absolutely the stupidest exercise ever. But looked, and found the same process occurring, the very same one that makes the "I" seem real. "Santa doesn't exist" > "Where is Santa, where is Santa...hmmm" > "Oh wait, there's an image of Santa in my head now" > "Santa DOES sort of exist, or at least the idea of Santa exists" > "It kinda 'feels' like Santa kinda exists if an idea of Santa exists?" and then confusion. But Santa doesn't exist--the mind just wants to try and find any way for Santa to exist...and no idea why it would do that, other than a very strong tendency to play devil's advocate in many situations.
Top

I agree with the stupidity or absurdity of it. Less absurd then never getting out of the herd of sheeple.

"It kinda 'feels' like Santa kinda exists if an idea of Santa exists?" and then confusion

Well, this is good. You have been taking this at face value your whole life. We all kinda feel we exist because we never look into it. Look at how hard we are trained to take concepts for being real. So we look into our direct experience, and we find that walking happens on its own, then mind says "i'll get up" a fraction of a second later. There is research that has repeatedly proven this to be the case.

The digging into it is a very big deal, but we look for an even bigger deal to convince us that it is important. The subtleties are extremely important because they are the foundations of proof and certainty. This is why I like to drill all the way through with pointing, because having 1000 different nuggets isn't the point. There is no reason to think #771 is going to do it, but #755 couldn't.

Point is...hold onto what you "see" and experience. Perhaps journal those and use them as pointers. Use what resonates.

Example: You see the Santa process. Watch that process, watch the thoughts, watch how you KNOW yet think on top of the knowing, then concern yourself about the feelings thinking brings in. Then switch to finding the "me" that owns the knowing. Watch those thoughts. You will have moments of space and silence. Awareness is there, but the "I" is only found in the thoughts. It's always been this way, so be open to simply seeing what "is".

-

thoughts of *I* keep occurring because of being told *I* should *look*. The the idea of *I* (as the looker) appears, and then the idea that this *I* is looking for *I*. So this thought of *I*, the looker, seems like the self.

Great.

So because I say "YOU" need to look and do this, this strengthens the concept of self for a second. The implication and the language of this is something your poor "self" is using to say "See Sandee, I AM here"

1) If I was with you in your house, you are doing whatever, and all of I sudden I yell out and point "Holy shit check out George!!" You would turn and look. You are in the fridge in the kitchen and then I come in and drop a book on the floor, you would look. Do you say "I" looked? The organism hears the sound, looks to investigate. Organism looks. It has a brain and responds to things. It has memories. It learns. Where is the "you" in this process? What thoughts would likely come up after the noise?

2) Looking happens all day long without a self. An exercise would be: I tell you to look for a silver car today, that there is significance in seeing it. Next silver car you see...? What happens?

3) You said it perfectly. The thought of "I the looker" seems like the self. So do some looking and watch. PIck an object and look at it. . Is there ever looking without thoughts telling you about looking, the looker and what is looked at? Remember to relax and notice the subtlety.


-

But *I* can never find it (or not find it) because *I*, the looker, "trying so very hard to look", doesn't exist.

That is so beautiful. You are starting to get it that the one who is "struggling so very hard" is not immune from you seeing that it exists only in thought. At first, only relaxed Sandee could see, now even agitated Sandee sees. You are telling me that the FEELING of agitation and the louder, more insistent thoughts aren't proof of didly squat.

But *I* can never find it (or not find it) because *I*, the looker, "trying so very hard to look", doesn't exist.

But *I* can never find it (or not find it) because *I*, the looker, "trying so very hard to look", doesn't exist.

But *I* can never find it (or not find it) because *I*, the looker, "trying so very hard to look", doesn't exist.

Perhaps, at some point, this will hit you like a recognition of something, just like when you discover the glasses on your head.

[Sandee]

Point is...hold onto what you "see" and experience. Perhaps journal those and use them as pointers. Use what resonates.

Notes from looking this morning:

Examining the assumption that "I" is an entity that performs current actions:
Noticed that there is a thought that occurs after an action occurs. This body runs up a hill. Thought: "I just ran up that hill." The thought is stuck on, like an "I am #1" sticker on the action that just occured.

Examining the assumption that "I" is an entity that is the source of future action:
Noticed thought "I will run up the hill." (Where does thought come from? Nowhere.) Body runs up the hill. Then the thought "I just ran up the hill. Therefore, I exist!" lol

Examining the assumption that "I" is the recipient of sensation. That things are "happening to me."
Bird singing. Thought: "*I* am receiving the sensation of the bird song hitting the eardrums." But no "I" is found, only as a habitual afterthought, a consequence of the assumptions made in language. If the "I" exists, its through deduction, but the deduction is...unreliable at the moment and lacks proof. The experience doesn't need an "I". If there is an "I", it's the thought there is an "I". Might as well be "this song is heard, so santa is present." The emotion is the same either way.

Example: You see the Santa process. Watch that process, watch the thoughts, watch how you KNOW yet think on top of the knowing, then concern yourself about the feelings thinking brings in. Then switch to finding the "me" that owns the knowing. Watch those thoughts. You will have moments of space and silence. Awareness is there, but the "I" is only found in the thoughts. It's always been this way, so be open to simply seeing what "is".

Yes, the assumption was that "I" was there because of the emotion. But using "Santa" in place of "I" and the same emotion occurs. Is there a forum where you question Santa, lol?

1) If I was with you in your house, you are doing whatever, and all of I sudden I yell out and point "Holy shit check out George!!" You would turn and look. You are in the fridge in the kitchen and then I come in and drop a book on the floor, you would look. Do you say "I" looked? The organism hears the sound, looks to investigate. Organism looks. It has a brain and responds to things. It has memories. It learns. Where is the "you" in this process? What thoughts would likely come up after the noise?

The 'me' is a thought that attaches itself afterwards. And a thought possibly followed by more thoughts and emotions. "I saw George. Therefore, I exist!" But again, thoughts.

2) Looking happens all day long without a self. An exercise would be: I tell you to look for a silver car today, that there is significance in seeing it. Next silver car you see...? What happens?

Looked outside. Does 'blue-silver count?' What happens--thought: 'there it is.' Then, the thought, "what does this exercise mean?" And now there is writing about here, wondering if this will be explained.

3) You said it perfectly. The thought of "I the looker" seems like the self. So do some looking and watch. PIck an object and look at it. . Is there ever looking without thoughts telling you about looking, the looker and what is looked at? Remember to relax and notice the subtlety.

Yes, looking occurs without thoughts. In fact, looking seems more "objective" without so many thoughts.

[SeeEye]

Hi,

What is the meaning of the experiment? What is the meaning of it all?

Just so happens you recently insisted this was the hangup...

thoughts of *I* keep occurring because of being told *I* should *look*. The the idea of *I* (as the looker) appears, and then the idea that this *I* is looking for *I*. So this thought of *I*, the looker, seems like the self.

SO....YOU was told to look for a silver car. I typed some words, Sandee organism read them and brain did what it does.

Silver car comes along...and thought pops in...."There it is!"

I told your "self" it should look, and this means you have one (your words).

Who or what recognized the silver car to "be it"?

I guarantee Sandee was nowhere to be found when the car was first noticed.

Apparently your brain and nervous system can take in dialogue and remember to notice a car later on without there being an "I' in there....hold on now....EVEN IF what I said was directed to an imaginary "I/Self/Sandee"

.
1) NOW....compare this to what you shared on running up the hill.

THEN add in the idea that you cannot find a "self" outside of thinking/thoughts about it.

AND remember that optical illusion, all of a sudden you see the second (there is realization like seeing the car, needs no self for this)


Using these things above can be a great contemplation for sitting.


2) One last thing: As you are sitting, and doing this work with me....are you coming from the place of "I" exist and must prove it to my thoughts that I don't, or are you coming from the place of "I don't have a self, how can I come to see and know this for myself?"

The presupposition may make a difference.

[Sandee]

I guarantee Sandee was nowhere to be found when the car was first noticed.

Apparently your brain and nervous system can take in dialogue and remember to notice a car later on without there being an "I' in there....hold on now....EVEN IF what I said was directed to an imaginary "I/Self/Sandee"

Ok, yes, it just hit me like a ton of bricks there was no "me" involved in looking. That was a great pointer. "Ah yes" moment is no occurring.

1) NOW....compare this to what you shared on running up the hill.

THEN add in the idea that you cannot find a "self" outside of thinking/thoughts about it.

AND remember that optical illusion, all of a sudden you see the second (there is realization like seeing the car, needs no self for this)

Using these things above can be a great contemplation for sitting.

Yes, sitting helps see things are just happening. Feelings happening. Sensations happening. Thinking happening. And the self comes back. And then goes away.

2) One last thing: As you are sitting, and doing this work with me....are you coming from the place of "I" exist and must prove it to my thoughts that I don't, or are you coming from the place of "I don't have a self, how can I come to see and know this for myself?"

The presupposition may make a difference.

The latter more than the former. There were initial reservations when this process began, but after a while they seemed to lessen. Not sure why but the exercises are helping, like a chipping away. Not one big revelation, but perhaps a loosening up of all the places where the glue still holds?

At this point, it is tiring to keep up appearances of a "self" more than not. It takes energy. Energy to think of an "I" to protect all the time.

Then sitting here wondering who was clinging, who was letting go, why these habits have formed, why they change. And it seems so mysterious!

[Sandee]

"Ah yes" moment is no occurring.

*now* occuring, not *no* occuring haha

[SeeEye]

Hi,

Ok, yes, it just hit me like a ton of bricks there was no "me" involved in looking. That was a great pointer. "Ah yes" moment is now occurring.

.
So there was no "me" involved in looking, and this was your experience....you caught this yourself and what was your first thought after that?

Explain the bricks and what you have been experiencing since then.

[Sandee]

So there was no "me" involved in looking, and this was your experience....you caught this yourself and what was your first thought after that?

That self is unneeded in action. That this is an example of action without the little congratulatory sticker I like to put on top of it. "Hey look, I did that. I'm #1. I control things."

Explain the bricks and what you have been experiencing since then.

Just doing things without the sticker. Experience has, admittedly, been like this for the past few weeks, ever since the incident where I saw my hands holding themselves up and seeing there was no "doer". But the self would come back, the thought "are you sure?" "ARE YOU SURE?!?!" "You're just trying to fool yourself." And lack of clarity about what was seen. Distrust. And then you asked me to look for the car, this resulted in experiencing an action that was devoid of thoughts of self--a pure action. Like water being thrown in my face. An unmistakable action clearly demonstrating a moment where thoughts of self are not present, contrasting with all those other moments where they were.

Today my sit involved examining the question, "where is the self?"
and noticing that self only came up only with thought.
Without thought: no self.
And then thinking... "b-b-b-but maybe is self is just a conglomeration of all these things, my ability to sense and feel and perceive".
And then seeing this too, is a thought. The concept of "my", sticking itself on experience. My ability. My sensations. ME ME ME ME ME
It's all some sort of bizarre joke.

Since you're familiar with Seinfeld, can't you just hear him now...

"what's the deal...with the self..."

[SeeEye]

Hi,

n unmistakable action clearly demonstrating a moment where thoughts of self are not present, contrasting with all those other moments where they were.

The experiment with reading, watching tv, doing dishes....if fact everything you do, involves moments when self is not present because thoughts of self, or any thoughts don't arise. You will find it "popping into" your head, just like the car.

1) Make an effort to catch yourself without the self all the time. Your nervous system learns through the contrast of there/no-there.

2) Do you see that the thing "self" is only in thoughts about it? I'm wondering if you had a thought after you saw the car that gave acknowledgment to this fact.

3) Exercise: You can do this while "sitting" or sit for the exercise. Close your eyes. Watch thoughts pop up. Every time a thought starts say to yourself with your inner voice "THINKING" and then watch the gap, stay in the silence.

Comment on any other thoughts/ experiences you've been having.

[Sandee]

Hello Cal, thanks for these exercises.

1) Make an effort to catch yourself without the self all the time. Your nervous system learns through the contrast of there/no-there.

This is an interesting one. Every now and then there is stopping and remembering and noticing. But not all the time. Never have tried to do so for such a long period. You are talking about continuously, correct?

2) Do you see that the thing "self" is only in thoughts about it? I'm wondering if you had a thought after you saw the car that gave acknowledgment to this fact.

Honestly, after seeing the car, not sure I remember what the thought was, other than "oooh." But yes, self exists in thoughts. Otherwise, yes, the self and thought go together.

3) Exercise: You can do this while "sitting" or sit for the exercise. Close your eyes. Watch thoughts pop up. Every time a thought starts say to yourself with your inner voice "THINKING" and then watch the gap, stay in the silence.

This felt hard today. Husband had on some youtube video turned up really loud in the other room, despite the door being closed. So thoughts of annoyance kept cropping up. Felt both drawn to the chattering sound of the video in the background, but also resistance to being drawn to the sound. But it was thought after thought after thought with hardly a gap that lasted for longer than three seconds or so. The silence is there, but attention attracted to so many other things.

Felt sense of self cropping up today after reading some distressing news articles. Feeling protective, defensive. Then this led to more thoughts of personal issues, perceived deficiencies, then a feeling of trying to "make self feel better" by resisting, followed by "correction" and then exploring the feelings that came up. Feeling ill at ease, and then writing this all here, feelings of clarity, centered. Not sure what *I* was so wound up about, other than one thought leading to another and creating a story where *I* was the center.

It's interesting...not sure what comes up first--the thoughts of *I*, or negative feelings. But they seemed generally linked. This may be where the idea of self being real has come from, how tied they are to feelings, and not just any feelings but the ones that are the loudest.

[SeeEye]

I like the "ooooh" component. It seems that you are recognizing, or have "seen" what we were looking to see.

Self exists only in thoughts and labels.

1) Have you gone through the gateless gate? Is there any inner, separate self that exists? Tell me about where you are.

.

Felt sense of self cropping up today after reading some distressing news articles. Feeling protective, defensive. Then this led to more thoughts of personal issues, perceived deficiencies, then a feeling of trying to "make self feel better" by resisting, followed by "correction" and then exploring the feelings that came up. Feeling ill at ease, and then writing this all here, feelings of clarity, centered. Not sure what *I* was so wound up about, other than one thought leading to another and creating a story where *I* was the center.

Sense of self is old and strong and will assert itself. When you say "not sure what "I" was so wound up about"....it is a question posed as a statement, which is sloppy. What will help your progress from here is communicating and thinking "tightly". Trust that this will help. Firstly, answer your question from your own experience of that day. "I" was wound up about loss. Losing status, personal value (am I good enough?), money, security, etc. Loss of peace and control for your sitting. Then there are moments of reprimand and correction....dialogue about being a good girl, good wife, not so needy, about being a peaceful zen practitioner....etc. This is to "put you back on track" being good Sandee.

So the "I' is worried about this...that is exactly what "you" are so wound up about, and the thoughts and subsequent negative feelings (thought always comes before emotion...watch for yourself, but thoughts and subconscious are very very fast) make these things, these losses "real". When I say "tightly" I mean that you get clear and state the above for yourself. Then you use the other part of your experience, where you see for yourself that the story of '"I" and it's potential losses creates a lot of noise and emotion and you tend to get lost in the sauce. And after a while you get centered and grounded and remember that all it is is thinking and thoughting. Through this, you actually learn quite a bit about how the thoughting and non-acceptance ruin your natural state of peace. You experience "hell" then you come back to center. Which state do you prefer?

This whole cycle is normal, so no judgment or punishment required. No-self and the continuation of the work is not common at all, although it is your natural state beyond thought.

You can use all of this in a very real and powerful and transformative way in continuing this work, if that is what you want to do.

2) Think and focus today on Acceptance. Who is saying "yes" and "no" to what IS, to what is happening in your life at any given time? Write a couple of examples when there is a strong "No" to what is.

I prefer Sam Kinnison to Seinfled myself. I can see and hear him in my mind, wearing his beret, saying very queitly "So, you are sitting on your cushion, quietly checking out some things, breathing softly, and all of a sudden you turn around inside your head..." and then screaming at the top of his lungs "There's no fucking self in there! NONE! AAAAAHHHHHHHHH!" "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!"

[Sandee]

1) Have you gone through the gateless gate? Is there any inner, separate self that exists? Tell me about where you are.

No. Feelings of massive frustration right now. MASSIVE. FRUSTRATION.

Thought that I still don't know FOR SURE. That it's like a house of cards in my head, this house of "NO SELF", and a thought going, "ARE YOU SURE?!? ARE YOU SURE?!?! YOU'RE NOT SURE!!! IF YOU WERE SURE THINGS WOULD BE CRYSTAL CLEAR. WHERE'S THE CLARITY."

So, the current issue: it seems self is not necessary at all in life. HOWEVER, it still seems like it can appear as a "state" or a "thing" or a "process." Specifically: Wondering why it feels like *I* am WILLING things to happen. I understand there are a whole mix of REASONS why the body does things ("lifting the arm") and why there is the thought ("I will lift the arm") and yet, feeling those two are tightly associated, thinking there MUST be causality between them.

So, like a lunatic, kept lifting my arm this morning. "See! I'm lifting my arm! ME! I'm lifting it! I say I want to lift it, and [INSERT MAGICAL PROCESS HERE] the arm goes up!"

And then, just to test whether the thought "I will lift the arm" necessarily had to hook up to the action, wouldn't lift it sometimes. (<-- is this the point where I get sent to the funny farm?) Ok, sometimes the arm would lift, and sometimes it wouldn't? What's the difference? That extra little PUSH "I" would give it. So I looked for the source of this "PUSH". Did not see a source. Only the thought saying it was "I doing it."

THEN, actual feelings of fear. *I* don't control shit! I. How am I even alive? What the fuck?

More back and forth with thoughts. Even seeing this, thinking "MAKE SURE. MAKE SURE THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENING."

So feeling this "push" needs to be explored more. Verify where the "push" is coming from.

Current thoughts:

Thought: why is this process so complicated.

Thought: I should be able to see things simply. I can't see things simply, so I must keep going.

Thought: Fuck.

Thought: Should I just give up. If I give up, isn't this just accepting things without seeing them?

Thought: If I give up, maybe I'll have a revelation like they do in Zen. Getting so tired the mind just gives up. But the mind doesn't want to give up. The mind is important. Evidence is important. *I* shouldn't just accept what people tell me.

Sense of self is old and strong and will assert itself. When you say "not sure what "I" was so wound up about"....it is a question posed as a statement, which is sloppy. What will help your progress from here is communicating and thinking "tightly". Trust that this will help. Firstly, answer your question from your own experience of that day. "I" was wound up about loss. Losing status, personal value (am I good enough?), money, security, etc. Loss of peace and control for your sitting. Then there are moments of reprimand and correction....dialogue about being a good girl, good wife, not so needy, about being a peaceful zen practitioner....etc. This is to "put you back on track" being good Sandee.

Ok, tightening thoughts up. Something that needs to happen, ok.

So the "I' is worried about this...that is exactly what "you" are so wound up about, and the thoughts and subsequent negative feelings (thought always comes before emotion...watch for yourself, but thoughts and subconscious are very very fast) make these things, these losses "real". When I say "tightly" I mean that you get clear and state the above for yourself. Then you use the other part of your experience, where you see for yourself that the story of '"I" and it's potential losses creates a lot of noise and emotion and you tend to get lost in the sauce. And after a while you get centered and grounded and remember that all it is is thinking and thoughting. Through this, you actually learn quite a bit about how the thoughting and non-acceptance ruin your natural state of peace. You experience "hell" then you come back to center. Which state do you prefer?

Lost in the sauce. Yes, this is *my* whole life experience, basically.

You can use all of this in a very real and powerful and transformative way in continuing this work, if that is what you want to do.

That would be cool.

2) Think and focus today on Acceptance. Who is saying "yes" and "no" to what IS, to what is happening in your life at any given time? Write a couple of examples when there is a strong "No" to what is.

Ok, will be working on this today.

I prefer Sam Kinnison to Seinfled myself. I can see and hear him in my mind, wearing his beret, saying very queitly "So, you are sitting on your cushion, quietly checking out some things, breathing softly, and all of a sudden you turn around inside your head..." and then screaming at the top of his lungs "There's no fucking self in there! NONE! AAAAAHHHHHHHHH!" "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!"

I actually scream/groaned while sitting. Not Sam style but that would have been great.

Thank you for guiding me through this. I can only imagine how much patience this must require.

[SeeEye]

Hi Sandee,

No. Feelings of massive frustration right now. MASSIVE. FRUSTRATION.

Thought that I still don't know FOR SURE. That it's like a house of cards in my head, this house of "NO SELF", and a thought going, "ARE YOU SURE?!? ARE YOU SURE?!?! YOU'RE NOT SURE!!! IF YOU WERE SURE THINGS WOULD BE CRYSTAL CLEAR. WHERE'S THE CLARITY."

I'm sorry that the capital letters aren't bigger!

So, self is arguing from a place the presupposes that no-self can't be true.

I understand the frustration. I was ready to threaten my guide at one point.

THEN, actual feelings of fear. *I* don't control shit! I. How am I even alive? What the fuck?

This is what I meant by tightening up your own thinking. Thought posits something that is very weak logically and in terms of your own experience, but does it with a force and tone that creates thoughts like "Then see, it must be true" and "I dare you to show me" types of things.

Example: How are you even alive? - so much drama. This thought could win an academy award! Answer the question then: While you were goofing around with your arm, tying to prove free will, what else was going on in your body to keep you alive while your genius thoughts were completely absent? Moving lungs? Or is that diaphragm? Brain activity = completely hidden from you. Heart rate? Digestion? Regulation of salt/sugar in bloodstream? What signals cross the blood/brain barrier? My suggestion is that when your "thoughts" act like a 9 year old version of yourself, you make them anwswer the lame questions. Just because drama and tone are there, doesn't mean ANY stuff going on with a 9 year old is real, although it is in their "internal" experience.

1) Does one thought become more "real" or "true" because it uses that tone?

Experiement: Use that tone, storm around your house and replace the content of the complaint with this "Where is the octopus?! What will become of me if I can't solve the octopus riddle?! Maybe the octopus has defeated me!"

2) Does frustration live outside of thought?

3) If I held you down on the floor, some Judo move, that would be frustrating your desire to move. What desire is being frustrated when you said you are having massive FRUSTRATION? What specifically?

Thought: I should be able to see things simply. I can't see things simply, so I must keep going.

I call BS. You see the idea of thoughts being an overlay on George that don't exist. You saw "the car experience" and watched thoughts roll in afterwards. You saw plenty of things simply since we've started. Thought poses a challenge so you "must" follow it? NO. You also have weird thoughts about things you'd not dare say, like pushing someone down the stairs, just keep on driving until you reach the ocean.....and you don't "have to" do those things.

The point is that you can continue to practice discerning your direct, in-the-moment experience from your thoughts about things. Yes, you are getting spun up. You are seeing more than you are letting yourself accept.

There is an old saying....that you cannot solve a problem from the same level it is on. Can you solve a thought problem with more thoughts?

Look at the painting w/ the stairs, called Ascending Descending by my good friend Escher....

https://www.faena.com/aleph/articles/es ... ssibility/

Post on your original tasks, and these as you get to them. Lots of points, direct your energy into looking then typing.

[Sandee]

My suggestion is that when your "thoughts" act like a 9 year old version of yourself, you make them anwswer the lame questions. Just because drama and tone are there, doesn't mean ANY stuff going on with a 9 year old is real, although it is in their "internal" experience.

Yes, thoughts are having a tantrum when questioning self arises.

1) Does one thought become more "real" or "true" because it uses that tone?

Experiement: Use that tone, storm around your house and replace the content of the complaint with this "Where is the octopus?! What will become of me if I can't solve the octopus riddle?! Maybe the octopus has defeated me!"

It didn't become realer, but it seems if I did this for a few more hours everyday, the octopus may actually become a thing in the head, a thought that will keep arising, coupled with a corresponding emotion.

I actually do not want to keep doing this because I don't want to have to eventually solve two separate questions, lol. "Ok Cal, I can confirm there is no self...but we gotta talk about this octopus..."

2) Does frustration live outside of thought?

No. The frustration is a thought "I can't do this." or "Why aren't things going the way I expected." And then something happens to the body. Constriction of the upper body, chest.

3) If I held you down on the floor, some Judo move, that would be frustrating your desire to move. What desire is being frustrated when you said you are having massive FRUSTRATION? What specifically

?

The desire of "I can do this, my mind can solve this." Desire of knowing I am able to see something like other people are able to. Desire of knowing that I'm not deficient somehow. Desire of *checking* this off on some sort of "life tasks" checklist, to be able to say, "oh I did this" to myself.

Thought: I should be able to see things simply. I can't see things simply, so I must keep going.

I call BS. You see the idea of thoughts being an overlay on George that don't exist. You saw "the car experience" and watched thoughts roll in afterwards. You saw plenty of things simply since we've started. Thought poses a challenge so you "must" follow it? NO. You also have weird thoughts about things you'd not dare say, like pushing someone down the stairs, just keep on driving until you reach the ocean.....and you don't "have to" do those things.

This is true.

There is an old saying....that you cannot solve a problem from the same level it is on. Can you solve a thought problem with more thoughts?

Perhaps this kind of problem, most likely because again, *I* have to show up to solve it.

On the other hand, seeing...seeing doesn't require the *I*. So...

Look at the painting w/ the stairs, called Ascending Descending by my good friend Escher....

https://www.faena.com/aleph/articles/es ... ssibility/

Yeah. I can laugh and say, hey, that's me, walking in circles. And then cry inside as I wonder why the dots aren't connecting.

Post on your original tasks, and these as you get to them. Lots of points, direct your energy into looking then typing.

Ok. I did look for a "NO" moment yesterday. Honestly did not have any aside from looking out the window and hoping for rain, not seeing rain, and thinking "oh man, I'm gonna have to go water the yard" (<---laziness proof). Then more thoughts about the weather report always seeming wrong. Then a slight nagging worry about drought. Oh no, thought of, oh no, global warming. Ultimately, a rejection of what was happening. Yes, a lot of silliness going on with these thoughts as well. It later rained, and this whole drama became moot.

Thoughts of "NO, WAAAAAH" these days, otherwise, are mainly coming from this search of looking for proof that something that exists or doesn't exist. I'm doing this backwards. There is no self. Whatever that is seen as the self is just...thoughts and conditioned feelings. There *might* be a self, but so far the evidence for it is shaky. The closest one might be the *urge* to do something, then labeling it as the self when that action is taken.

Geez.