The Gate

Hi Jon,

I hope the work on your exams goes well.

The study yesterday went well and passed the exam today too, thanks!

That's to assume that there is a "my mind".

Yeah Jon, that assumption is being made.

What mind?

When saying "my mind", it was a reference to the pattern in which thinking and feeling are being experienced from here (I'd say "by me", but the exploration of seeing did not indicate the presence of a "one who sees", but still, "there is no self" is also not known for certain yet.).

This also assumes that the NOW is not already given, not already here (and that a someone needs to "practise" it).

Yes, these assumptions are being made as well.

Could it be the big irony that what already IS cannot be 'practised' and that no 'self' could make it happen?

It may be a conclusion I could write down or speak out from inference. But when engaged in everyday life, a lot of things feel like they are being done by a self. The truest answer that I can give now is, "I don't know for sure".

The idea that some things can indeed be done by a me, coming either from an assumption made automatically at a thinking level, or through the suggestion of another, however, puts a little pressure on me to "try" to do some things. This idea also sometimes expands to "I could have" thought-threads (with some practice, a few of these have been let go of), each of which seem to create some discomfort from which some release is sought, thereby reinforcing the desire to practice something to make something happen.

This dissatisfaction with something in the present also induces some hope that something could change, perhaps because of me doing something or perhaps even completely by itself.

Something just says,"if, by acknowledging that no 'self' could ever make it happen, something deeper understanding will take place, I'm ready to do it. But nothing has happened so far."

I've responded in a slightly exhausted state after a long day, Jon. If I notice that there is something missing, I will add that in tomorrow's post.

Best regards,
Raam

Hi Raam

Good news about your exam!

. When saying "my mind", it was a reference to the pattern in which thinking and feeling are being experienced from here (I'd say "by me", but the exploration of seeing did not indicate the presence of a "one who sees", but still, "there is no self" is also not known for certain yet.).

Ok.

But when you say "the pattern in which" this is a concept isn't it? It's least a kind of image? An idea.

Apart from the idea of a 'pattern' is there 'a mind' ,to be found in direct experience?

As you said, clearly there are thoughts, thinking and feeling or energetic sensations appearing.

. This also assumes that the NOW is not already given, not already here (and that a someone needs to "practise" it).
Yes, these assumptions are being made as well

Where else is everything going on?

Is reading of these words happening now?.

Is there 'anywhere else', actually ?

. when engaged in everyday life, a lot of things feel like they are being done by a self

Yes it's very possible. We don't aim to get rid of a self that never existed.

The illusion of 'self' gets recognised, many times. The illusion can reappear and even 'take over' (or so thoughts suggest) , except that it is seen for what it is, again and again, once it's recognised.

Important. Do you make anything happen? What makes things happen?

Best regards

Jon

Dear Jon,

Good news about your exam!

Thank you so much! Good news indeed, and I can be more focussed on inquiring now.

But when you say "the pattern in which" this is a concept isn't it? It's least a kind of image? An idea.

Yes, the description of the pattern comes from some memory and some interpretation of things that happened over time and were collected in memory. So it is definitely not something that comes from the present moment. So, yeah, it's an image.

Apart from the idea of a 'pattern' is there 'a mind' ,to be found in direct experience? As you said, clearly there are thoughts, thinking and feeling or energetic sensations appearing.

At best, there is only a current thought or narrative that I could call "mind", but it is not an entity that is constantly present per se. There's the experience of the present moment, in which such thoughts, feelings and sensations occur, or don't occur.

Where else is everything going on?

It's just happening here, now.

Is there 'anywhere else', actually ?

At best, "anywhere else" is just beliefs, Jon. Even on the ordinary tangible plane, there's no way of verifying if places that are not being perceived, exist. By physically going to check, we remove the criterion of them not being in the current perception, so that's not an option to check. There is, at best, a narrative that the mind finds consistent,, believable and acceptable. Besides that, there is only mental images of other places. The same would apply for time. Only "here" and "now" is in the experience.

Yes it's very possible. We don't aim to get rid of a self that never existed.

Aah, yes, now I understand the point on the FAQ a little better. If the self never existed in the first place, how can it be gotten rid of?

The illusion of 'self' gets recognised, many times. The illusion can reappear and even 'take over' (or so thoughts suggest) , except that it is seen for what it is, again and again, once it's recognised.

Thanks, Jon, it is way clearer to me now, and perhaps some unworded expectations got out of the way too.

Important. Do you make anything happen?

No, Jon. The sense exploration itself cleared a lot of things up. It is just happening. Sometimes a thought comes up, claiming ownership or doership of something that happens but when observed, it is seen that there's no particular doer. So, no, I do not make things happen.

What makes things happen?

There would be thousands of variables to explain what causes things to happen, and perhaps even several theories to explain it too.
If I try to talk about what seems feels right (particularly about the things that seem like they were "made to happen by me" and not "natural" or "uncaused by me"), there's some internal nature and some outcome of physical and mental practice (basically some conditioning) stored in this body and, I have to say mind as well, that put a preference in terms of responding to something.

Ultimately, at the time of doing, thought seems to think there's a deliberate choice involved, but there seems to be just spontaneity rather than deliberation involved even if the mind thinks up some activities such as decision making, evaluation and deliberation. There's some mental activity taking place a certain way but the final outcome of the action feels like it is spontaneous.

Even if the thought is part of the reasons why a particular event takes place or is "made to happen", we have already seen that those thoughts come up spontaneously and are just happening, so it can only be that things just happen.

I would talk in this manner about the things that feel they were decided by me, but with ones that feel like they took place out of my control, it's even more easier to see that they just happened.

Best regards,
Raam

Hi Raam

. Thanks, Jon, it is way clearer to me now, and perhaps some unworded expectations got out of the way too.

Can you say more about this?

. Sometimes a thought comes up, claiming ownership or doership of something that happens but when observed, it is seen that there's no particular doer. So, no, I do not make things happen.

It's one thing understanding this in theory and another to see it beyond doubt. Is this seen beyond doubt?

. Even if the thought is part of the reasons why a particular event takes place or is "made to happen", we have already seen that those thoughts come up spontaneously and are just happening, so it can only be that things just happen.

Is this deduction alone, or is it seen intuitively, so to speak ?

All the best

Jon

Hi Jon,

Can you say more about this?

Yes, so there's been an idea, gathered from talks and books about awakening being an instantaneous occurrence subsequent to which one does not come back to the idea of whether there is a self, anymore, and even some ideas about the subsequent state such as the need to work towards the state of liberation and so on. In my journey before subscribing to Liberation Unleashed, I had told myself that I would not worry about what happens after this "awakening", that that bridge can be crossed after getting there, and I decided to just do my best and work towards this awakening, that people like Angelo Dillulo refer to as the "first awakening/permanent shift in identity".

In one of our initial conversations, I agreed that I would set aside all teachings and approach our inquiry based on my current experience, but there was some clinging to this idea of awakening taking place one day.

When you said "The illusion of 'self' gets recognised, many times.", there was some letting go of that idea. There being such a sudden moment of awakening might still be true, but if at all it is, I'd rather arrive there and then realize that it is true, than to cling onto, and wait for it to happen - or worse, hold onto a feeling of wanting to "make" that happen.

It's one thing understanding this in theory and another to see it beyond doubt. Is this seen beyond doubt?

It feels like it would be a tall claim to make, to say that it is seen beyond doubt. I don't know when I would know for sure, too.

I will definitely say it is not seen beyond doubt, yet.

For example, I'd still find myself fighting for a salary raise I think I deserve or question myself repeatedly if a piece of advice I gave my brother out of my wish for him to not struggle with something in the future that he might struggle with is actually standing in the way of his freedom. Although these thoughts are just happening, just like how the words that came out of mouth just happened, there's still an idea that "I could've done this better" or "I could've thought this through". There's also the occasional desperation of wanting to get an exam over with or the gripping fear of some health issue that could alter the quality of my life or put me in annoying of unbearable physical pain, or perhaps losing a loved one.

I say it like these are crippling issues but there's some "space". Even when in a heated argument with a friend over politics or with my brother over whether what he is or I am doing is right, there's a small feeling that even this is just happening due to the conditioning of this body-mind, and that it isn't a "me" that is doing this. That perhaps slightly dampens the intensity of how "real" this could be, but the occasional frantic desperation to be right, to somehow "get through" the exam in spite of preparation that wasn't so great still manages to take up enough attention at least for a few moments, sometimes more.

At such times, especially things like urgent work deliveries for instance, the feeling is to set aside "enquiry and spiritual stuff" for a little later, but that's assuming that "I need to focus on this thing that is important at the moment", based on the idea that "I need to be doing this", right? A lot of this has significantly diluted down over time, but there are bits and pieces of such ideas lurking around even these days.

When that is the case, I cannot bring myself to say that I know it beyond doubt. I am unable to say how deeply I know it now, Jon. Some level of "I am the one doing this" has become diluted. But I know for sure that if something uncomfortable enough were to happen, I'm very much vulnerable to the possibility of believing that it has happened "to me".

Is there a better way in which I should be looking? Have I given you a complete enough answer?

Note: I must add that I'm largely a calm person. I often let myself off the hook for things that I realize I cannot control, through my own understanding or through the pointing-out by loved ones. Some of the expressions of worry and guilt may sound a little too intense, since I am specifically nitpicking them to show you things that I'm doing or that I'm capable of doing based on an assumption of a self sitting here.

Is this deduction alone, or is it seen intuitively, so to speak ?

A significant part is definitely deductive, and I think the rest of it would be observation-based rather than intuitive.

With sensation and even some level of doing or "making things", it feels fairly honest (particularly when observing patiently) to say that it doesn't feel like there's an "I" sitting in here and doing these things. But there's this fear/worry - what if I'm the one that is an object - a pleasure or pain enduring subjective presence that cannot escape these experiences.

There is, perhaps a feeling that I'm not looking deeply enough, but then the idea of looking deeply also feels like I'm creating a mental space (in the chest region, often) as an image and then creating an image of me going deeper and deeper into this mentally imagined space, and not finding an "I". But that is just thought, isn't it? So,I need to just look here, and conclude that there is no self, but there's still a question as to whether there's one "deep inside". An inside that I'm not sure how I should reach, to know for sure.

Thanks Jon!

Regards,
Raam

Hi Raam

. Is there a better way in which I should be looking? Have I given you a complete enough answer?

I'll suggest one or two ways to look , based on what you have written based on your very helpful and quite full answers. Honesty is always very helpful.

. and I decided to just do my best and work towards this awakening, that people like Angelo Dillulo refer to as the "first awakening/permanent shift in identity".

Is there an existing belief that there will be several realisations, of which this is supposed to be the first?

. but there was some clinging to this idea of awakening taking place one day.

I wouldn't rule it out. It can happen.What is much more significant is what kind of "awakening" is expected? Is there clinging to a hard and fast idea about how it should be experienced?

. When you said "The illusion of 'self' gets recognised, many times.", there was some letting go of that idea. There being such a sudden moment of awakening might still be true, but if at all it is, I'd rather arrive there and then realize that it is true, than to cling onto, and wait for it to happen - or worse, hold onto a feeling of wanting to "make" that happen.

Understood.

. When that is the case, I cannot bring myself to say that I know it beyond doubt. I am unable to say how deeply I know it now, Jon. Some level of "I am the one doing this" has become diluted. But I know for sure that if something uncomfortable enough were to happen, I'm very much vulnerable to the possibility of believing that it has happened "to me".

Did we look at whether it is possible to prevent thoughts from appearing?

How should we arrive at position in which the thought "I am the one doing this" should never appear?

How to stem the stream of thoughts that is somehow already created, already appearing?

But is it necessary to believe that all the labels, the words, the stories , point to actual entities or things?

What if it is possible to recognise AT ANY TIME, that the content of thoughts , concepts, is endlessly creating Maya ?

What if this presents an endless opportunity to recognise the creativity of the grand illusion , and that it has nothing to do with what has been imagined to be an entity, "me"?

. But I know for sure that if something uncomfortable enough were to happen, I'm very much vulnerable to the possibility of believing that it has happened "to me".

What if we tried a little word experiment? What if we were to change what you've said here to something more like

" Theres every possibility that very uncomfortable sensations could lead to many thoughts appearing about "me" , thus creating an even noisier or louder impression that there is actually a "me" a "sufferer". This illusion might seem convincing for a while "

Is this a fair re-working? Do you find it helpful?

All best

Jon

Hi Jon,

I'll suggest one or two ways to look , based on what you have written based on your very helpful and quite full answers.

Thanks a lot!

Is there an existing belief that there will be several realisations, of which this is supposed to be the first?

Well, not exactly. I've heard two versions, bot of which talk about the awakening which is a clear seeing through the illusion of the self, and realizing beyond doubt and irreversibly that what feels like a localized "me" is actually pointing to something without a boundary.

In the first version, this is it, and then life goes on as a flow - it is realized that it was always this way, and the idea of self is just that - an idea.

In the second version, there is an integration and a process of living authentically from this realized experience which requires some shadow work, deep interrogation into remaining beliefs that are centred around the belief in a localized self, leading to what is finally then called as liberation or realization.

In my case, I decided that I would work towards this awakening first, focussing on enquiry and authentic ways to first see for myself that the self is an illusion, and then I'd worry about whether this was going to indeed be the final stage or whether they'd be things remaining for me to work on, perhaps through what felt right or by approaching people who'd be able to guide me for help.

I did tell myself that I would try my best to not have a mental image or idea of what this awakened life would look like, but the mind tends to wander, to wish.

Upon hearing from you that the illusion of self gets recognized many times, I think there was some loosening of the grip on some obscure image I've had, of that awakening too. It makes sense to do sincere justice to the enquiry at hand, to what is being experienced now, and that's probably what I can do for now.

What is much more significant is what kind of "awakening" is expected?

From what I've gathered as learnt information, it is that if awakening takes place, I'd know beyond doubt that it has - even beyond the plane of doubt which is also on the mental plane. If I am to try and articulate what has been gathered, it is a shift in what I take to be myself, and clarity on the fact that the personal, local self is an idea. This would also result in the recognition of a subjective, subtle aware presence that's already in my experience in a clearer way.

Like I said before, I'm open to being proved wrong about these ideas as well, but for now, these are some pointers that are used to refer to awakening. I do admit that at times, are capable of being expectations, sometimes even more fixated than other times. I do try, often, to remind myself that these are thoughts about something that is said to be unfathomable by thought, but for now, a little bit of thought-based ideas are indeed present.

At times, when watching an interview of someone who claims to have seen through the illusion, it does become a longing to have the same here too, which sometimes also translates into frustrations and questions like "am I not trying enough?", "where else have I not looked?" or a rhetorical "am I not honest enough with myself?". This is the level to which the expectation can go.

Is there clinging to a hard and fast idea about how it should be experienced?

Well, there's just the belief that it would be known for sure, and it could be overwhelming, relieving or probably even scary for the first time, and that there might have to be some adjustment before it becomes comfortable. Personal accounts of those who have had glimpses speak of how fear or doubt brought them back into the oblivion they were initially in, and that I must try to not let these seep in.

At the same time, there is also some understanding that it is impossible to choose to react in a certain way, especially to something that is not known before. Also, even the determination to not react a certain way is just another thought, and is perhaps as clinging as any other thought.

There is some openness regarding how exactly it will be felt, but there is just the longing and wish that it happens in this lifetime, and hopefully soon.

Did we look at whether it is possible to prevent thoughts from appearing?

Oh yes we did. Basically, the mental activity itself couldn't be interfered with, and nothing could be done with respect to thoughts that had already appeared. But, it felt possible to use present sensations, objects in the vicinity or some other stimulus to divert a train of thoughts. However, even the decision to divert the thought and the stimulus or "inspiration" chosen to divert thoughts to, would have to have been spontaneous occurrences.

How should we arrive at position in which the thought "I am the one doing this" should never appear?

It is spontaneous, and can come up even if there is a decision-thought that says "I won't think that I am the one doing this anymore". Even that can just be a thought that appears, stays for a while and disappears or is even forgotten, let alone strictly abided by.

How to stem the stream of thoughts that is somehow already created, already appearing?

No, that would not be possible.

But is it necessary to believe that all the labels, the words, the stories , point to actual entities or things?

Oh yeah, that need not be believed, these thoughts can just be taken as temporary appearances that come up for a while, and not at all believed in.

What if it is possible to recognise AT ANY TIME, that the content of thoughts , concepts, is endlessly creating Maya ?

Oh yeah, it does sound possible to recognize that, but is the "At Any Time" part of it beyond the spontaneity with which thought occurs? Does that imply that the recognition is more reliable and not as futile as trying to have some control over thought?
It would be lovely if this recognition is a possibility at Any Time, for sure.

What if this presents an endless opportunity to recognise the creativity of the grand illusion , and that it has nothing to do with what has been imagined to be an entity, "me"?

That would be a very welcome opportunity, one that would be a blessing to open up to, Jon.

What if we tried a little word experiment? What if we were to change what you've said here to something more like

" Theres every possibility that very uncomfortable sensations could lead to many thoughts appearing about "me" , thus creating an even noisier or louder impression that there is actually a "me" a "sufferer". This illusion might seem convincing for a while "

Is this a fair re-working? Do you find it helpful?

Oh yeah, that sounds very agreeable, Jon. It is definitely fair and quite helpful. This would require re-working of several sentences written above, but I'd like to leave them be for the sake of maintaining the spirit with which they were written.

I'll attempt to not just write the next posts, but to view what's happening in this manner. In case it feels authentic to write in the traditional manner with an "I" or a "me" as a subject, I'll do so.

Thanks Jon!

Best regards,
Raam

Raam

Thank you so much for your beautifully considered replies.

I think I will reply tomorrow.

Best wishes

Jon

Dear Jon,

Sure, please take your time. I realized while finishing my post that it must be pretty late for you.

Wishing you a wonderful day ahead.

Please take as long as you need, to reply.

Regards,
Raam

Hi Raam

. I've heard two versions, bot of which talk about the awakening which is a clear seeing through the illusion of the self, and realizing beyond doubt and irreversibly that what feels like a localized "me" is actually pointing to something without a boundary.

Interesting

. In the first version, this is it, and then life goes on as a flow - it is realized that it was always this way, and the idea of self is just that - an idea.

Right. Yes that is reported by quite a few people.

. In the second version, there is an integration and a process of living authentically from this realized experience which requires some shadow work, deep interrogation into remaining beliefs that are centred around the belief in a localized self, leading to what is finally then called as liberation or realization.

Yes this is also spoken of

I wonder if these two versions are actually separate things? They may be spoken or thought of as such but what's the reality?

. In my case, I decided that I would work towards this awakening first, focussing on enquiry and authentic ways to first see for myself that the self is an illusion, and then I'd worry about whether this was going to indeed be the final stage or whether they'd be things remaining for me to work on, perhaps through what felt right or by approaching people who'd be able to guide me for help

This. seems logical and I would recommend seeing there there's no self first .

. I did tell myself that I would try my best to not have a mental image or idea of what this awakened life would look like, but the mind tends to wander, to wish.

Thoughts

. Upon hearing from you that the illusion of self gets recognized many times, I think there was some loosening of the grip on some obscure image I've had, of that awakening too. It makes sense to do sincere justice to the enquiry at hand, to what is being experienced now, and that's probably what I can do for now.

Again, that's good. But be careful. It will be you looking for yourself and finding out what's going on from what is not . I'm not here to give you ideas ABOUT awakening but to point towards it .

.From what I've gathered as learnt information, it is that if awakening takes place, I'd know beyond doubt that it has - even beyond the plane of doubt which is also on the mental plane. If I am to try and articulate what has been gathered, it is a shift in what I take to be myself, and clarity on the fact that the personal, local self is an idea. This would also result in the recognition of a subjective, subtle aware presence that's already in my experience in a clearer way.

Very well put.

. a little bit of thought-based ideas are indeed present.

It would help to be specific about what ideas you mean so that we can look at them.?

. Well, there's just the belief that it would be known for sure, and it could be overwhelming, relieving or probably even scary for the first time, and that there might have to be some adjustment before it becomes comfortable. Personal accounts of those who have had glimpses speak of how fear or doubt brought them back into the oblivion they were initially in, and that I must try to not let these seep in.

I have to say, it's impossible to predict how no self will be experienced. It could be none of the above . Truly, it's better to throw out any notions. In the remaining 'space,' realisation might appear spontaneously.

. Does that imply that the recognition is more reliable and not as futile as trying to have some control over thought?

It does and it is. It is seeing that thoughts will come, or not, as they will, or won't , that these are not "my thoughts", nor created by "me" , are not referring to an actual entity either, that allows for a reliable recognition. But other ',things,' are not 'me' too. It is not ",my body" . And is the environment "separate from a me"?


Realisation my be much less hard work than is imagined and much more immediate.

This has been a long reply to a long post.

I have just a couple of questions to contemplate:

What are you?

And

Where is that?


:-)

Jon

Dear Jon,

I wonder if these two versions are actually separate things? They may be spoken or thought of as such but what's the reality?

I do not know, Jon. Even what I told you is just an intellectual summarization of accounts I have heard from others. An intellectual search to come up with a theory that explains that both are the same, but I do not believe that will help me. Even giving you the explanation I did felt inauthentic, since I am speaking to someone who knows what this is like firsthand, and I am speaking merely theory that I have grasped mentally.

I simply do not know what the reality is.

This. seems logical and I would recommend seeing there there's no self first .

Thanks!

Thoughts

Yeah.

Again, that's good. But be careful. It will be you looking for yourself and finding out what's going on from what is not .

As in, even in this attempt to do justice to the enquiry, I am assuming that there is an "I" that is doing the enquiry and therefore the looking is from "from what is not"? I'm not sure where to place myself here, Jon. Yup, the assumption of a me is here too, yeah. To reword it, wherefrom should the looking be? Would just a "don't know" be good enough?. A lot of "I don't know"s feels honest, including "I don't know if there's a me actually" but is that going to help? Is there a better stance to look from?

I'm not here to give you ideas ABOUT awakening but to point towards it .

Thanks, Jon.

It would help to be specific about what ideas you mean so that we can look at them.?

When mentioning that "a little bit of thought-based ideas are indeed present", I was primarily referring to the mental ideas from which I wrote down the summary of what I understand by awakening and the ideas of whether it is final or if there's a second state subsequent to it, since even those are just mental images, since they are not from personal experience.

One other idea is based on a conditional belief, that's even slightly embarrassing to admit: that "if at all rebirth exists", with self realization, it would cease to take place. At least, it would stop mattering if rebirth exists, because if it is clear that the self doesn't exist, then the concept of whether or not future lifetimes exist will not matter since, after all, they wouldn't be for a "me" that would be seen to not exist. As to whether it exists now, and it would only cease upon understanding that the self doesn't exist, I don't know what to say.

Based on the not-so-sure belief in the possibility of rebirth, the circumstances of this lifetime feel like probably the best opportunity to use, to work towards realization, and there's a feeling of compulsion to realize - or to at least do the best that can be done, to try to realize, since who knows what another lifetime may be like? In fact, who knows what even the near future might be like?

I understand that ordinary life is a compulsion, because there are things that sort of have to be done - even having ambitions within the dream-life, which I do not seek to change fundamentally or leave behind. I can live an ordinary life, juggling about the variables trying to bring things to balance and then maintain that balance, working towards restoring that balance by filling in the needs of money, health, familial and social relationships and simple mental fulfilment. I also have the fear of health issues, of losing loved ones, being in a financial crisis or not being a good elder brother - I do not seek to escape from this, since by removing one of these factors temporarily, another is going to take its place, and that's okay, but this cannot be the be the entirety of life. Upon hearing that it is possible to realize the personless, neutral presence that is mistaken for a localized "me", while this mundane life goes on, it feels extremely important to realize this.

I've heard enough times that awakening is not a pursuit in time, and is actually a realization that wakes up even from the mental activity of the experience of time as well, but the feeling that I have is that this is the most important pursuit of my life.

So, it feels important to do justice to this enquiry right now, when I can. There's also a tiny sense of urgency to try to realize before the current intensity of the longing to awaken weakens. But I doubt if it will, since it feels very honest, and also because it is the realm of thought and the futility of every other endeavour and even the success of any such endeavour that brought about this longing for awakening in the first place. And yet, I do not want to sound arrogant and believe that this longing will sustain, because I do not know.

This might be a little off-topic, but it feels best to bring this up as well - perhaps the biggest fear is that I find nothing and get nowhere close to awakening even upon looking within as honestly, and as sincerely as I can. What if I am not capable, and I don't do it? What if I die without waking up or even catching a glimpse of unbound consciousness or no-self, if not the irreversible awakening itself? What if I sit once more with eyes closed and am unable to see anything beyond what I've thought to be myself all these years? Trying it yet again in all sincerity but not getting anywhere close - especially when there's no particular way to find out how close I am, is a big fear.

In spite of being from India - a country which is supposed to be spiritually inclined, where concepts of non-duality are not unknown, this has largely been a lonely journey. That way, I'm grateful to several teachers whose content and direct replies have helped - and to you as well, Jon, for your availability, time, personal interest in my mental fixations and your direct pointing.

I only wanted to list out the ideas I had, but I guess the digression revealed a bit more - I'll let it all be here, at the cost of leaving you to read some extras, just so that you can probably understand this "person" better, and to perhaps also leave as much as possible, out here, so that I at least hold onto it a little less tightly, or even to let it go completely. My apologies for the lengthy digression.

I have to say, it's impossible to predict how no self will be experienced. It could be none of the above . Truly, it's better to throw out any notions. In the remaining 'space,' realisation might appear spontaneously.

Sure, Jon. I'll do what I can, to be okay with what realization or no self turns out to be. I am okay with not knowing what it might be like, until it happens.

It does and it is. It is seeing that thoughts will come, or not, as they will, or won't , that these are not "my thoughts", nor created by "me" , are not referring to an actual entity either, that allows for a reliable recognition.

Right, Jon.

But other ',things,' are not 'me' too. It is not ",my body" . And is the environment "separate from a me"?

In a relaxed state, it is not too difficult to see it that way, but the mental interpretation that sensations, particularly touch, that are sensed "by the body" are the ones that are "felt", raises a feeling that there may be some difference between the laptop or table in front, and this body. Particularly, if this body is hurt or wounded, pain is felt. From that sense, there is at least an inclination to protect it so that pain or discomfort can be minimized.

This, when engaged in pretty deeply, gives rise to a feeling that it may be more "me" than the environment. Or that it perhaps matters more than the environment.

Realisation my be much less hard work than is imagined and much more immediate.

I think I'm still over-intellectualizing and overcomplicating it, but I 'm also trying to be as honest as I can. Hope it's not too annoying:)

This has been a long reply to a long post.

Apologies for yet another long post:). Please take as long as you need, to respond.

What are you?

It feels like I am a relaxed presence which knows these sensations that are being felt.

Where is that?

It feels like this presence is felt in a space that is behind from where seeing is taking place. The space doesn't seem pointable at or physical, but it does feel local.

:-)
Warm regards,
Raam

Jon,

Just wanted to reword the answer to this slightly:

What are you?

It feels like I am a relaxed presence.

The sensations that are being felt are indeed known, but it doesn't feel like this presence is "doing" the knowing. I'm here, and the sensations and labels of things being seen are known. That's it.

Regards,
Raam

Hello Raam

I read your post. Don't worry about its length. It is useful to know your thoughts, but please understand if I cut to the chase?

. It feels like this presence is felt in a space that is behind from where seeing is taking place. The space doesn't seem pointable at or physical, but it does feel local.

Some teachers might say "rest in that" . I'd suggest noticing this presence.

Does it have beginning or end?

Is it contained in 'a body'?

. It feels like I am a relaxed presence.

Is anything 'separate' from that?

Are even thoughts "separate" from that?

. The sensations that are being felt are indeed known, but it doesn't feel like this presence is "doing" the knowing. I'm here, and the sensations and labels of things being seen are known. That's it.

Examine this. Not intellectually. Not by thinking about it but directly....

Relaxing in this " " (wordless) , look for a line or edge where "you" end and "everything else" begins.


:-)

Jon

Hello Jon,

I read your post. Don't worry about its length.

Thanks!

It is useful to know your thoughts, but please understand if I cut to the chase?

That's perfectly fine, Jon. I am here to do what I can, to awaken, and would welcome any direction you'd nudge me in, to help bring that about.

Some teachers might say "rest in that" . I'd suggest noticing this presence.

Right. Noticing sounds like a clearer suggestion to follow.

Does it have beginning or end?

It is just static and neutral. To try and look for a boundary feels like turning it into an object and then finding a boundary. In the form that it is, it is just subjectivity, and beginning or end doesn't make sense when looking at it, particularly in terms of space. In terms of time, it just feels static, but I cannot tell whether beginning or end exist for it. I started noticing it at some point, and knew that it's been there since long before I noticed it. This much can be said.

Is it contained in 'a body'?

I would not say so. But the body has been part of the perception during the conscious noticing of it, so it feels hard to say that there is no association between the body and it. However, it feels like it is not dependent on the body.

Is anything 'separate' from that?

This is hard to say from observation, Jon. The sensation of touch feels like it is intimately connected to it. Sound doesn't seem to disturb it, but it's hard to say whether other things are one with, or separate from it. What I can say is, I am able to perceive other things only because the presence - or I, am here. If not for the aliveness that is the presence itself, no perception would take place.

Are even thoughts "separate" from that?

Thoughts seem to be made of the same stuff as this, particularly when deeply identified with. Even otherwise, thought seems inseparable from it.

Examine this. Not intellectually. Not by thinking about it but directly....

Yes, Jon. It feels easiest to observe touch when with the presence. Although, in a way, touch feels it is "in" the presence, neither the sensation nor presence interrupts the other. They are both just there. This can be extended to hearing too. Feels a little harder with sight, although largely unlabelled aspects of sight such as peripheral noticing of things that happens effortlessly and is largely devoid of thought can be said to exist alongside the presence. This could then be intellectually extrapolated to active seeing as well.

Relaxing in this " " (wordless) , look for a line or edge where "you" end and "everything else" begins.

On some "zoomed out" view that is interpreted by thought, it feels easy to say what might be me and what definitely does not feel like me.

However, if seen from the perspective that perception itself takes place because of the presence, it feels vague to think of an edge for what I am. It does not feel intuitively easy to just say "I do not feel separate from all this". I'd rather say, I don't know whether and where such an edge exists.

There's a lot of "I don't know"s, when trying to answer completely honestly :)

Best regards,
Raam

Hi Raam

. I don't know whether and where such an edge exists.

That's fair enough. If I ask you to find an edge where "you" end and "everything else" begins would the answer be that one is not found?

. There's a lot of "I don't know"s, when trying to answer completely honestly :)

Don't knows are ok.

Is there fear of seeing that there is no self?

Jon