The Gate

Let go of responding, Surrender to IS.
Label it the Sweet Spot.
Anchor it to a sensation.

This felt like a big distinction: letting go of responding to story versus letting got of story. it sort of gripped me through the night in some interesting and opening ways. in the midst of falling to sleep there was one itsy bitsy flash (shorter than the time it takes to say potato) of a bigger view. now seems fuzzy and unreal.

this morning i've been coming up against something that rose might also relate to: there were a couple irritations where emotion arose, which as you say signals story, which there was a noticing and letting go of habitual responding. except i'm currently left with a feeling that the emotion got squashed rather than liberated-- and that is an old habitual pattern that doesn't feel good in the body. suggestions? yes, the emotion getting squashed is a story in and of itself, but its the only way to describe the sensation in my body-- compression at the chest. in any case, not responding in the history of this meat sack is associated with squashing-- how to disentangle..?

also wondering what you mean by "anchor it to a sensation"?

i'm currently left with a feeling that the emotion got squashed rather than liberated

De-conditioning happens with the recognition of belief-response trigger. How you cope with it this time, is secondary.
Squashing it implies suppression, with a corresponding resurgence.
Liberated implies that it flies away, never to be seen again.
Both of these are what we do with it when it arises.
De-conditioning is about it not coming up at all.
How you cope with it does tell you things.
When you cope by instantly dropping it the second it it recognised, and there is no residue. When amusement arises at the recognition that an old habit has shown itself (and will be considerably weakened by doing so), that says something different than when you cope as you did last night.

wondering what you mean by "anchor it to a sensation"

When you recognise your/a sweet spot, quickly scan the body for sensations that speak to the sweet spot. Commit that sensation to memory. Soon you will be able to visit the sweet spot simply by thinking of that sensation.

it seems there is recognition when there is a story present, but the mind (at unconscious level?) still believes in it and so it shows up as feeling in the body. "it's not ok to feel that way" is a strongly conditioned story and so it latches onto the emerging view that "its only story, no need to respond" and wreaks havoc.

but the POINT IS: there is no "I" to experience any of this-- conscious stories, unconscious stories, blahbity blahbity blah. when first reading your note re., "not responding" it opened a door to peak through... then quickly the mind seemed to gather the troops-- specifically some core beliefs about what's ok and not-- and voila: the projection that there is something, someONE to defend, protect, feel helpless, feel trapped, feel sorry for emerges.

yesterday i stumbled on my "sweet spot" verse:

o when the mind's chatter is seen as impersonal
o when its recognized that life doesn't require an overlay of labels and stories
o when labels and stories (and resistance and doubt) are seen as part of the texture of this moment
o when what's here is allowed to be here
o when experiencing is all there is-- no experiencer, no experience...

and i wrote this (or the mind did anyway) months ago...
there just seems to be like a brick wall in between and every now and then i pass by a place where the brick work is failing and i get a glimpse. every now and then i see that chatter as impersonal, life-ing doesn't require stories, that everything is allowed, that even the sensations of the "experiencer" is part of experiencing.

but still this brick wall of "I" claims its sovereignty...

and the brick wall, as we know (or at least you know and i think I know but i guess i don't really know), is a mirage...

there is recognition when there is a story present, but the mind ... still believes in it and so it shows up as feeling in the body

Is it that the mind still believes in it, that causes it to show up in the body ? or is it simply the habitual response (not yet de-conditioned) ?
Can you identify in direct experience, the process that occurs ?

Is credibility given to the mind, simply because it is your mind ?

Are we a victim of the mind ?

Can we accept unpleasant sensations as being as legitimate as pleasant ones ?

then quickly the mind seemed to gather the troops--

Do we recognise this and chuckle ? or do we push back, thereby giving it strength/power ?

Is there recognition that no matter how much the mind engages Rebecca, that it can't touch 'you' ?

Is it that the mind still believes in it, that causes it to show up in the body ? or is it simply the habitual response (not yet de-conditioned) ?

point taken. i'm talking like the "mind" is the evil enemy rather than a computer subject to its programming/conditioning.

Can you identify in direct experience, the process that occurs ?

noticing of X happens. flurry of thinking happens along with tightening of the body, especially around the heart/throat. impulse to respond happens-- feels like increased energy in the body coupled with thoughts justifying or arguing. noticing of flurry of thinking/impulse happens. labeling of thinking as "just a story" happens. refraining from response happens. tightness in the body increases.

when i read this, its seen that labeling "just a story" is different than truly seeing it as such. in practice, there seem to be varying degrees of this seeing as "story", depending on the strength of the story/habitual response.

Is credibility given to the mind, simply because it is your mind ?

hmmmm.... "my mind"... "my mind" is not very credible at all but there is a sense that the body is hardwired to it-- which it is i guess-- and there is a strong preference (by the mind I suppose) for the body to feel some ways and not other ways. so if mind controls body, and mind wants body to feel X, why oh why does it trigger the body to feel Y. truly sometimes it feels like there is a quiet war zone in there. (truly, the programmer should be fired for making such a mess, but then the programmer (parents/society/life) were in the same boat...)

Are we a victim of the mind ?

Often feels like it. The mindfulness trainer in me says we are not victims of the mind-- it is our job to train the horse so that we can ride it. But the LU view is that the mind is not "mine" to control-- it does what it wants and the power is in not identifying with it. This apparent "difference" in view is still a bit confusing for me to negotiate sometimes...

Can we accept unpleasant sensations as being as legitimate as pleasant ones ?

Sometimes. Some days. In this moment it evokes a sadness though. Which I guess is just what's happening now...

it is our job to train the horse so that we can ride it.

Like this ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Pg1EbXbZO4

the LU view is that the mind is not "mine" to control-- it does what it wants and the power is in not identifying with it. This apparent "difference" in view is still a bit confusing for me to negotiate sometimes...

To make it even more confusing, both are true.
Though is isn't true to say it does what it wants. It does what it is trained to do in collaboration with arising conditions.

mind wants body to feel X, why oh why does it trigger the body to feel Y

It seems perverse, doesn't it, but you can be sure that it is obediently expressing conditioning.

it evokes a sadness

Sadness can be cleansing.

Like this ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Pg1EbXbZO4

yes, wow, like that. i regretted using that analogy as it seemed a bit aggressive, but you got it completely. and i love that she considers herself not a horse whisperer but a horse listener.

To make it even more confusing, both are true.

perhaps more confusing, but also offers spaciousness to know that both can be held at the same time, that the apparent conflict isn't. that's just the mind trying to figure things out from a limited view.

feeling a lot of love and appreciation over here. thank you sooooo much for bearing with this "meat sack" over here... i've never wanted this more; and i also feel pretty relaxed about it. both are reflections of the mind's present conditioning. i often think of your analogy of not really being lost when later you figure out where you are. so i don't feel lost; i just don't know who i'm not yet and that's ok too. :-)

i love that she considers herself not a horse whisperer but a horse listener.

So is control that eventuates through cooperative collaboration, still control ?

i also feel pretty relaxed about it.

A wonderful, open place to be. (apparent) time slows down and depth of perception increases. An invitation to recognition...

So is control that eventuates through cooperative collaboration, still control ?

no, but there is a sense of intention-- listening, learning, opening, allowing but also a bit of "let's see about going this way..."

this seems different from "not touching"... any insights here? or again, is it more like, once you recognize there is no incongruity.

yesterday, spent much of the day sorting sorting out a mistake in our tax bill... there was no emotional disturbance, but there was still quite a bit of touching... it was "what needed to get done" except that we can use that excuse for all kinds of shenanigans...

time slows down and depth of perception increases

in a very ordinary way, this describes my day today so it was funny to see it written here.

i would see 'touching' as interfering. A use of force, as opposed to allowing. To have involvement that is congruent with the nature of (whatever), is touching of a different kind.
What are your thoughts on touching ?

hmmm...

i get what you are saying, but in the case of our tax bill (we were charged twice for the same vehicle) "allowing" doesn't seem to apply, unless the "allowing" is simply allowing the hours on the phone with the tax assessor to be "what is"... which of course is true.

i suppose allowing could be just to pay the bill, but that only seems congruent with the nature of things in one way. i'm not looking for a right answer... just trying to see where getting involved serves/reinforces the mind's story...

and in a way, getting the bill adjusted serves all kinds of stories of "needing to take care of things" and "what's right/fair," and "i just need to be patient and persistent," etc.

even cleaning my house today was a "touching"-- while cleaning certainly could be in congruence with the nature of things, it also confirms a "story" about wanting "my" house to look nice for "my" guests...

ultimately all this touching is about creating a safe, secure, predictable environment for ME. hmmm....

simply allowing the hours on the phone with the tax assessor to be "what is"

This could be allowing - depending on emotions that were or weren't associated with it.
Were you good humored as it transpired ?

it also confirms a "story" about wanting "my" house to...

Stories are fine and sometimes useful. It's believing them to be YOU where things go wrong.
There is a preference for a clean house. Fine !
I need the house to be clean, or... Not fine !

ultimately all this touching is about creating a safe, secure, predictable environment for ME. hmmm....

It is about satisfying a (conditioned maybe) preference.
What is the for me part ? (what's behind the hmmm...?)

Were you good humored as it transpired ?

Yes, though I've historically been pretty good with negotiating bureaucracy. Not one of my triggers... There's one particular trigger though that continues to show up for me and despite intentions to see through the story of it all, I keep getting dragged down into the muck.

It is about satisfying a (conditioned maybe) preference.
What is the for me part ?

OK. Preferences do not imply "touching" necessarily. As a teacher of mine used to say, "there's nothing wrong with preferences; its our attachment to preferences that get us into trouble." As for the ME part though, it points to a certain constant vigilance by the mind to try to create/orchestrate/manipulate its surrounding to meet its supposed conditions for happiness. these "conditions" have changed over the years-- gotten much more simple, nourishing, life-celebrating and inclusive. but there is still a me at the center of it. and this inquiry is all about seeing through that ME.

There's one particular trigger though that continues to show up for me and despite intentions to see through the story of it all, I keep getting dragged down into the muck.

The brain doesn't know the difference between reality and imagination when it comes to triggers. If you imagine yourself in the situation where you keep getting swallowed by it, there may be enough 'space' to see detail that aren't apparent in the actual situation.
Don't try to avoid or nullify or reverse the response. Consider it an invitation to discover something held dear. (that something will probably evaporate once seen.)

Good reminder. Different trigger showed up last night-- one that I would normally be able to "hold my seat" through, and instead (before reading our response) I just went with it (though in the moment there was not even the apparent "choice"). what showed up wasn't explosive, but it certainly was caught up. As that came out, there were some new insights into the story behind what was happening-- not sure it disappeared, but more clarity is certainly helpful. In any case, I was utterly surprised by what I got back-- instead of the usual defensiveness, i was met with happy cooperation and-- here's the zinger-- compassion for my being human. Ha haha hahaha. Never would have expected that.

But back to the plot... SELF! No SELF! Arggggg!

who is this "I" that gets triggered?

just a bunch of thoughts, emotions and reactions based on conditioning and interacting with environmental conditions and the conditioning of other "meat sacks"-- in other words, conditioning interacting with life. it FEELS personal, but that's just part of the many thoughts/emotions conditionally arising-- and since it was a pretty early add on to the basic operating system, it underlies/sustains most of the other thoughts and feelings.

there's a desire to SEE this rather than THINK it arising... but that's just what's happening now.

question arises: you said that when you saw that THIS is it, no self was obvious to you. sometimes THIS is it feels apparent to me, but not so much the corollary. can you offer any insight here? why does an absolute HERE/NOW (which seems to be what THIS is it points to) extinguish the possibility of a self? is it because HERE/NOW cannot contain story (other than the appearing of the story itself) and self requires story? and/or are there other nuances that i'm missing?