The Gate

if you are 'opening' yourself to 'the great mystery' without expectations...

that resonates at least. i suppose in part because it's the opposite of trying to think my way out of this conundrum...

Ha, it hadn't hit me that it was also a way of turning off thoughts. Good one baby!
Leading from the heart actually opens something for both receiving and transmitting. A connection with IS.
Do you do any yoga ?
Doing asanas (postures) slowly and from the heart adds a physical/hormonal(glandular) dimension to this.
Even just a morning 'Salute to the Sun' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWzMs-k2B0

Do you do any yoga ?

ha ha ha... good question. i've been teaching for a number of years but just these last few weeks have been thinking of dropping it. my own practice has been non-existant of late-- a combination of that old shoulder injury with this new permission to not have to DO anything. i have been attending a kundalini class of late though which serves in a number of ways.

when i teach yoga, i teach slow and it's all about coming from the heart. i find i can't teach anything else. but both qualities have been rather distinctly absent from my own showing up in the world lately. and back to that prayer/surrender to mystery thing: historically anything bhakti (devotional) yoga-like gives me hives.

off to go DO a sun salutation or two. hand on tiller? hand off tiller? feels like the former but i guess ultimately it's the latter. to do or not to do... i guess neither is relevant. there is just what happens...

off to go DO a sun salutation or two. hand on tiller?

Ok, what arises here is a question about the process of HOW you do daily living as regards to deciding what to do next.
Is there a 'should' in there ? (I should go and do some yoga, it will be good for me... etc)
Perhaps for an hour of two, focus on the mental process that decides 'what next'.

i've been teaching for a number of years

Is there an identification with being a 'seeker' in this and the other 'activities' ?

Is there a 'should' in there ?

is that the tell-tale sign of a mind believing there's a hand on a tiller? the sense of if i do A, then i get B so i "should" do A.

in this case there was a-- oh, ok. that feels like a nice doorway back into something that i've dropped for some reason. it felt nice to do and that was that. but interesting to note was that while i said i was off to go do some sun salutations, there were about 5 intervening actions (send X email, make the bed, "oh one more thing" etc.) that actually happened first. it happened when it happened.

Is there an identification with being a 'seeker' in this and the other 'activities' ?

very much so, which is why those activities have dwindled to very little of late. the permission to just be. a friend sent an email today describing someone's journey which referenced the dedication and commitment and hard work required for "stream entry" and my mind's arising response was mostly "uggggg, what a set up for failure" with a pinch of "is the SEEing that we're talking about on LU a fantasy land?"

my days right now are a mush of meandering about lost in fantasy land, occasionally remembering something from this thread and looking for it. there is much less focus, less purpose, less caring than there used to be-- all of which were qualities of the highly motivated SEEKER. there's some freedom to this, but also some depression. there is also a quiet judgment of "lazy" that gets put on the current state of affairs, but i'm mostly aware that it's there and don't give it much weight.

though in a way that was the message i got from derek (my projection) when he decided to jump ship from this string. i wasn't posting enough, wasn't dedicated enough. my stories of course.

it happened when it happened.

...and if i read you right, it happened in a nice, relaxed way. No 'push' to get one thing finished so the next one could be finished, so the next one.... ?

"is the SEEing that we're talking about on LU a fantasy land?"

Yes. While ever we are talking about it, then it's fantasy land. (just another story)
Ha, i've wondered that point myself occasionally. Well, traditional Reality is defined by consensus beliefs and there are enough 'liberated' through LU to be a village or even a small town (and that is in a little over 12 months)
Of course that means nothing about what you really mean. All i can say is that the 64th year of this life-ing has made the 'run up' years (quite interesting ones) seem pale by comparison.
Who know how it will be for Rebecca ?

there's some freedom to this, but also some depression. there is also a quiet judgment of "lazy" that gets put on the current state of affairs, but i'm mostly aware that it's there and don't give it much weight.

This is excellent stuff. It is obvious (here) that there is a re-alignment happening. (letting go of the old...)

though in a way that was the message i got from derek (my projection) when he decided to jump ship from this string. i wasn't posting enough,

Good that that happened, otherwise i would have missed out on you.

This is excellent stuff. It is obvious (here) that there is a re-alignment happening. (letting go of the old...)

If there is re-alignment happening, it's in fits and starts, backwards and forwards, muddled, crazy, and then not as much. finding myself caught up more so than usual, with some huge surges of energy, but also some soft and gentle curiosity as well- a few noticings that in the midst of a giant story, that it's just that, a story. without the story, no problem. and you would think that would be enough because whats the point of willingly being caught up like that, but whoooosh, back into the story i go...

on a separate note, the thought arose today of wanting to be a nobody before being a somebody (recognizing that it took being a somebody to want to be a nobody). it seems that then the characteristics of that somebody wouldn't matter as much and that there would be less of the usual grasping for attention and praise and pleasant feeling. instead, perhaps, actions would be guided by a natural wisdom, grace and ease.

but the perceived "i" that wants to grasp less/allow more keeps that arising at bay. on the other hand, what's here is always here-- it has to be for it to be non-separate. so the "i" that wants to be "nobody" in someway too is a function of wisdom, grace, ease?

feeling pretty muddled at the moment...

it's in fits and starts, backwards and forwards

That seem reasonable. Why would it be one smooth transition, when old, familiar stuff is (seemingly) threatened with extinction ? Does a drowning person just quietly slide under ?

muddled, crazy

Only if clear stability is expected.

also some soft and gentle curiosity as well

Probably when a sense of security and acceptance has ascendency. (maybe)

the thought arose today of wanting to be a nobody before being a somebody (recognizing that it took being a somebody to want to be a nobody).

write a little about being a 'nobody' & a 'somebody'

it seems that then the characteristics of that somebody wouldn't matter as much and that there would be less of the usual grasping for attention and praise and pleasant feeling.

Are these expectations ?

the perceived "i" ... keeps that arising at bay.

Consult experiencing and describe HOW this happens.

what's here is always here--

Does this resonate ?
Is there a 'knowing' that this is so ?

feeling pretty muddled at the moment...

..mud settles.

write a little about being a 'nobody' & a 'somebody'

we usually use the terms nobody and somebody in relationship to the rest of the world, as in the rest of the world doesn't know (respect, praise, admire, love) the nobody and does know (respect, praise, admire, love) the somebody. i was speaking of a nobody as a personality that isn't attached to itself as a SELF to protect and promote. if there's no "SELF" to promote or protect, then the frantic efforts to manipulate the moment, i would expect (yes, expectation) would diminish. the somebody that i imagine arising out of that, by which i guess i mean the personality, with out the neurosis of self self self, would live and respond to life from the present moment with increasing wonder and curiosity and love, which are aspects of wisdom. and illusion or no, it seems that the world is in great need of more of those qualities.

this "story" is seen as projection and expectation, yes. and as it's a projection about a future that isn't here/now, it misses the mark entirely. still, it seems useful to abandon the notion that being a somebody in any other way (respected, admired, special, helpful) would bring about some sort of peace or happiness.

Consult experiencing and describe HOW this happens.

mind, under the impression that it is its job to manage (protect/please/promote) the SELF, imagines a more perfect moment and in so doing ignores the perfection of the moment as it is, the "this is it"-ness of what's here.

there still seems to be a gap for me between this is it and no self, but i trust you on that one. for now, that gap is what's here... ha haha....

what's here is always here--

Does this resonate ?
Is there a 'knowing' that this is so ?

i do "know" that awareness is always here. the notion that awareness is all there is (and isn't personal) however is more intellectual, fueled by both pointers and some brief noticings. how all this drops into clear seeing of inseparatability remains story for me.

i would expect (yes, expectation)

Do you think it would ever be possible Not to have expectations ?

would live and respond to life from the present moment with increasing wonder and curiosity and love, which are aspects of wisdom. and illusion or no, it seems that the world is in great need of more of those qualities.

hear! hear!
...and on the other hand, how is it 'ok' that so much of the world is (seemingly) totally polarized to this ?

it seems useful to abandon the notion

relinquishing, letting go of a 'holding on'.. gets close to an acceptance or a surrendering to what IS ?

mind, under the impression that it is its job to manage

If we move from the logical conclusion (what the minds' job it) to the actuality, what do we have ? (what is the experience of behavior)

imagines a more perfect moment and in so doing ignores the perfection of the moment as it is, the "this is it"-ness of what's here.

Now you are SEEing how close this is to you... (how most people look past it.)

there still seems to be a gap for me between this is it and no self

describe this more..

i trust you on that one.

don't trust me. EVERYTHING i say is bullshit.

i do "know" that awareness is always here.

Tell about this "awareness"

some brief noticings

The briefness is irrelevant. However brief a noticing is, it is noticed.

clear seeing of inseparatability

Tell the story of this one in more detail.

Do you think it would ever be possible Not to have expectations ?

I imagine that predicting the next moment and distinguishing between pleasant/unpleasant (which would combine to set up our obsession with expectation) are pretty hard wired into the brain. With years or lifetimes of deconditioning perhaps that particular neural network would atrophy into nonexistence (though even then, some level of expectation seems useful for the purposes of physical survival). I'm guessing that for most of us the difference between SEEING and not seeing is whether or not weight (emotion/reaction) is given to the expectation.

how is it 'ok' that so much of the world is (seemingly) totally polarized to this ?

if i follow byron katie's line of inquiry, "is it true?" then the inevitable conclusion is that anything i believe "should" be happening is just a thought that argues with what "is". ultimately it's impossible to say what "should" be happening (from the biggest view, who can know?) and in her language, if you argue with what is, you always lose.

this is of course a tough one. i appreciated your comment the other day that its one of the ways you simply open to the mystery...

If we move from the logical conclusion (what the minds' job it) to the actuality, what do we have ? (what is the experience of behavior)

mind designates X as preferred which spins more thoughts about why Y isn't preferred and about how to get or keep X. emotions (bodily sensations) get involved which reinforce the story's importance. body acts in response to the thoughts/feelings. in one sense all this is included in what IS, but it is exhausting and perpetuates the body/mind's sense of suffering.

and if X is SEEING, the same cycle ensues...

ixturtle wrote:there still seems to be a gap for me between this is it and no self
describe this more..

i'm not sure i have more to add then the last time i mentioned this. intellectually i can get there: this is it = present moment = time/thought as only concept = self as only concept. doesn't seem to sink in though...

Tell about this "awareness"

Just that there is always experiencing, even if it's the experiencing of being totally caught up in a story. Its the one unifying factor...

ixturtle wrote:clear seeing of inseparatability
Tell the story of this one in more detail.

the story is that when the mind doesn't separate out a self (or when the mind's separating out of a self is not believed by the mind), what's left is an experience of life as a unified whole. not this, not that. just life experiencing itself. a total view changer. and not something i feel that i have directly seen for myself.

the clearest sense of this i ever had was a number of years ago when i came across the "busting loose" book which suggests seeing everything as your own personal hologram. the book annoyed me a bit but there was a moment walking down the street, imagining that all the cars and traffic and people and birds and bridges were my hologram, when there was a sense of disappearing and i realized that ALL self is the same as NO self. less than a half second-- and perhaps more of an intellectual noticing since as you said, it doesn't matter how brief true seeing is. beyond that, even the flashes -- say of seeing the experiencing of the experiencer or the hand off the tiller, etc.-- all seem to come through the lens of a self that is separate.

I'm guessing that for most of us the difference between SEEING and not seeing is whether or not weight (emotion/reaction) is given to the expectation.

I'm guessing that this is more than a guess for you?

mind designates X as preferred

Hmm, good, this bring up mind preferences (story) and what may be termed preferences of the organism. Can they be separated ? In your experience can you see any preferences that might be innate biological preferences ?

doesn't seem to sink in though...

What will signify 'sinking in' ?

Just that there is always experiencing, even if it's the experiencing of being totally caught up in a story. Its the one unifying factor...

..and you 'know' it, SEE it ?

all seem to come through the lens of a self that is separate.

What is the experiencing of this ?

ixturtle wrote: I'm guessing that for most of us the difference between SEEING and not seeing is whether or not weight (emotion/reaction) is given to the expectation.
I'm guessing that this is more than a guess for you?

i "know" that i still give a lot of weight to emotion/reactions-- there's some mental noise that says, "this is bologna" but that seems more like mind stuff than true seeing. it's also (especially of late) usually 100 parts emotion/reaction to 1 part bologna, which is to say that the emotion/reaction tends to win out. in the last few years (before the past 6 months) the bologna voice had much bigger sway, but i see that now as more akin to stuffing it than liberation. all this is to say, i can only speak to the not seeing side of the equation-- and thus, it's still a guess.

this bring up mind preferences (story) and what may be termed preferences of the organism. Can they be separated ? In your experience can you see any preferences that might be innate biological preferences ?

It seems that there is an innate biological preference to survive, to minimize pain, to feel safe and secure. the mind takes these and twists them up into all kinds of convoluted preferences like "if you don't do X for me then my world is flung into chaos and i don't feel safe or secure at all"...

What will signify 'sinking in' ?

Clarity. 1000 people could tell me that I'm wrong and that no-self is a bunch of hippy dippy mumbo jumbo and yet there would be no doubt in my mind. like there is no doubt that this breath is here. obvious. no second guessing.

ixturtle wrote:Just that there is always experiencing, even if it's the experiencing of being totally caught up in a story. Its the one unifying factor...
..and you 'know' it, SEE it ?

how could there ever not be experiencing (at least while there is life, but that opens up another can of worms)? all i can say from my own experience is that everything i know (including sense of self but also everything else) is experienced through the medium of experiencing.

ixturtle wrote:all seem to come through the lens of a self that is separate.
What is the experiencing of this ?

just that there is a proprietary sense to the thoughts, feelings and sensations that float through. even when shifting from "i think, i feel" to "thinking, feeling" there is still a sense that that thinking/feeling belongs to this organism. which it does, doesn't it? if it doesn't, then i'm most certainly stuck there. if it does, then perhaps it's just that the thinking/feeling unique to that organism is not relevant from a broader view (but truly i have no real experience of what that view is).

i "know" that i still give a lot of weight to emotion/reactions-- there's some mental noise that says, "this is bologna" but that seems more like mind stuff than true seeing.

It's not a matter of Not DOING that, after all is it a choice. The 'issue' is Recognizing that it is happening..
Does Recognition happen ? How often ? How quickly ? What happens when it is seen ?

Clarity.

Is it the idea that this "clarity" will lead to Belief, to a Belief without Doubts ?

all i can say from my own experience is that everything i know (including sense of self but also everything else) is experienced through the medium of experiencing.

Would it be true to say that this is your ONLY Reality ?, that there is No Reality, other than Experiencing ?

still a sense that that thinking/feeling belongs to this organism.

"belong" is a tricky word. If we say "are OF the organism" then the ownership inherent in "belong" is removed. ..or do you think 'ownership' is appropriate ?

which it does, doesn't it?

Yes, in the same way that the arm or eye does. A characteristic of Form.

is not relevant from a broader view (but truly i have no real experience of what that view is).

Do you think it is possible to ever have that experience ?

It's not a matter of Not DOING that, after all is it a choice?

Right. I forget that all the time (which is also not a choice!) but it's such a gentle reminder to not be so hard on myself...

Does Recognition happen ? How often ? How quickly ? What happens when it is seen ?

Some sort of recognition happens almost immediately and almost all the time, but what happens is a sense of being squashed between mind/body's knee intense response and the secondary "this is just a story" response. squashed is the right word too-- like there's no room to breathe. i think because there's some heavy handed "should"ing that goes along with the "this is just a story."

Is it the idea that this "clarity" will lead to Belief, to a Belief without Doubts ?

Is it a belief without doubt that fingers are typing, body is breathing? maybe. but there is a sense that as much as there is to "know", i can know that. so clarity means direct experience. is that off track?

Would it be true to say that this is your ONLY Reality ?, that there is No Reality, other than Experiencing ?

tricky one. the only reality i can experience is the one i'm experiencing. but not sure about the second part... i have no idea if there is another reality. and certainly my experiencing is different from your experiencing. so i don't know.

"belong" is a tricky word. If we say "are OF the organism" then the ownership inherent in "belong" is removed. ..or do you think 'ownership' is appropriate ?

"of the organism" seems appropriate. the sensations, feelings and thoughts of the organism. ok. right now the experience of the organism is shivering. shivering is happening in the context of this organism. so I'M not shivering. shivering doesn't belong to ME or even MY experience. there's just a body doing this thing that the mind labels shivering. oy. i get it and i don't get it. "there's just a body of an organism doing this thing that the mind of the organism labels shivering." that seems right. there's still a sense that the shivering is happening to me or by me, but this "sense" requires the mind to be involved. it's not direct experience.

arggg... feels like its right there and i can't quite penetrate it. but then again, it's not mine to choose...

A characteristic of Form.

right. every feeling, thought and sensation is a characteristic of form. another one to get tattooed to the inside of my eyelids...

Do you think it is possible to ever have that experience ?

hah! another tricky one. on the one hand, people like you and linda (and other gate crashers) give ME reason to BELIEVE that it is possible. on the other hand, there would be no one to HAVE the experience, correct? and it could only happen NOW, not in the future... and the belief is just a story anyway, while the realization would be that the experience was there all along...

oy again. Confusion OF this organism arises!!!