The Gate

Hi Deejay,

Sorry not to have got back to you earlier - it has been great to read what's been going on, seems like steady progress...

Aversion: company who defrauded mum want to take her/us to court. [...] 'See, when there's anything challenging, you can no longer see illusion of selfhood'.

With serious, disturbing 'real life' things going on, it is natural for protective habits to take over. In the midst of all this, I'm impressed you've been remembering to recall no-self at all - it is not surprising that these are not the moments of clearest seeing!

Even when can focus on just the sensations, can't see they are not me, feel like me/mine.

Trying to see them as 'not me' is likely to tie you in knots .... On the other hand, noticing the sense of ownership, 'me-ness', could be fruitful.

'Me' and 'mine' have power when they are not noticed ... noticing and gently questioning them is essentially all that is needed. On the other hand, rejecting me/mine (eg by trying NOT to experience sensations as me/mine) reinforces them, and then adds another layer of confusion on top...

So: no-one to protect. Ok… but still this growing awareness of non-self might need protection? Because it is new and vulnerable.

No one to protect, indeed! Is 'this growing awareness of non-self' a thing that can be damaged and protected?

I've spent all that energy for years giving a hard time to this self that wasn't there

:-)

You're doing really well, I look forward to the next installment!

Perry

Dear Perry,
Thanks for the encouragement!

It was pointed out to me (thanks Mad Biker) that my posts are quite difficult to understand. I was writing in note form to try to keep them shorter, but looking back I can see it's true that they are sometimes hard to decipher, so I will try to make them clearer.

In the last few days there have been a lot of painful mental states, and I seem to have virtually forgotten how to see. I've felt quite stuck.

Trying to see them as 'not me' is likely to tie you in knots .... On the other hand, noticing the sense of ownership, 'me-ness', could be fruitful.

Ah, yes. I'm just ending up with aversion to self-sense again.

'Me' and 'mine' have power when they are not noticed ... noticing and gently questioning them is essentially all that is needed. On the other hand, rejecting me/mine (eg by trying NOT to experience sensations as me/mine) reinforces them, and then adds another layer of confusion on top...

Yes..
I've been trying to just notice the sensations and how I am making them me/mine, but I think aversion has crept in under the radar. Familiar.

A few times I have tried to really invite it all in, with the heart. The result was less pain, more kindness and less self-sense, but not more clarity/insight.

I did have a moment today where I could see that the strong self-sense I was experiencing had a different flavour to the strong self-sense in other moments. That brought a glimmer of insight into the self-sense being an illusion.

I've been frustrated, exhausted and fed up with all the thoughts, the running commentary, the bright ideas. Longing to just be simple and stay with direct experience.

Please could you help me just keep it very simple right now.

Is 'this growing awareness of non-self' a thing that can be damaged and protected?

No.

I think my greatest fear with the process is that I will think I've gone through the gate and will turn blue and then later have a resurgence of doubt and experience disillusionment and depression. So, this sense of having 'lost' the ability to see has been reinforcing that fear. However, making this explicit is helpful. It does seem an unlikely scenario, given that you and others will thoroughly vet me before letting me change colour!

Much best,
Deejay x

Hi Perry,
It's all shifted again today.
4am: a moment of clear seeing. 'I is just a thought'. Before when I read that on the site I couldn't relate to it.

There was an urge to write in my journal, make an 'I' story out of the moment of clarity. I sat with that urge and it felt like this basic drive to be an 'I'. There was an image of a sticky viscous brown liquid in a Victorian glass bottle (like the Alice in Wonderland 'Drink me' bottle).

Today I reacted to something with ill-will, pride, guilt; and then reacted to that with thoughts like 'I can't be seeing clearly or I wouldn't react like that'. So, more aversion to the self-sense, and expectations of how one should be post-seeing.

I was thinking about how when I'm trying to just bring awareness to experience, often aversion still creeps in and I don't notice it. I felt frustrated about this, and that showed me my attachment to being someone who has understood certain things: (in this case, the Buddha's teachings on suffering/dukkha).

All best,
Deejay

Hi Perry,
I reread my last post and realised I hadn't consciously registered the relevance of Alice's bottle being labelled 'Drink Me'!

Then I reflected on how she is drinking a liquid labelled 'Drink Me' and eating a cake labelled 'Eat me', and it doesn't matter whether she is trying to shrink or expand, she is still trapped in the same room and can't get the key and can't get through the door! Then later she drinks from the bottle and eats the cake again, but this time with awareness of what is causing shrinking and expanding of 'me', and then she can get through the door!

I got totally intoxicated by all this, with lots of selfing, 'I understand', 'I'm clever'. I sat with that urge/need/drive to be 'I'. I sent love to the part of me/habit that wants approval, needs to feel it is clever/understands. It didn't feel as if this was reinforcing the illusion of an 'I' that needs or an 'I' that is giving.

Meditating, and again feeling thoughts like 'I feel afraid' fall apart from both sides: fear needs an 'I' to scare', and the 'I' is built in that moment from the illusion that the fear belongs to it. Doesn't feel so clear with 'I understand': whereas fear seems to virtually dissolve without 'I', understanding is still happening... needs more looking maybe.

Did another circuit round the choice issue, again a glimpse that there's no problem once you take out the idea of an 'I' separate from conditions.

Much best,
Deejay x

Hi Deejay,

In the last few days there have been a lot of painful mental states, and I seem to have virtually forgotten how to see.

Does *belief* (in self) return in these states?

You know you've seen in the past - does anything that goes on in these states change that? In these states, are you back to "hey, I was wrong, there really IS a separate self!" ? Or is it more like "I know there is no self, but the illusion is REALLY convincing right now" ?

Knowing that the illusion is an illusion doesn't necessarily make it go away at once. Yes, it is possible (and worthwhile) to develop skill in popping the illusion - but knowing the illusion to be illusion, even without being able to 'pop' it, is the first thing.

I've felt quite stuck.

Can you investigate the direct experience of stuckness? Where is the 'I' that is stuck, apart from the experience of stuckness?

I did have a moment today where I could see that the strong self-sense I was experiencing had a different flavour to the strong self-sense in other moments. That brought a glimmer of insight into the self-sense being an illusion.

Yes, the self-sense changes! Good observation.

So what, exactly, makes up the self-sense? If you haven't already read Cosmik's into to direct experience, it is worth a look (it is probably worth another look even if you are familiar with it!) ... it is here

Remember, the self-sense is not an illusion (ie the sensations, thoughts and feelings that make it up are really happening) .... so what is the illusion?

I sat with that urge and it felt like this basic drive to be an 'I'.

Very good to uncover this basic drive! Is there any 'I' making it happen? Is any 'I' actually created by this drive? What is created?

Did another circuit round the choice issue, again a glimpse that there's no problem once you take out the idea of an 'I' separate from conditions.

Yes indeed ... this is where we started out wasn't it?

x
Perry

Hi Perry,

I seem to have virtually forgotten how to see.

Does *belief* (in self) return in these states? In these states, are you back to "hey, I was wrong, there really IS a separate self!" ? Or is it more like "I know there is no self, but the illusion is REALLY convincing right now" ?

No, I couldn't say that belief in self returns. It's more as you say - the illusion is convincing, and then I lose confidence in myself.

I hadn't read Cosmik's intro to DE... thanks. It is very clear.

Remember, the self-sense is not an illusion (ie the sensations, thoughts and feelings that make it up are really happening) .... so what is the illusion?

I know the answer conceptually but... I don't feel able to respond to this yet with 100% clarity. Need longer to look.

Very good to uncover this basic drive! Is there any 'I' making it happen? Is any 'I' actually created by this drive? What is created?

The 'I' drive feels very close to what I called the 'will'.
Tension/holding on in the body. A generalised sense of wanting something beyond this present experience/moment. A sense of continuity between this moment and the idea of a future, and an urge to move forward in time, and a physical posture of strain/leaning forward echoing/reinforcing that urge/volition. So, volitions, experienced more in the body than in actual thoughts, which assume an 'I' that has continuity in time. Resistance to other, experienced as tension in the body, which assumes an 'I' that needs to hold on to itself, hold itself separate, protect itself from 'other'.

i need to look more to answer the qs! I'm trying to really focus and get totally clear before answering.

All best,
Deejay

Hi Deejay,

OK, in your own time, no more questions for now :-)

But in the meantime, just an observation:

No, I couldn't say that belief in self returns. It's more as you say - the illusion is convincing, and then I lose confidence in myself.

If someone does not understand what a rainbow is, they might try to travel to its base to find a pot of gold ... once they understand that a rainbow is just an illusion, they will realise they can never get to its base. They have seen through the 'illusion of rainbow'. But they can still see pretty colours in the sky!

x
Perry

Hi Perry,

Whilst driving I did some more retracing the route that originally led to seeing. Did it with eye, ear and nose senses. With smell - noticed aversion and again saw that the illusion of 'I' is strong when there is aversion. 'I don't want this experience'. The aversion might be a clear thought; but sometimes these volitions, want or don't want, just feel like a pre-verbal, instinctual turning away from experience. But I can feel they are based on the assumption of 'I' and reinforce that assumption.

Very good to uncover this basic drive! Is there any 'I' making it happen? Is any 'I' actually created by this drive? What is created?

I realised that some of the answers to your qs were already there when I looked closely at the basic 'I' drive.
There is no 'I' actually created. What is created is an illusion of there being something - 'I' - that persists through time. That illusion is created by the idea of wanting or not wanting which implies a transition from present to future and therefore continuity through time. What is also created is an illusion of there being an 'I' that is separate, and can be held on to and held separate from 'other'. It feels as if this illusion is again created by the sense or idea of wanting and not wanting, which implies that 'I' is separate from experiences. It's also reinforced by tensing up the muscles which gives the feeling of something - 'I' - being held on to and held separate.

Anger this morning: it was hard work to keep looking in the middle of it. There were moments when I could see it was ownerless, but mostly there was a massive resistance to giving up the story which depended on an 'I'. Fear of being trampled, disregarded, getting what 'I' don't want and others' not getting what they need because 'I' am not steering things. Resistance to letting go of my point of view, of feeling 'I am right'.

Looking at 'I am not very well' and 'I am tired' stories. I realised that in seeing that there's no 'I' here, I don't have to harshly disregard 'unwell' and 'tired'. They are conditions that still need to be taken into account.

Yours, somewhat unwell and tired, !
Deejay x

Hi Deejay,

noticed aversion and again saw that the illusion of 'I' is strong when there is aversion. 'I don't want this experience'. The aversion might be a clear thought; but sometimes these volitions, want or don't want, just feel like a pre-verbal, instinctual turning away from experience. But I can feel they are based on the assumption of 'I' and reinforce that assumption.

yes .... to take a quick detour into familiar Buddhist theory for a moment ... the 4th and 5th fetters (craving and aversion) still remain after the first three (including self view) are broken. Your observation that what is going on is 'pre verbal, instinctual' is spot on, and is why breaking the 4th and 5th fetters is quite a big job, requiring (imo) quite deep meditation.... And indeed *all traces* of self view are only destroyed with the 9th fetter (conceit)...

For present purposes, then, we are not expecting to eliminate aversion .... for present purposes, we are only concerned with ths question: in these experiences, is there ACTUALLY a self of any kind?

You have noticed an illusion of 'I' that is stronger when aversion is present .... was there actually any 'I' at the time?

You have noticed (or just deduced?) that aversion is driven by (and reinforces) an assumption of 'I' ... is there actually any 'I' doing the assuming?

Can aversion, the assumption of 'I' and the illusion of 'I' all arise and pass without any actual entity 'I' driving them?

There is no 'I' actually created. What is created is an illusion of there being something - 'I' - that persists through time. That illusion is created by the idea of wanting or not wanting which implies a transition from present to future and therefore continuity through time. What is also created is an illusion of there being an 'I' that is separate, and can be held on to and held separate from 'other'. It feels as if this illusion is again created by the sense or idea of wanting and not wanting, which implies that 'I' is separate from experiences. It's also reinforced by tensing up the muscles which gives the feeling of something - 'I' - being held on to and held separate.

great observation, really lucid. Yes, time is definitely part of the illusion .... time, separateness and 'self' are all interconnected illusions. You're seeing the illusion really clearly now.

massive resistance to giving up the story which depended on an 'I'. Fear of being trampled, disregarded, getting what 'I' don't want and others' not getting what they need because 'I' am not steering things. Resistance to letting go of my point of view, of feeling 'I am right'.

The fear is trying to look after the story of 'you' ... pat it on the head and thank it! These habits have looked after you well in the past - it is natural that they arise to look after you again when the going is tough ... don't worry, steering will happen, protection will happen, even without an illusion of 'self' in the story. In fact, dropping the illusion leaves greater clarity to see what is really important .... but you know this already :-)

x
Perry

Hi Perry,
Mad 24hrs with Mum.

the 4th and 5th fetters (craving and aversion) still remain after the first three (including self view) are broken.

Yes

For present purposes, then, we are not expecting to eliminate aversion ....

No… Phew! But I've been preoccupied with aversion because it's been where I've been struggling to see the illusion, and as I've looked at it, it's seemed so much part of the illusion, and has started to reveal the illusion more.

You have noticed an illusion of 'I' that is stronger when aversion is present .... was there actually any 'I' at the time?

No 'I' can be found, but the illusion is still not clearly seen. The aversion can seem to commandeer all the space.

time is definitely part of the illusion .... time, separateness and 'self' are all interconnected illusions. You're seeing the illusion really clearly now.

Well…. I saw it clearly in one moment, and then all that stuff about time etc was no longer visible…. but it feels now as if it might be slowly clarifying… see below.

You have noticed (or just deduced?) that aversion is driven by (and reinforces) an assumption of 'I' ... is there actually any 'I' doing the assuming?

I'm not sure how much was noticing and how much deduction! The time thing and the separation by bodily tension were noticed, then maybe deduction filled in some of how that must work.
The assumption of 'I' seems so implicit, inbuilt, pre-verbal… sometimes hard to spot… and when spotted has kept springing back.

But. In the night, sitting up with mum, intermittently checking she was still breathing. I was in a lucid and heart-connected space. Enquring… there was very little resistance and quite a lot of clarity. Looking in the six senses. Noticing the basic 'I' drive and the time thing, glimpsing again how that illusion works. I felt compassion for my whole 'I' story, all the trying/needing to feel 'good' etc.

Since then, not much time for noticing/enquiring… but I am feeling somewhat more confident that all is ok and cooking. Enquiring into thoughts has felt helpful, revealing the habit of thinking of 'me' as this one that thinks and understands. But maybe something has shifted here. I feel more in touch with how much is going on outside of conscious thought, and not finding that threatening... it is almost reassuring. Maybe the dreams and images that have just bubbled up, like the 'Drink Me' bottle, have played a part in this.

With all best wishes,
Deejay x

Hi Deejay,

Sending my love to you and your mum - do put this dialogue on hold if you need to.

I've been preoccupied with aversion because it's been where I've been struggling to see the illusion, and as I've looked at it, it's seemed so much part of the illusion, and has started to reveal the illusion more.

OK, understood

The assumption of 'I' seems so implicit, inbuilt, pre-verbal… sometimes hard to spot… and when spotted has kept springing back.

OK, keep looking. What, in direct experience, is this assumption? Are there physical sensations/internal feelings that make it up? If it is a thought, what is the content of the thought?

It 'kept springing back' - so do 'you' have any control over the process, or is it more like a force of nature, arising and passing without conscious control? Do you expect to be able to control it, to stop it from arising? If so, 'who' would be in control?

I am feeling somewhat more confident that all is ok and cooking

yes, bubbling away nicely :-)

All the best,

Perry

Hi Perry,

Difficult stuff going on on various fronts. Suffering has been a good motivator to really enquire though.

keep looking. What, in direct experience, is this assumption? (The assumption of 'I'). Are there physical sensations/internal feelings that make it up? If it is a thought, what is the content of the thought?

The assumption is that there is something here - 'I' - that persists over time, that wants things and doesn't want things, that is separate and can be held on to, and that can make things happen: particularly it can understand things, steer things, have ideas and take action on the basis of those ideas.

Eg: a big theme in the last days. I failed to take x action, and it may well have been the cause of y, which has been causing fairly intense suffering to those around me. I am bad, stupid, responsible. It taps very deeply into the badness/guilt habit. At times I can really see that my actions/inactions arose in dependence on conditions, no 'I' to be bad etc. At other times, there are thoughts that this is somehow a cop-out, a failure to take responsibility.

It 'kept springing back' (The assumption of 'I') - so do 'you' have any control over the process, or is it more like a force of nature, arising and passing without conscious control? Do you expect to be able to control it, to stop it from arising? If so, 'who' would be in control?

Ah, yes… ok. It just happens, and I don't have any control… but yes, I was seeing that as somehow a failing of 'mine': 'I'm not seeing deeply enough, or it wouldn't be like this'. Rather than…there is just the habit of thinking in terms of self which is naturally going to reoccur over and over.

The assumption that 'I' am in charge of this liberation process is one that keeps reoccuring. When a moment of insight comes, thoughts rush in to claim it. A moment of seeing that there is no 'I' is instantly claimed as 'mine'!!!!

This morning, moments of clear seeing that 'I' is just an idea.

Thanks for ongoing support,
Deejay x

Hi Deejay,

The assumption is that there is something here - 'I' - that persists over time, that wants things and doesn't want things, that is separate and can be held on to, and that can make things happen: particularly it can understand things, steer things, have ideas and take action on the basis of those ideas.

To go back to the question that prompted your reply .... what IN DIRECT EXPERIENCE is this assumption? Is it actually there in direct experience, is an assumption something that is immediately present in experience?

What you describe above are thoughts that might be considered to be evidence of an assumption ... perhaps you really mean "there is the thought (imagination) of persistence through time ... so surely there must be an assumption of I underneath that?!"

If so, then this 'assumption if I' does not exist in experience, all that exists in experience is thoughts (not necessarily verbal) such as "I persist over time", "I want this and not that", "I can make things happen" .... and indeed the thought "there is the assumption of I underlying these other thoughts"

So, even in the midst of aversion, is anything going on other than thoughts, feelings and sense experience? Does the fact that some of these thoughts contain the character 'I' change this in any way?

I was seeing that as somehow a failing of 'mine': 'I'm not seeing deeply enough, or it wouldn't be like this'. Rather than…there is just the habit of thinking in terms of self which is naturally going to reoccur over and over.

yes, a hundred times over yes .... where is the doer of the deed? Any deed! During day to day life - getting dressed, making tea, driving, whatever - notice whether 'you' are really controlling what is happening, or whether the thought 'I did that!' arises after the event .... in other words, what you notice here:

When a moment of insight comes, thoughts rush in to claim it. A moment of seeing that there is no 'I' is instantly claimed as 'mine'!!!!

may not be unique to claiming moments of seeing - if you look out for it, you can probably see exactly the same thought pattern going on 'claiming' every aspect of experience, and particularly claiming decisions after they are made.

Keep a look out and let me know what you find!

x
Perry

Dear Perry,
Apologies, I posted briefly on Friday but now see my post didn't appear. Had said would be away for a few days. Will reply to your qs tomorrow.
Much best,
Deejay

Hi Perry,

To go back to the question that prompted your reply .... what IN DIRECT EXPERIENCE is this assumption? Is it actually there in direct experience, is an assumption something that is immediately present in experience?

Ok. No… an assumption is not immediately present in experience.

What you describe above are thoughts that might be considered to be evidence of an assumption ... perhaps you really mean "there is the thought (imagination) of persistence through time ... so surely there must be an assumption of I underneath that?!"
If so, then this 'assumption if I' does not exist in experience, all that exists in experience is thoughts (not necessarily verbal) such as "I persist over time", "I want this and not that", "I can make things happen" .... and indeed the thought "there is the assumption of I underlying these other thoughts"

Yes… except that in the area I've been particularly looking at - aversion - it is mostly not what I would call thoughts which reveal the assumption of 'I'. I mostly can't see thoughts: it's volitions and physical sensations, as I described before. So: there are sensations which indicate a wanting or not wanting, an imagining of what is wanted and a resulting tension. This is the evidence of the assumption of 'I': evidence of assuming something over here that is separate and has continuity. I've slightly done my head in with trying to see the thoughts. Sometimes they are there, but mostly it's a pre-verbal/instinctual gesture of clenching that means 'no', and other sensations in the body.

So, even in the midst of aversion, is anything going on other than thoughts, feelings and sense experience? Does the fact that some of these thoughts contain the character 'I' change this in any way?

Have been looking a lot at aversion and something's shifted. A moment of really seeing how aversion/craving create a sense of something over here that wants/doesn't want something over there. Seeing that, today I've no longer being caught by the illusion of self when aversion is present.

When a moment of insight comes, thoughts rush in to claim it. A moment of seeing that there is no 'I' is instantly claimed as 'mine'!!!!

may not be unique to claiming moments of seeing - if you look out for it, you can probably see exactly the same thought pattern going on 'claiming' every aspect of experience, and particularly claiming decisions after they are made.

Again this has somewhat done my head in. I can see tonnes of 'I' thoughts, some simple labels like 'that's mine', others which show an assumption of 'I', have 'I' as a point of reference. I can feel a non-verbal clinging on to certain aspects of experience, noticeable through tension in the body. There's also something I can just dimly make out, some sort of 'tracking' experience back to 'me', to the place in the body where my self-sense locates 'me'. But I just cannot see 'thoughts claiming every aspect of experience'. A lot of doubting thoughts have arisen around this: I'm missing something, 'my' awareness isn't refined enough to see this.

But today there hasn't been any point where, if I enquired, I couldn't see after a while that there is no self. There were many times when I noticed thoughts that assumed 'I', and was able to 'pop' them through enquiring.

Feeling sadness about my Mum's health, I baulked at letting go of 'I am sad'. I didn't really believe it. But somehow 'I am sad' felt so human. On turning it over for a while, 'there is sadness' felt ok too.

When I try to get my head around other people also not having a self...it's too much to take! They look so solid, from the outside!!

All best,
Deejay x