The Gate

Hi Trampas,

Apologies for the delay!

I suggest we start as if from scratch, rather than trying to pick up a thread from last time. There is no harm going back over old ground.

Let's look again at the components of direct experience in the present moment:

Sitting here right now, seeing happens - is it just happening, or is there an 'I' making it happen?

Hearing happens - is it just happening, or is there an 'I' making it happen?

Feeling, tasting, smelling ... are these just happening, or is there an 'I' making them happen?

Thoughts arise and pass ... is there an 'I' making them happen?

What, then, is 'I'?

Best wishes,

Perry

Hi Perry,

Apologies for the delay!

No problem! :-)

I suggest we start as if from scratch, rather than trying to pick up a thread from last time. There is no harm going back over old ground.

I agree. That's fine.

Sitting here right now, seeing happens - is it just happening, or is there an 'I' making it happen?

Blue sky with wispy clouds on the desktop: 'I' certainly don't make that happen. Seeing just happens. Huge amounts of visual input as my eyes scan the room. 'I' couldn't possibly do all that! That's clear.

Hearing happens - is it just happening, or is there an 'I' making it happen?

Similarly - Just sounds. People moving around the community in Valencia, traffic and voices outside. Swallowing, a slight internal sound…maybe the blood pumping around my system…. not sure.

Feeling, tasting, smelling ... are these just happening, or is there an 'I' making them happen?

Just sensations - cold metal of laptop, itchy tickle head. Weight of bottom on cushion. Feet in shoes. A set of sensations, experiences. No need for an 'I'

Thoughts arise and pass ... is there an 'I' making them happen?

Thoughts just appear and go on and on and on. They arise and pass on the basis of conditions - appearing as if from nowhere. There's no controlling them and no need to posit and 'I' behind them.

What, then, is 'I'?

'I' is a fiction, very much attached to itself. Not there, never has been. That's clear, although there's resistance. 'I' don't like it, although overall actually it's a lot better. Freedom lies there. Creativity. Possibilities…. just like I wrote a couple of weeks ago.

So why have I had such a turbulent time of it? Bad, painful habits, combined with very little real practice and mildly dodgy ethics over the last umpteen years. At present it's again pretty clear to me that 'I' don't exist, but I feel a bit unsteady….choppy waters …. I had better take it easy for now, not push it.

Best,

Trampas

Hi Trampas,

I had better take it easy for now, not push it.

Yes, actually that's worth bearing in mind throughout ... this process does not call for teeth-gritting, vein-throbbing effort, just gentle, persistent questioning and looking.

'I' is a fiction, very much attached to itself. Not there, never has been. That's clear

jolly good :-)

although there's resistance. 'I' don't like it

OK, can we take a look here, assuming this is something that is happening (or accessible) right now?

'Resistance' splits experience into two sides, so what is on each side? Competing stories? Can you give expression to both sides? Let's allow the 'resisting' side some space to speak!

At present it's again pretty clear to me that 'I' don't exist

'pretty' clear? what is still unclear?

Best wishes,

Perry

Hi Perry,

Thanks for all that!

Yes, actually that's worth bearing in mind throughout ... this process does not call for teeth-gritting, vein-throbbing effort, just gentle, persistent questioning and looking.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that "I" don't "do" gentle, but I'm trying not to try too much! :-)

although there's resistance. 'I' don't like it

OK, can we take a look here, assuming this is something that is happening (or accessible) right now?

'Resistance' splits experience into two sides, so what is on each side? Competing stories? Can you give expression to both sides? Let's allow the 'resisting' side some space to speak!

Ok…I'll have a go. One side says "this is the way to freedom. 'I' never existed anyway so it's not a matter of getting rid of anything." Although it is trying to be kind it's a bit of an intellectual thug. The other side is raw, pained, and quite belligerent, difficult to reason with. The most coherent thing it says is, "I exist. I don't like any of this. Leave me alone". Explaining that this process offers freedom, an end to suffering, an eventual end to retraction and curling up around a self that hurts, because there is no 'self' and so no need to do that…. maybe cuts some mustard.

At present it's again pretty clear to me that 'I' don't exist

'pretty' clear? what is still unclear?

It's like a curtain that goes across something. A couple of weeks back it seemed very clear. Now I seem to have to make more effort to pull the curtain back. Again I think it relates to the resistance I mentioned. More specifically in terms of issues, I think I see now how an 'I' isn't necessary for the whole process of making decisions, of willing. Pratitya samutpada is all there is. There isn't an 'I' in there.

However, none of this stops 'me' from sitting here feeling as if 'I' exist as more than just a convenient term, so maybe there is still more seeing to be done. If so, I'm probably in the right place, having arrived on a five-day retreat.

Best,

Trampas

hmmm Windows just decided to reboot to apply some updates, losing the reply I'd been working on for you.... back to the drawing board :-(

hmmm Windows just decided to reboot to apply some updates, losing the reply I'd been working on for you.... back to the drawing board :-(

Windows???? You've just shaken my faith in this whole process! ;-)

Hi Trampas,

Ho hum, try again....

One side says "this is the way to freedom. 'I' never existed anyway so it's not a matter of getting rid of anything." Although it is trying to be kind it's a bit of an intellectual thug. The other side is raw, pained, and quite belligerent, difficult to reason with. The most coherent thing it says is, "I exist. I don't like any of this. Leave me alone". Explaining that this process offers freedom, an end to suffering, an eventual end to retraction and curling up around a self that hurts, because there is no 'self' and so no need to do that…. maybe cuts some mustard.

OK, good. It is important that both 'sides' have space and awareness ... as I'm sure you're aware, there is little mileage in just stomping on the 'belligerent side'.

So what are the options if it seems there is 'resistance'?

It is worth reminding yourself that we are embarked upon a process of questioning, opening to what is true, awakening .... not a battle, and not a sales job (ie not an act of persuasion).

In this context, what is 'resistance'? Strip away the label: what is left?

If the thought arises: "I exist. I don't like this. Leave me alone." is there any need to resist this thought?

Is it possible to experience raw, painful feelings, and belligerent thoughts, without seeking to change them in any way, just witnessing?

I think I see now how an 'I' isn't necessary for the whole process of making decisions, of willing. Pratitya samutpada is all there is.

:-)

So ... DO you see? Or do you only THINK you see? Could it be otherwise?

It's like a curtain that goes across something. A couple of weeks back it seemed very clear. Now I seem to have to make more effort to pull the curtain back.

"seeing" is not going to be constant (nothing in experience is constant, after all) but is there any doubt about the conclusion?

In other words, is it a case of

"wow, the illusion of self is so strong right now, I could almost believe in it, if I didn't know it was just an illusion!"

or

"hang on, I was wrong, there IS a separate core of self driving everything after all, and I am it!"

?

none of this stops 'me' from sitting here feeling as if 'I' exist as more than just a convenient term, so maybe there is still more seeing to be done.

Whether this is just residual habit or fundamental self-view, either way, it is worth doing some more work....

What happens when you investigate this feeling?

What happens when you notice seeing, hearing, feeling and thinking happening without 'I' making them happen?

What happens when you ask whether this 'I' sense is any more than the content of thought?

I hope you have a great retreat - I'm not sure whether to expect you to be able to carry on posting, but I hope so!

Best wishes,

Perry

Hi Perry,

Yes, I am able to carry on this dialogue from retreat at least as long as the internet connection holds up. The cloudy, wet conditions here in the hills outside Valencia are bad for the house's satellite and 3G connections.... aside from being in no way what 'I' wanted. :-)

If the thought arises: "I exist. I don't like this. Leave me alone." is there any need to resist this thought?

Is it possible to experience raw, painful feelings, and belligerent thoughts, without seeking to change them in any way, just witnessing?

Yes, it is not the sort of thing I seem to do very well but I can just about and it helps.

I think I see now how an 'I' isn't necessary for the whole process of making decisions, of willing. Pratitya samutpada is all there is.

So ... DO you see? Or do you only THINK you see? Could it be otherwise?

What I see is that the sense of 'I' is as conditioned as seeing, hearing, feeling, or thinking. It isn't an underlying agent making decisions but a belief or habit with no more real substance than anything else. Everything without exception is pratitya samputpada. So thoughts arise, a sense of me as opposed to other arises, willing, intention, craving, aversion etc. arise, but there can be no controller behind it all, no essential 'I' making it happen. It happens in dependence on conditions. That seems very simple. [what follows is an addendum this morning after failing to send this last night!] HOWEVER - 'I' still don't really buy it - the issue of 'deciding' has come up again. Even though there is no decider, decisions get made. Even though everything is pratitya samutpada this bag of being isn't a feather blown on the wind. It is self-conscious (on a good day!).…I'll meditate after sending this and have another look!

It's like a curtain that goes across something. A couple of weeks back it seemed very clear. Now I seem to have to make more effort to pull the curtain back.

"seeing" is not going to be constant (nothing in experience is constant, after all) but is there any doubt about the conclusion?

In other words, is it a case of

"wow, the illusion of self is so strong right now, I could almost believe in it, if I didn't know it was just an illusion!"

or

"hang on, I was wrong, there IS a separate core of self driving everything after all, and I am it!"

?

It's more the former but the latter is still there at times. An insistent voice saying I exist and am behind it all. When that arises it is quite compelling even though I refuse to believe it because I dimly remember having seen through to some degree not so long ago!

none of this stops 'me' from sitting here feeling as if 'I' exist as more than just a convenient term, so maybe there is still more seeing to be done.

Whether this is just residual habit or fundamental self-view, either way, it is worth doing some more work....

What happens when you investigate this feeling?
What happens when you notice seeing, hearing, feeling and thinking happening without 'I' making them happen?

What happens when you ask whether this 'I' sense is any more than the content of thought?

At present conflict and great confusion happens! Time to meditate. I'll write more later

Best,

Trampas

Hi Perry,

Still raining and cold here in Spain, but the internet has been fixed. :-)

none of this stops 'me' from sitting here feeling as if 'I' exist as more than just a convenient term, so maybe there is still more seeing to be done.

What happens when you investigate this feeling?

Nothing much in meditation at the moment. Naughty defensive habits have mobilised and I sit there with a dull sensation, feeling like my head is in a vice, with little ability to reflect or indeed string a coherent set of thoughts together. However, I did try to explore this unpleasant sensation. Conclusion? Yes it is an unpleasant sensation. No 'I' am not making it happen. It's just a thoroughly infuriating habit whose original and or current purpose is hard to fathom - probably fear, grasping after success and tripping myself up.

What happens when you notice seeing, hearing, feeling and thinking happening without 'I' making them happen?

I am not sure at the moment whether I even entirely get this. Seeing happens. My mind replies 'I see'. Maybe it has a point. If there were just eyes there would be no sight. If there were just eyes and a brain with no sense of self, no consciousness, who would be witnessing the seeing? Nothing would be seen. So there is a sense of self/consciousness/awareness in the moment but no fixed, permanent 'I' underpinning it. That I can buy. I can buy a constantly changing set of conditions with an entirely contingent 'I' pinging into being from instant to instant, which is therefore simply a phenomenon, no different in kind to any other phenomenon. The same goes for hearing and feeling. As for thinking - Yes thoughts just seem to occur. That's the experience. The 'I' is a thought like any other. It says, I exist, I exist, I exist. Ok. I can see that doesn't mean it really does exist behind the scenes. It is simply a thought. An insistent thought accompanied by strong feelings, but nothing more. [Excuse me writing like this. It's a bit stream of conscious, but it may help…. typing with my eyes shut again!]

What happens when you ask whether this 'I' sense is any more than the content of thought?

I've just been doing this. I don't like it. However, I can allow myself not to like it - that's ok. But what is the self? If you would accept for argument's sake that I remember waking up in the womb. What I remember is waking up and then waking up again some time later and again and again, gradually piecing together the wakings ups, creating a connection between them. So that was when this sense of 'I' was first created. However, the consciousness, the awareness involved in its creation had a certain flavour, a character, that is quite recognisable, and is still here. It's essentially the same consciousness/awareness that looks out of these eyes today and is different to yours or anybody else's. So I suppose all I am saying is that my habit patterns have their own particular flavour. Am I really adding anything to the discussion. Maybe not!

However, when I say to myself "the 'I' doesn't exist and never has. It's all been a profound misunderstanding," I feel a deep sense of relief. There is no thing I need to protect and bolster. The awful fight to be someone or other dissolves - the pressure in my head eases and the clouds in my brain dissolve a bit. That's rather lovely so maybe is a way forward. What's left then having said that is a huge weight of habits - painful and pleasurable, skilful and unskilful. The image is one of standing on the beach in England looking out at a swelling, dark, turbulent sea. So I can see through the 'I' but am then faced with the choppy waters. At this point the only thing to do is chant a mantra and prostrate before an image of big guy with thousands of arms and heads - a level of being and consciousness that can handle any amount of choppy water!

Anyhow...that will do for now! :-)

Best,

Trampas

Hi Trampas,

I hope the retreat is going (has gone?) well ... I am a little envious, even if it is rainy and cold out there :-)

A lovely set of reflections you've posted there.

What I see is that the sense of 'I' is as conditioned as seeing, hearing, feeling, or thinking. It isn't an underlying agent making decisions but a belief or habit with no more real substance than anything else. Everything without exception is pratitya samputpada. So thoughts arise, a sense of me as opposed to other arises, willing, intention, craving, aversion etc. arise, but there can be no controller behind it all, no essential 'I' making it happen. It happens in dependence on conditions.

I must say, you are very lucid about all this now. I was particularly struck by:

when I say to myself "the 'I' doesn't exist and never has. It's all been a profound misunderstanding," I feel a deep sense of relief. There is no thing I need to protect and bolster. The awful fight to be someone or other dissolves - the pressure in my head eases and the clouds in my brain dissolve a bit. That's rather lovely so maybe is a way forward. What's left then having said that is a huge weight of habits - painful and pleasurable, skilful and unskilful.

yes, yes, yes and yes!

realising that there is nothing to protect or bolster, and the fact that this brings a sense of relief rather than terror, seems to indicate that something has shifted

Going back a bit:

HOWEVER - 'I' still don't really buy it - the issue of 'deciding' has come up again. Even though there is no decider, decisions get made. Even though everything is pratitya samutpada this bag of being isn't a feather blown on the wind. It is self-conscious (on a good day!).

Does this change anything?

I can buy a constantly changing set of conditions with an entirely contingent 'I' pinging into being from instant to instant, which is therefore simply a phenomenon, no different in kind to any other phenomenon.

what, in direct experience, is the 'I' pinging into being instant by instant? Do you mean a thought as in:

The 'I' is a thought like any other. It says, I exist, I exist, I exist. Ok. I can see that doesn't mean it really does exist behind the scenes. It is simply a thought. An insistent thought accompanied by strong feelings, but nothing more.

I found this very interesting:

I've just been doing this [asking whether this 'I' sense is any more than the content of thought]. I don't like it. However, I can allow myself not to like it - that's ok. But what is the self? If you would accept for argument's sake that I remember waking up in the womb. What I remember is waking up and then waking up again some time later and again and again, gradually piecing together the wakings ups, creating a connection between them. So that was when this sense of 'I' was first created. However, the consciousness, the awareness involved in its creation had a certain flavour, a character, that is quite recognisable, and is still here. It's essentially the same consciousness/awareness that looks out of these eyes today and is different to yours or anybody else's. So I suppose all I am saying is that my habit patterns have their own particular flavour. Am I really adding anything to the discussion. Maybe not!

"my habit patterns have their own particular flavour" ... indeed, and this particular flavour is intimately bound up with the 'sense of self' (the screen onto which we project the idea of a separate self) ... the particular sound of our inner voice, the particular feeling tone and aesthetic quality of our habitual mental states, the way our body moves and feels ...

it is very interesting to investigate these special experiences that are "the flavour of 'me'" - normally we take them for granted, and their very familiarity normally prevents our witnessing them very objectively, but they are there to be investigated ... what are they made up of? do they change? do they come and go?

You can make any number of seemingly special and different cakes from just flour, butter, sugar and eggs in different ratios and treated differently ... are there really any special ingredients in 'you' or 'me', or just the same old stuff remixed?

What about memory? In direct experience, are memories anything other than thoughts happening in the present moment? We assume that they were formed by the event that they recall, but it is notoriously difficult to distinguish memory from imagination, and at best, they are not perfect representations of what happened. However far back your memories go, and however accurate they are, is there any 'selfhood' here, or just more conditioned arisings?

And yes, of course, this body, this experience, these thoughts and memories, this awareness/consciousness, they form an integrated 'system' ... but is there any core to it? Is there any core to Man U?

best wishes,

Perry

Hi Perry

I hope the retreat is going (has gone?) well ... I am a little envious, even if it is rainy and cold out there :-)

Yes, the retreat went well. I'm back in Italy now….. shattered. This will have to be brief! :-)

HOWEVER - 'I' still don't really buy it - the issue of 'deciding' has come up again. Even though there is no decider, decisions get made. Even though everything is pratitya samutpada this bag of being isn't a feather blown on the wind. It is self-conscious (on a good day!).

Does this change anything?

No, it changes nothing.

I can buy a constantly changing set of conditions with an entirely contingent 'I' pinging into being from instant to instant, which is therefore simply a phenomenon, no different in kind to any other phenomenon.

what, in direct experience, is the 'I' pinging into being instant by instant? Do you mean a thought as in:

The 'I' is a thought like any other. It says, I exist, I exist, I exist. Ok. I can see that doesn't mean it really does exist behind the scenes. It is simply a thought. An insistent thought accompanied by strong feelings, but nothing more.

Yes! It can only be the thought of an I continuing from moment to moment.

I've just been doing this [asking whether this 'I' sense is any more than the content of thought]. I don't like it. However, I can allow myself not to like it - that's ok. But what is the self? If you would accept for argument's sake that I remember waking up in the womb. What I remember is waking up and then waking up again some time later and again and again, gradually piecing together the wakings ups, creating a connection between them. So that was when this sense of 'I' was first created. However, the consciousness, the awareness involved in its creation had a certain flavour, a character, that is quite recognisable, and is still here. It's essentially the same consciousness/awareness that looks out of these eyes today and is different to yours or anybody else's. So I suppose all I am saying is that my habit patterns have their own particular flavour. Am I really adding anything to the discussion. Maybe not!

"my habit patterns have their own particular flavour" ... indeed, and this particular flavour is intimately bound up with the 'sense of self' (the screen onto which we project the idea of a separate self) ... the particular sound of our inner voice, the particular feeling tone and aesthetic quality of our habitual mental states, the way our body moves and feels ...

it is very interesting to investigate these special experiences that are "the flavour of 'me'" - normally we take them for granted, and their very familiarity normally prevents our witnessing them very objectively, but they are there to be investigated ... what are they made up of? do they change? do they come and go?

I can't quite get a handle on that now.

You can make any number of seemingly special and different cakes from just flour, butter, sugar and eggs in different ratios and treated differently ... are there really any special ingredients in 'you' or 'me', or just the same old stuff remixed?

Clearly just different recipes.

What about memory? In direct experience, are memories anything other than thoughts happening in the present moment? We assume that they were formed by the event that they recall, but it is notoriously difficult to distinguish memory from imagination, and at best, they are not perfect representations of what happened. However far back your memories go, and however accurate they are, is there any 'selfhood' here, or just more conditioned arisings?

All memories are in the present. Where else could they be? Their accuracy to any given set of events and experiences or lack of it is hard to know. In this case the memory is interesting because I feel like I've had it all my life and while it won't be entirely true to the experience at the time given that it can only be occurring right now in my adult consciousness I do believe it to be a memory of a real experience. However, I don't believe there is 'selfhood' here, just an echo of the earliest experience of 'my' particular consciousness in this life. It can feel like 'me' without it having to stand for a permanent self behind experience. Just like my reflection but in the mirror is recognisable but doesn't imply the existence of an 'I'.

And yes, of course, this body, this experience, these thoughts and memories, this awareness/consciousness, they form an integrated 'system' ... but is there any core to it? Is there any core to Man U?

I don't believe in a core. But maybe flavour is useful. United have a particular flavour as a club. They tend to play attacking, attractive football - like Spurs. This tendency has gone down the generations. It is part of the club's DNA - to use a metaphor. However, take Arsenal - traditionally boring, they have become football purists under Arsene Wenger's management, just as United have become cagier as their manager has learned that gung ho attack doesn't always bring the best results. So, even a club's character can change. Ergo there is definitely no core. With a person, change is trickier because the disparate elements that make up a human being are more firmly bound together, ie. there is one brain and one set of habits at work, not a manager, owners, squad etc, all with their individual sets of habits. But equally there is no core self to a person. That is now clear.

Anyhow… that's me done for today. Goodnight! :-)

Best,

Trampas

I mean't "Just like my reflection in the mirror is recognisable but doesn't imply the existence of an 'I'." There was one "but" too many!

Hi Trampas,

I see you are online!

.... a quick one to see if I can catch you while you are still online.....

So where do you feel you are up to with this?

Would you say the illusion has been seen through?

best wishes

Perry

Hi Perry,

Obviously just missed me!

So where do you feel you are up to with this?

Would you say the illusion has been seen through?

Yes, I think it has been seen through.

Best,

Trampas