The Gate

Aaah, that one really caused a lil earthquake for "me" too! Really lovely.

Hi Andres,

Thought of you today so I'd like to check in. How's it going? :)

Warmly,
Ankita

Hi Ankita

Your check-in is really appreciated. Things are good. Life flows, interestingly, if you watch this life here living from an outside perspective, one could say that it is full of struggles, challenges, and ups and downs. But somehow internally it doesn't feel that way. There is a certain neutrality to it these days. The determination with which Andres has pursued things and goals in life has somehow vanished into thin air. This is nothing really new at this moment, but it is more pronounced now than before.

I keep having certain moments in daily life where I can't suppress chuckling at people around me stressing at oh how important it is who you are and what you want to become. So many people walk around with so many "shoulds" in their heads. I feel quite calm and balanced these days with no burning questions. The trade-off seems to be that I have lost some of my inner "fire" or "fuel" to be productive and get things done?

Lovely equanimity :)

The trade-off seems to be that I have lost some of my inner "fire" or "fuel" to be productive and get things done?

This may just be the stabilization period, or it may be the remnants of the ego structure co-opting with some spiritual concepts. As with everything else, life will reveal and refine, keep looking 🙏

We have a set of final questions we ask once the other exercises are done, do you feel ready and willing to have a go at them? No rush, of course :)

Warmly,
Ankita

Dear Ankita

I would like to pick up this thread again... if you're still around and willing to provide some guidance. I do apologize for not having written for such a long time.

Hi Andres, good to hear from you 🙏
I am here and happy to continue. How are you, and do you have anything specific on mind, or something you'd like to share? :)

I am mostly feeling quite neutral these days. My life feels still similar to what I described in my last longer message. There is a lot of change happening, professionally and personally. I have re-designed some areas of my life: How I approach my relationships, how I view work, and how I approach my health. One of my partners called it quits. I'll probably move my whole life to another country, but I am questioning whether that is the right decision. It would be the same job, but a career step up. Regarding my work, I haven't found the sparks again that I have lost.

I came back here because I somehow felt I left this unfinished. There is nothing specific on my mind.

Thank you for sharing a glimpse of your life. Appreciate the willingness to keep "seeing". ❤️

About the final set of questions, it might feel overwhelming to face them all at once, so lets go at them one by one.

First, could you describe how you see "control"? What is it really? And give some examples please?

Could you describe how you see "control"? What is it really? And give some examples please?

I would see "control" as a concept describing certain structures in human life. It is two-part. There is a controlling part and a controlled part. The man controls his dog. The pilot controls the plane. One controls his emotions. It always is a relationship of power. The controller seems to be the deciding part. The dog, the plane, and the emotions, all are subordinate.

But, what is it really, you ask? The question is of course loaded. If you take a step back, the two parts seem interdependent. It's a symbiotic relationship. The pilot doesn't fly without a plane. The plane doesn't fly without a pilot. And if you look at all the conditions that must have been true so that the pilot could handle the plane flying at that moment, they're endless. The pilot did not control any of these conditions at any point up to the moment when he has to fly a plane. How can he, the pilot, control a plane, if he hadn't controlled anything at all that brought him into exactly that situation and structured his whole organism in a way that it knows what buttons to press?

Am "I" in control? I doubt it. If I look at the decision to answer your message tonight at this moment and how "I" made it? No idea. It bubbled up somehow from somewhere. But there was no "I" that consciously decided to do it now and then ordered my hands to do it.

There is clarity here, but I sense a hesitation to express it confidently. Lets clarify a bit more:

One way to approach control is the way you have taken to articulate the first part of your answer, i.e. to notice how many things cannot be controlled, and hence conclude we are definitely not in control.

But this doesn't eliminate the possibility of some limited, 'small' control within bigger, uncontrollable things. Can it be that the pilot can't the way the plane flies, but he can control his own hand movements to press certain buttons? Can you confidently say 'no' to this?

The other thing about this approach is that it is derived intellectually. We look at the pilot and the plane, and remind ourselves that the pilot is not in control by tracing past uncontrollable events intellectually. This means that as life happens, we must continually remind ourselves over and over that we are not in control. The default starting point still stays at the illusion of control, and effort is needed everytime to see through it.

The second approach is what you hinted at a little bit when you said that there is no "I" that made any decision. When decoupled from the first approach, this becomes its own line of enquiry, where we say that okay, there is indeed such a thing as "control", because as you said, its a symbiotic relationship, and cause and effect go together, but there is no "controller", no "cause-r", no "I".

This changes the default starting point to no "I", and hence no controller. It throws us into DE over and over, and does not rely on intellect or memory.

When we refer to memory/ thoughts about the past, it takes away all confidence because we deeply know that thoughts aren't dependable. But DE simply is, and erases all hesitation.

From here, we can authentically start to question seemingly symbiotic relationships of plane-pilot, cause-effect too.

In DE, what is the plane? Is it not just a soup of visuals, sounds? What about these visuals and sounds suggests that it needs a pilot, i.e. another set of visuals, sounds etc to 'fly'?

And to take this deeper, what is 'flying'? Is it an act of changing location in the sky? Is it that the 'plane', a set of visuals and sounds, changes location in the 'sky', which is another set of visuals and sounds? OR is it that at one moment, there was this visual with blue of sky and white of plane, and then another brand new visual appeared with the blue of sky elsewhere and the white of plane elsewhere? What about this dynamic soup of visuals suggested to you that the plane did the flying, and the pilot was needed?

In other words, if you were to observe a plane flying in the sky, does it fly from point A to point B, or is it that your visual field changes from moment to moment to moment and it makes it look as though the plane did the flying... like a frame by frame animated movie? Did the frames change or was there something called a 'plane' that flew?

And so, is this relationship really symbiotic, or does it only appear to be so on a relative level?

Is there a cause-effect, or is it that it all simply is, and only when we separate out the effect (the 'white' of the plane is separate from the 'blue' of the sky) do we start needing a cause (the 'white' of the plane is moving, so the plane* must be flying), which then makes us also need a controller (the plane must be flown by someone)?

*Notice how within this narrative, the entity called 'plane' also became separate and real. All we had was some whiteness and blueness, and now we have a plane and a pilot too.

Notice how in reality, absolutely speaking, it all simply is. No cause, no effect. No control, no controller.

Notice how on a relative level, these concepts emerge in chunks, and how these concepts help us in day to day life.

The relative and absolute level distinction must be held clear.

Do you see this?

I have gone through what you wrote many times now, and I think you put this very succinctly: There is somehow a lot of clarity in understanding things on an intellectual level, but there is no feeling of confidence to accept this in reality. I can follow your statements very logically with my mind, but then I hesitate to accept them completely. I sometimes have these glimpses where everything feels clear. But it usually reverts and doubts arise again. Usually, they center around thoughts about free will and control: If "I" can't make any decisions or "I" don't have an impact on my life and surroundings... How would that even work?

It feels like swimming against a stream, and in between, when I am tired, I relax and float downstream for a bit, only to start swimming against the current again. It feels like I "get it" intellectually, but then, "getting it" within thought is kind of absurd, isn't it? There is a feeling like it is all there, but the "dots aren't connected", like I see all the parts, but not the greater whole. Does that make sense?

Can it be that the pilot can't the way the plane flies, but he can control his own hand movements to press certain buttons? Can you confidently say 'no' to this?

Like you say, intellectually I can see this, yet I have to derive it again on each occasion. I can intellectually argue and deduct a 'no', but without confidence.

In DE, what is the plane? Is it not just a soup of visuals, sounds? What about these visuals and sounds suggests that it needs a pilot, i.e. another set of visuals, sounds etc to 'fly'?

Again, I can intellectually derive this, yes, but there is a certainty missing to accept this completely.

And to take this deeper, what is 'flying'? Is it an act of changing location in the sky? Is it that the 'plane', a set of visuals and sounds, changes location in the 'sky', which is another set of visuals and sounds? OR is it that at one moment, there was this visual with blue of sky and white of plane, and then another brand new visual appeared with the blue of sky elsewhere and the white of plane elsewhere? What about this dynamic soup of visuals suggested to you that the plane did the flying, and the pilot was needed?

The soup didn't suggest anything to me, this was all constructed by me within my mind, using the tool of language. I often think about how other organisms, animals, plants, perceive the world, which then renders ideas and concepts and colors very absurd.

Is there a cause-effect, or is it that it all simply is, and only when we separate out the effect (the 'white' of the plane is separate from the 'blue' of the sky) do we start needing a cause (the 'white' of the plane is moving, so the plane* must be flying), which then makes us also need a controller (the plane must be flown by someone)?

Again, yes, I can intellectually derive this. It "makes sense" to me. Totally. But it feels there isn't total acceptance of this. Like, yes, if I think about it, of course! This is how it is! Then I revert back to the status quo.

Notice how in reality, absolutely speaking, it all simply is. No cause, no effect. No control, no controller. Notice how on a relative level, these concepts emerge in chunks, and how these concepts help us in day to day life. The relative and absolute level distinction must be held clear. Do you see this?

Yes, I can also derive this. I see this, I think. Could you clarify what you mean with absolute and relative level distinction?

Overall, there is an intuitive grasp of what all this is about. Like, when you write, and I read, I kind of know what you mean. Yet it doesn't feel natural, total, all-encompassing. You write about using the illusion of control as a starting point. I might be stuck there and unable to experience life with a starting point in direct experience. Again, this is a conclusion I have arrived at thinking. I have been interested in this for a while now, and summed up, I think that I don't exist, but it doesn't feel that way, or if, then only at times.

🤗 Your sincerity is so very appreciated.

This is a common juncture to find oneself in on this path, and we will see through this too.

Because the intellect has absorbed all of the one-ness talk, moving forwards, we will no longer test it, or ask it questions. I invite you to rely completely on sensations, feelings for a while.

Feeling stuck is the feeling of having a rigid reference point from where one looks.
So I ask you:
Where are you looking from? Feel the location. What does it feel like?
If this reference point, this feeling, was to evaporate, what would be left behind? Where would you look from now?

When 'you' were born, this world just appeared. Ever since, there has been a lot of teaching from others who have been taught, about what the world is, who you are. All of it culminated to this sticky, default reference point.
Does it FEEL safer to trust their teaching than to trust your own Direct Experience?
If there were no promises of peace on this path, does looking only into DE make it FEEL like you're missing out?
Does it FEEL like you don't know, but there are others that know?
What would be lost if your reference point was ONLY, and ONLY your own Direct Experience?

Could you clarify what you mean with absolute and relative level distinction?

Let's circle back to this shortly. I would love to have you answer this question on your own after clear seeing ❤️

Where are you looking from? Feel the location. What does it feel like?

From a center point between my ears, behind my eyes. It doesn't really feel like much, but "I" am clearly sitting there, at that point, from where I experience the world, and the further away from this point I go, the more the feeling of Iness is reduced. The closer I examine this point, the less I find, it's like chasing a Fata Morgana in a desert, when I move back at distance, I can see it again.

If this reference point, this feeling, was to evaporate, what would be left behind? Where would you look from now?

Everything would be left behind as it is now. When it is not felt, not there, "I" don't look from anywhere specifically, that would be kind of impossible, because the point is the "I" feeling. It seems alien to be able to look as "I" from another point than from this point.

Does it FEEL safer to trust their teaching than to trust your own Direct Experience?

A very interesting question. This sticky default reference point doesn't feel like "theirs", but "mine". So it feels like my own and not something that has come to "me" from the outside. So, somehow this is not a binary question. It feels safe to trust my own direct experience, but this reference point also feels safe, sometimes I can let it be there or not, so it is somehow also a choice, like a cloth you can wear or not, in a way.

If there were no promises of peace on this path, does looking only into DE make it FEEL like you're missing out?

I am not sure I completely understand this question. I doesn't feel that way, it feels more like I'm missing out by not looking into direct experience, this reference point feels like a sticky chewing gum on my soles I just can't get rid off.

Does it FEEL like you don't know, but there are others that know?

It feels like I know much more than many others, and many many others don't know anything at all, but there are also others who know more than I do, or, to maybe use another word, can align with all this more elegantly than I can?

What would be lost if your reference point was ONLY, and ONLY your own Direct Experience?

I'm not sure on this. Not much would be lost, going back to the sticky chewing gum comparison, but it is possibly helpful to be able to use this reference point in organized daily life at times?

From a center point between my ears, behind my eyes. It doesn't really feel like much, but "I" am clearly sitting there, at that point, from where I experience the world, and the further away from this point I go, the more the feeling of Iness is reduced. The closer I examine this point, the less I find, it's like chasing a Fata Morgana in a desert, when I move back at distance, I can see it again.

Very vividly described, and lovely honesty in all the answers.

Distance, here/there, inside/outside, near/far: All of these only exist in thought content, and from what you wrote, it seems that the concept of 'space' has managed to remain unexamined. Notice how you say 'I move' from this point to this point, as though this reference point keeps changing where it is observing from, and yet is also determined to be recognised as sticky and stable. It is only a thought that says 'I am observing from here now', as though there is an observer in the first place. And then when this 'I' thought is observed, another thought says "I am observing the 'I' thought now".
Like a game of infinite witnesses, one witness witnessing the next...

The witness too is a thought.

Please watch this video and follow along: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUj2q4CoUCg

I also find Douglas Harding's "Headless Way" really useful to experience everything at zero distance:
https://www.headless.org/experiments/pointing.htm

Recommend the "experiment" this link takes you to, as well as all the other experiments on the left panel of the same web page.

Apart from this, I would like to gauge if there are any expectations you hold from 'seeing'?
Isn't experiencing a 'sticky reference point' (i.e. a dense sensation with a thought story) also not simply what is?
Is there an expectation that reality should be devoid of this dense sensation, or of the thought story that comes along with it?

Both of these are substance-less, empty and can do no harm.
Go to this sticky reference point, and see if you can find a way to observe it neutrally. Look at it as though if it was to go away completely tomorrow somehow, and you had to re-create it wordlessly to a stranger, how would you go about it? If it was a once-in-a-lifetime sensation, what about it would you be amazed by? Try not to conjure words, not to go into thought! If thought comes up, wordlessly observe its power to completely hijack the narrative.

It feels like I know much more than many others, and many many others don't know anything at all, but there are also others who know more than I do, or, to maybe use another word, can align with all this more elegantly than I can?

And how will you know that you have aligned with it when you have? Once again, what expectation do you find hiding here?

I'm not sure on this. Not much would be lost, going back to the sticky chewing gum comparison, but it is possibly helpful to be able to use this reference point in organized daily life at times?

In reality, there is no reference point, and that is how it has always been working -- regardless of what thought thinks about it. The reference point has found its place because it was recognised as something that was needed by this intelligence at play, it became what 'is'. And now you find yourself here, with this new 'what-is' replacing the old one, evolving out of the once needed reference point. Even the transition period is simply 'what-is'. It is too complicated for thought to list pros & cons of each way, and nor is it competent for such a task... wouldnt you agree? :)

I apologize for my quietness, I was on the road for three weeks. I did all the headless experiments some time ago and found them very fascinating. The first time I did the finger exercise I remember very clearly.

Apart from this, I would like to gauge if there are any expectations you hold from 'seeing'?

The expectations I can find are along the lines "life will be different, and better" and also "stuff doesn't feel wrong anymore". There is also an expectation that my daily life doesn't feel like a constant fight anymore.

Isn't experiencing a 'sticky reference point' (i.e. a dense sensation with a thought story) also not simply what is?

Yes.

Is there an expectation that reality should be devoid of this dense sensation, or of the thought story that comes along with it?

Not really, what is there, is there.

Go to this sticky reference point, and see if you can find a way to observe it neutrally. Look at it as though if it was to go away completely tomorrow somehow, and you had to re-create it wordlessly to a stranger, how would you go about it? If it was a once-in-a-lifetime sensation, what about it would you be amazed by? Try not to conjure words, not to go into thought!

Hm, this is an interesting question. I have no idea how to re-create it. Like, how? It seems impossible to create it on demand. I'm a bit lost about the second question here.

And how will you know that you have aligned with it when you have? Once again, what expectation do you find hiding here?

The expectation is that I'll just know.