The Gate

Is there you in way or form?

If you're asking if I've "crashed the gate" or something I don't think so, though thinking seems an absurd indicator of anything right now. There's definitely some softening around this whole identity-- but it's more like the "whack-a-mole" game (I remembered its name) is less stressful and more amusing. A mole pops up-- in other words I notice myself caught-- and then I notice how ridiculous that seems and the mole disappears.

My general sense of things is still separation but the border seems a wee fuzzier. I'll be away for the next two days with some high potential for family drama so it will be interesting to see whether things get clearer or less so. I did find myself caught in a thunderstorm today-- there was a bit of self-management going on, but in general sitting curled up in a ball (mostly to protect my camera) just below tree line being pelted with cold raindrops and surrounded by BOOMs was rather pleasant.

Keep sending me questions-- I may not get to them until Saturday but I'll try to check in. Since a common phrase on this site is "once seen, can't be unseen" I'd say that since there's already some fading of clarity, then any "seeing" is on pretty shaky ground-- like maybe from afar or through a periscope. Anyway, the questions keep redirecting me to look, and that seems very helpful.

Very good, Nueve. You are really looking now.

The mole pops up. Then there's a realization of what has happened. Then the mole disappears.

But is there really anything tying these appearances of the mole together apart from the mind-made concept, "mole"?

There's definitely some softening around this whole identity-- but it's more like the "whack-a-mole" game (I remembered its name) is less stressful and more amusing. A mole pops up-- in other words I notice myself caught-- and then I notice how ridiculous that seems and the mole disappears.

It looks like your on the right track...I had another client that saw this in basically the same manner, " like popping thought bubbles"...keep up the good work!!...

My general sense of things is still separation but the border seems a wee fuzzier.

Who is it? that feels this Separation....There is no thinker.....Just thinking...

Since a common phrase on this site is "once seen, can't be unseen" I'd say that since there's already some fading of clarity, then any "seeing" is on pretty shaky ground-- like maybe from afar or through a periscope.

It's like seeing a mirage once you see it, AND understand it, for what it is (An illusion)...

You are NOT your thoughts...The clairity comes from not being distracted by useless thoughts, and challenging everything with the question " is this true in real life??" over and over until The distractions subside...

I'll be away for the next two days with some high potential for family drama so it will be interesting to see whether things get clearer or less so.

Wish you a nice family drama!
Ix is a character in that drama. But you are not.
You are not even actor in the drama.
Just look.

Thank you all for the last few posts. Feeling a bit distanced from all this-- drama was in the low to mid-range the last few days-- no train wrecks, but still enough to lose sight of (and thus completely identify with) the "mole." This process seems much easier in isolation-- throw another "self" into the mix and "I" is off to the races...

Feels like it might behoove me to read back through this whole string and look again at the bits that feel quite fuzzy. Real vs. imagined seems clear. Still feels like there are varying degrees of volition, so maybe I should go back there again:

Some things obviously happen regardless of "my" intention (like breathing/dreaming/running out of a tipi in a windstorm), some things are suspiciously fuzzy ("I'm going to get up" followed by rolling over and going back to sleep) and some things really feel like a decision. "OK, take a breath and relax." Breath happens and body feels more relaxed. "Now relax into the possibility of 'no-I". Awareness softens somehow.

If anyone has any pointers on this, please offer them!

Regardless as soon as I acknowledge not being the thinker, "I" jumps into the role of the observer/experiencer. These seem to be the mole's two favorite positions...

But is there really anything tying these appearances of the mole together apart from the mind-made concept, "mole"?

My mind can say both "I, the thinker" and "I, the observer/experiencer" are just concepts and I remember having some real sense of this a few days ago (feels like month ago), but at the moment they feel pretty real.

Sorry to backslide on you all...

Oh one more thing:

You are NOT your thoughts...The clairity comes from not being distracted by useless thoughts, and challenging everything with the question " is this true in real life??" over and over until The distractions subside...

This feels a little Byron Katie-ish, who I've always liked, but I'm wondering if Cam-RT means something different. Do you mean, simply, acknowledging everything that is mind-made as mind-made and thus imagined/not real? And being relentless with this until the mind sort of gives up because why would it continue to invest in that which is not real? Like why would you continue to obsess about Santa if you knew he were not real?

Do you mean, simply, acknowledging everything that is mind-made as mind-made and thus imagined/not real? And being relentless with this until the mind sort of gives up because why would it continue to invest in that which is not real? Like why would you continue to obsess about Santa if you knew he were not real?

Yes, keep looking.

Is there "I" to jump around or there are just thoughts popping around?

Hi, Nueve,

Regardless as soon as I acknowledge not being the thinker, "I" jumps into the role of the observer/experiencer. These seem to be the mole's two favorite positions.

It is the same trick the mind plays in both cases to create the illusion of a self.

In case 1, a thought occurs and the label "I" gets slapped on to the thinking process, creating the impression a thinking "I" is there.

In case 2, an observation occurs, and the word "I" is pinned to it, creating the illusion that an observing "I" is there.

Having created these two dots -- these two "I" points -- the mind then imagines there is something joining the dots together to make a line -- a supposed self that persists from experience to experience.

Have a closer look.

Can you watch the "I" labeling in action? Can you see that there is nothing connecting one "I" to the next "I," except an I-story, which is also a thought produced by the mind?

I'll repeat Elorateas's question, since it's a good one: Is it really the "I" word that is doing the jumping?

Keep looking!

Derek.

Having created these two dots -- these two "I" points -- the mind then imagines there is something joining the dots together to make a line -- a supposed self that persists from experience to experience.

This struck me as so right on. Thank you. As for Eloratea's question:

No, it's not the "I" word doing the jumping. Just thoughts skittering about-- all held together by a stream of mind stuff. Just thoughts, and I really do see this, but something doesn't want to let go. When I asked why, the thought appeared that to let go of "I" means to accept that "I" doesn't matter, which is easy enough to type that way, but in the first person "I don't matter" hits right at the heart. At the same time, I also see that "I" wanting to matter is what keeps "I" separate from everything else.

So that's where I am this evening. Part of me deeply wants to not matter, but deeper than that part is a very deep groove of wanting to matter. Underneath even this inquiry process is a smidgeon of the latter. Sigh...

Off to bed... perhaps my dreams will be illuminating. Thank you both so very much.
-ix

What really matters is liberation. That is the reason why you are here.
Just it is not liberation of your self which doesn’t exist, but liberation of consciousness from narrowing belief in imagined little self.

Stay well ix and keep questioning thoughts.

the thought appeared that to let go of "I" means to accept that "I" doesn't matter

No. Have another look. "'I' doesn't matter" is just another story. Does the "I" at the center of this latest story have any real existence?

liberation of consciousness from narrowing belief in imagined little self.

Oh yes... so that's what we're doing here... THANK YOU for reminding me! :-)

Does the "I" at the center of this latest story have any real existence?

This of course is the essence of this whole conversation... thank you for pointing (again and again!). There is some resistance here, but will look and report back.

Best,
ix.

"Table" is a word, but it points to a real object. "Cup" is a word, and it points to a real object.

If I say, "Batman placed his cup on the table," can you find a real and solid thing that "Batman" points to?

How is the word "Batman" different from "cup" or "table"?

Now, can you find any real and solid thing that the word "I" in your I-stories points to?

I can imagine or draw a picture of a cup or a table or a Batman, and I can talk about all three. What's different with Batman is that while I can touch/pick up/break/make use of a cup or table, I can only know Batman in my mind. Batman is a character with particular personality traits, speech patterns, physical abilities, recountable stories and associated personal likes/dislikes. Actors can pretend to be him, but they are not him. He cannot die because he never existed.

The "I" in my "I" stories has particular personality traits, speech patterns, physical abilities, recountable stories and associated personal likes/dislikes. An actor could pretend to be this "I", but it would not be "I". Unlike Batman, there is an actual associated body that can be touched, picked up, broken and made use of. Also unlike Batman, there is an actual associated mind that can perceive and direct touching, picking up, breaking and making use of. Also unlike Batman, the associated body & mind can die.

This is where the Santa analogy also ran short for me. But I'll keep digging...

"I" of course references both body and mind (let's leave spirit-- which is much less tangible than cup or table-- aside). Body is not imagined. Mind as an entity is not imagined. But mind imagines. It labels. I believe it is also correct to say that the mind perceives and directs via the body. Yet none of this imagining, labeling, perceiving or directing are actual "things" (like cup or table). The "I" in my I-stories references a real body and a real mind, but the references are constantly changing-- sometimes varying sensations in the body, sometimes a myriad of different stories in the mind, often a complex intermingling of the two. Not solid. Moreover, ALL of the "I" stories emerge from the mind, which does not and cannot produce anything "real." Thus "I" cannot be real. If "I" is neither solid nor real, like Batman "I" can only be known in the mind. "I" cannot be touched, picked up, broken or made use of. "I" is a label and "I" is imagined. And if "I" is imagined, then "I" cannot die because "I" never existed.

Now that I've done the mental gymnastics (I'm guessing that's not really what you wanted, but please feel free to correct any errors anyway!), I'm off to go look to see if "I'm" right...

You have done a great mental gymnastic; could we move now to direct perception?

Can you describe your actual experiencing, here and now, so we check together if there is you anywhere.

Can you describe your actual experiencing, here and now, so we check together if there is you anywhere.

Right.

Sitting. Typing. Breathing. Thinking. Hearing. Feeling. Tasting. Editing. Scratching. All this happening. No "I" per se, outside of thoughts arising, passing.

Strong energy at heart is the one gnawing doubt. But I can see the interpretation of sensation & doubt as a thought too.

"I" is neither stable nor real-- this is clear. But identification persists... Feel at a loss here as how to break through...