The Gate

It seems like every day I'm getting more comfortable with "it all just happens." I'm very clear that there's not an 'I' doing all of this. I'm not as clear on how decisions are made, but I can see my assumptions/beliefs are incorrect, despite my massive horde of misinterpreted data points that I have twisted in such a way as to confirm my error. (As an aside, I work in the stock market, and very clearly nobody runs that, and the moves in prices just happen! As an industry, we have spent countless billions of dollars trying to disprove that simple fact, to no avail. But, we keep trying!). I guess I could summarize it by saying that I can see that there is no 'I,' and I understand that means there's no 'I' in control. Logically, I can make the jump to understanding that the only possible extention of that has to be oneness - I just haven't had the experience that has shifted it from believing to knowing.

I'm not as clear on how decisions are made

A decision means that some 'thing' decided something. "A decision was made"
That is the thought - What is the truth behind it?
Is there an 'I' here right now capable of making decisions?
Or does everything 'just happen'?

What 'I' can be clear or not clear about something?

Logically, I can make the jump to understanding that the only possible extension of that has to be oneness

Ah. So you are looking for a logical answer. Something that is found in a thought. Yes?
What if the answer cannot be found in thought?

I just haven't had the experience that has shifted it from believing to knowing.

Can you explain the difference?
Is an 'experience' sought for? What sort of experience?

Xain ♥

I don't know what controls the body to do things. I know there's no 'I' to control it. That's all I know. There seem to be decisions points that could result in wildly different outcomes, and I still struggle with how that works.

You didn't really answer the questions I gave. You need to LOOK and try to find the truth.

There seem to be decisions points that could result in wildly different outcomes, and I still struggle with how that works.

Again, you seem to demand that an answer is only acceptable when it is a thought. When you know 'how it works', that will be an idea, a thought. Why do you 'need to know' this? What if the answer cannot be found in thought?

Explain 'different outcomes'.
Can you identify a 'thing' here right now that can choose/decide/make one outcome and not another?
Is 'different outcomes' anything more than a thought?

This sentence is being read. What 'other outcome' could there have been?

Have a go and examine the three or four questions again and try to give answers.
If you cannot give answer, just say so and we can look more deeply into this.

Xain ♥

If the answer cannot be found in thought, which I recognize is the case, then I don't know how/where to find it, since I apparently don't know how to LOOK. The only tool I know how to access is thought, even though I realize there's nothing to it. So, I'm still going in circles. I think my basic conundrum is that I can see that there is no 'I' BUT I can't see that 'I' doesn't have important things to do (i.e. make decisions). At the thought level, I concur that's there's no 'I' and no decisions. But if there's no 'I' and everything is happening without 'I,' then what would LOOK, and why is there even the need to LOOK (there's no 'I' that needs to LOOK, and no misconception to resolve)? I'm missing something critical, because it seems like 'I' need to do something (or, more accurately stop doing something, presumably thinking) in order to become clear. But, there's no 'I'. So I don't need to do anything, but what I think is the way to doing nothing, turns out to be thought.

I apologize. I'm not trying to be difficult, inflexible or waste your time, even though I'm doing all three. I know I'm having trouble communicating, partially because I'm confused, and partially because I'm trying to aknowledge not 'I' while explaining where "my' thoughts are. Here I go again! Sorry!

If the answer cannot be found in thought, which I recognize is the case, then I don't know how/where to find it, since I apparently don't know how to LOOK.

When I say 'Look', what I mean is to use all the senses available in order to find the answer.
If the 'I' that we are trying to track down cannot be located using the senses, then it must be a thought.
If it is only a thought, then it is not 'real'.
If it is only a thought, then it only has 'apparent existence' when it appears in thoughts.
Is this not the case?

The only tool I know how to access is thought, even though I realize there's nothing to it. So, I'm still going in circles.

What appears to be happening is that the realisation that 'I' is only a thought and nothing real has been made.
It then follows from this that there never has been an 'I' nor ever will be an 'I'.
The only time 'I' appears is as a thought.
Also, since there is no 'I' that can control thoughts, the 'I' thought will continuously appear.

Then a thought appears and says that there is a real 'I' in the future that controls things and has to make choices and decisions. That thought isn't questioned, it is believed in and you feed it back to me in a reply and ask me about it.

BUT I can't see that 'I' doesn't have important things to do (i.e. make decisions).

What 'I' has important things to do?
Right now, this moment, what is the 'I' that has important things to do? Describe this 'I' to me as it appears to you.
Or is this just a thought? A thought with 'I' in it?

At the thought level, I concur that's there's no 'I' and no decisions.

At the thought level. Is there a real 'I' appearing on a different level?

But if there's no 'I' and everything is happening without 'I,' then what would LOOK, and why is there even the need to LOOK (there's no 'I' that needs to LOOK, and no misconception to resolve)? I'm missing something critical, because it seems like 'I' need to do something (or, more accurately stop doing something, presumably thinking) in order to become clear. But, there's no 'I'. So I don't need to do anything, but what I think is the way to doing nothing, turns out to be thought.

Can you see this is being completely trapped in thoughts?
Have we not already made the realisation that there is no 'I' to choose to stop or start doing something?
All 'I' is, is a thought? Is this not the case?

I cannot satisfy your question as to what is looking. Merely offer a pointer . . .
There is the realisation that there is no 'I' seeing the computer screen right now. All there is, is the experience.
'Seeing the screen'
Could it be that the screen, what is seeing the screen, and what knows the screen are all the same?
That 'thing' cannot be thought about, as thoughts can only contain separate objects and what you are attempting to find is not a separate object.

I apologize. I'm not trying to be difficult, inflexible or waste your time, even though I'm doing all three.

Can you find an 'I' that is trying to be difficult here and now? :-)
Is there an 'I' doing all three? Or three thoughts?
There is no 'I' that is trying to be difficult is there. No need to apologise.

Xain ♥

Could it be that the screen, what is seeing the screen, and what knows the screen are all the same?
That 'thing' cannot be thought about, as thoughts can only contain separate objects and what you are attempting to find is not a separate object.

This is where things go off the rails. Not existing seems to have been recognized and is acceptable. Being the same as the screen is incomprehensible, which is probably why I'm stuck - it IS comprehensible, but 'I' try nonetheless. I catch thoughts creating an 'I.' I see that the 'I' is the creation of thoughts. But now it seems that 'I' not existing is still maybe a belief, anyway, if that recognition is synonymous with the oneness. Maybe 'I' has me trapped in a philosophy. I use my senses and don't find 'I' so I'm convinced 'I' don't exist. I certainly can use my senses to determine that I am not the screen, though. So the screen seems to have transcended thought, and is more real than 'I.' And separate.

But now it seems that 'I' not existing is still maybe a belief

It could be. Let's say that no 'I' is a belief, and the truth is that there is a real 'I' here and now.
Describe it to me.

Also, if it is stated that 'I' not existing is a belief, it follows that there must be an 'I' here and now that holds beliefs.
Describe that one to me.

I certainly can use my senses to determine that I am not the screen

Good. We can use this.
'My senses' - Ok, there is an 'I' here and now that owns and operates the senses.
What is that one. Describe it to me.

Also, how is it known that this 'I' that you have found operates the senses. How has this been determined?

Xain ♥

It could be. Let's say that no 'I' is a belief, and the truth is that there is a real 'I' here and now.
Describe it to me. Also, if it is stated that 'I' not existing is a belief, it follows that there must be an 'I' here and now that holds beliefs. Describe that one to me.

I'm not saying that I believe this, but I used to, and maybe there's some residual association with it - the 'I' is the result of the thoughts. The thoughts themselves create the object that they conceive. For example, if I believe (truly believe, with no complete conflicts in my belief structure) that I only need three hours of sleep each night, that would become reality. Or, if I believe that I am a smart person, I will become a smart person. Every attribute I have (physically, emotionally, etc.) is nothing more than the manifestation of my beliefs. At the core, I realize this is totally opposite of what we've been discussing, because it requires that a) thoughts are real, and b) thoughts PRECEED events.

Good. We can use this. 'My senses' - Ok, there is an 'I' here and now that owns and operates the senses.
What is that one. Describe it to me.

This is a point that has baffled me in this process. There's no 'I' that owns and operates my senses. Yet, you tell me to look for 'I.' It seems to me that either there's no way to look because there's no 'I,' or there is SOMETHING that can be directed to look (either by you or by me). I run into the same problem trying to answer your questions - no 'I' seems to make answering impossible.

I'm not saying that I believe this, but I used to, and maybe there's some residual association with it

What 'I' used to believe this and now doesn't?

For example, if I believe (truly believe, with no complete conflicts in my belief structure) that I only need three hours of sleep each night, that would become reality. Or, if I believe that I am a smart person, I will become a smart person. Every attribute I have (physically, emotionally, etc.) is nothing more than the manifestation of my beliefs. At the core, I realize this is totally opposite of what we've been discussing, because it requires that a) thoughts are real, and b) thoughts PRECEED events.

So there is an 'I' right here and now that has 'a belief structure'.
Describe that one to me as it appears right now.
You also intimate that there is an 'I' here and now that needs convincing of something.
What is that one?

Yet, you tell me to look for 'I.' It seems to me that either there's no way to look because there's no 'I,' or there is SOMETHING that can be directed to look (either by you or by me). I run into the same problem trying to answer your questions - no 'I' seems to make answering impossible.

It is convention to use language to hold a conversation. We cannot communicate unless two sides are assumed.
Language itself is thought and mind. It reinforces separation by it's own existence.
So what is the answer?

To put it in absolutely simple terms, either there is an 'I' here and now or there isn't.
Which?
Is there is an 'I', then describe it.

Xain ♥

What 'I' used to believe this and now doesn't?
Describe that one to me as it appears right now.
You also intimate that there is an 'I' here and now that needs convincing of something.
What is that one?

The 'I' that was created by the belief structure - the 'I' that found a belief structure that allowed it to seem to exist. But the 'I' appears to exist as a result of the belief, not the other way around.

You also intimate that there is an 'I' here and now that needs convincing of something.
What is that one?

It's the 'I' that built itself out of the belief structure, but doesn't exist without it

Yet, you tell me to look for 'I.' It seems to me that either there's no way to look because there's no 'I,' or there is SOMETHING that can be directed to look (either by you or by me). I run into the same problem trying to answer your questions - no 'I' seems to make answering impossible.

It is convention to use language to hold a conversation. We cannot communicate unless two sides are assumed.
Language itself is thought and mind. It reinforces separation by it's own existence. So what is the answer?

I think the answer is that there is awareness, but there is not an 'I.' And awareness just is, it's not directed - that's a thought/belief at this stage . . . By an 'I' that doesn't exist.

To put it in absolutely simple terms, either there is an 'I' here and now or there isn't.
Which?
Is there is an 'I', then describe it.

There's nothing to describe because there isn't an 'I' here now (or at any other time).

There is the possibility that my constant 'look' find it approach may seem tiresome.
I would ask though, if there is an 'I' here right now, what other approach could we possibly use in order to find it?

You have tended to go towards thoughts and analysis to try to find the solution, but can you see that the approach here is BEFORE THIS.
(I use the word 'you' purely as a communication convention.)
What 'I' is using thoughts and analysis to find the solution? Can one be found?

We have all the senses operating in experience and also we have thoughts appearing.
If 'I' only ever appears as a thought . . . what does that mean?
We may be approaching the point of realisation that all 'I' EVER IS is a thought/belief. A real seperate 'I' never appears. What is your opinion? Be honest.

The 'I' that was created by the belief structure - the 'I' that found a belief structure that allowed it to seem to exist. But the 'I' appears to exist as a result of the belief, not the other way around.

Good. Can you see how this is self-referencing?
'I' only appears as a belief/thought. When we are quizzed 'What is 'I'', we go to thought/belief for the answer, which, of course, states 'I' is real.
How to break out of this loop? Look for a REAL 'I' and realise the only thing to be found are just thoughts . . . and thoughts about thoughts . . . and thoughts about thoughts about thoughts . . .

Is there even an 'I' here right now that is/was created out of a belief structure? Can you find one?
To put it a different way, without 'thought' is there a separate 'I'? Notice I am not saying 'Does not exist'. Clearly, there is something here reading this sentence. That is beyond questioning. Is there a separate 'thing' doing it to be found?

I think the answer is that there is awareness, but there is not an 'I.' And awareness just is, it's not directed - that's a thought/belief at this stage . . . By an 'I' that doesn't exist.

Very good - And honest.
'Awareness' itself may be considered on the level of thought, although I know what you mean.
How can something that doesn't exist hold thoughts and beliefs? Can you see that 'doesn't exist' is nihilistic?
Thoughts appear in experience . . . is there a separate 'thing' having them?

Notice the mind may be saying 'No, BUT . . .' . .. It requires an answer on the level of thought. And it cannot find one. And goes out seeking and puzzling to try to find one, or work it out.

Thoughts only reference separate 'things'. The mind only works on the level of 'stuff', objects, concepts, separate items. What if what is being pointed to here is not a separate thing? Is the mind capable of referencing it or finding it as a satisfactory answer?

Xain ♥

What 'I' is using thoughts and analysis to find the solution? Can one be found?

One can't be found - that's clear.

How to break out of this loop? Look for a REAL 'I' and realise the only thing to be found are just thoughts . . . and thoughts about thoughts . . . and thoughts about thoughts about thoughts . . .

This is a very clear way of saying it! Sometimes I lose track of this, and get sucked in by the thoughts, but when awareness is applied, this also is perfectly clear.

How can something that doesn't exist hold thoughts and beliefs? Can you see that 'doesn't exist' is nihilistic?
Thoughts appear in experience . . . is there a separate 'thing' having them?
What if what is being pointed to here is not a separate thing? Is the mind capable of referencing it or finding it as a satisfactory answer?

When I say "doesn't exist" I mean that I find nothing. The "separate" part, or lack thereof, is not clear to me. The best I can say now is that it makes sense to me that each thing is the only possible result of everything that preceded it, and in that way everything is one. But that's clearly a thought/belief. So that's the 'I' talking, which I can't fine. I can say, from looking, that there aren't any edges to the nothingness I find when I look for 'I,' so thoughts lead me to conclude that what I find when 'I' look for 'I' has to be non-dual. Therefore, I don't seem to have any beliefs that conflict, but I'm back to thoughts and beliefs, which is the critical conflict . ..

When I say "doesn't exist" I mean that I find nothing.

Ok - Good. That is fair.
Note that 'I find nothing' is a simple and honest response.
'Doesn't exist' is a statement of factual knowledge, a conclusion based on an assumption.
'I find nothing, therefore it doesn't exist'.

This sentence is being read. Can a 'reader' or 'thing' be found that is doing the reading - No. 'I find nothing.'
Does that mean that what is reading this sentence 'doesn't exist' - Clearly not, since this sentence is definitely being read. Do you see?
Quote obviously something exists to read this sentence.

Perhaps rather than 'nothing', you may prefer 'no thing'?

The "separate" part, or lack thereof, is not clear to me.

Don't get hung-up on the word 'separate' - I simply mean 'a thing'. An object/item/entity.
If a 'thing' cannot be found . . . then no separate 'thing' is responsible for what we are examining (be it seeing, thinking, performing actions etc)
Is a 'thing' reading this sentence?

The best I can say now is that it makes sense to me that each thing is the only possible result of everything that preceded it, and in that way everything is one. But that's clearly a thought/belief. So that's the 'I' talking, which I can't fine. I can say, from looking, that there aren't any edges to the nothingness I find when I look for 'I,' so thoughts lead me to conclude that what I find when 'I' look for 'I' has to be non-dual. Therefore, I don't seem to have any beliefs that conflict, but I'm back to thoughts and beliefs, which is the critical conflict . ..

You demand an answer that satisfies the mind, and an answer that satisfies the mind will never be found.
What 'I' finds nothing?
What 'I' is not clear about something?
What 'I' can't find 'I'?
What 'I' is lead to a conclusion?
What 'I' holds beliefs?
What 'I' is back to thoughts and beliefs?

Or is this thoughts? And thoughts about thoughts? And thoughts about thoughts about thoughts?
Without thought, can you find an 'I'?

LET'S NAIL THIS - LOOK! Don't constantly think and analyse.
Is there an 'I' here right now in any way shape or form?
Is there an 'I' here right now responsible for anything, be it thinking, moving, actions, breathing, be-ing?

Xain ♥

This sentence is being read. Can a 'reader' or 'thing' be found that is doing the reading - No. 'I find nothing.'
Does that mean that what is reading this sentence 'doesn't exist' - Clearly not, since this sentence is definitely being read. Do you see? Obviously something exists to read this sentence. Perhaps rather than 'nothing', you may prefer 'no thing'?

I see the distinction you're making here, and I agree. It hadn't occurred to me to shift from "nothing' to "no thing" and now that I have, I'm not gonna think about it :)

Don't get hung-up on the word 'separate' - I simply mean 'a thing'. An object/item/entity.
If a 'thing' cannot be found . . . then no separate 'thing' is responsible for what we are examining (be it seeing, thinking, performing actions etc)
Is a 'thing' reading this sentence?

A "no thing" is reading this sentence

You demand an answer that satisfies the mind, and an answer that satisfies the mind will never be found.

Correct - the "I" keeps sneaking back in through this door. The door is closing, through "no thing."

Without thought, can you find an 'I'?

No

Is there an 'I' here right now in any way shape or form?

No

Is there an 'I' here right now responsible for anything, be it thinking, moving, actions, breathing, be-ing?

No. There's "no thing" making anything happen - it's all just happening.