The Gate

Hi Xain,
I now have PC access, so I will try to clarify:

This person/body is responsible for a bunch of stuff in life, but it seems to be doing pretty well without the previous identity!
I am still trying to work out what you meant by this phrase.

You are saying that there is a person/body here right now.

Yes, also referred to in prior posts as body mind organism BMO.

That person/body has responsibilities in life.

Yes, those responsibilities are whatever that body is doing - whether it is typing, reading, eating, drinking, etc.

The person/body has now lost it's previous identity and can now do pretty well.

Yes, the person/body is no longer identified as "I".

Surely both the identity and the responsibilities amount to the same thing.

Not at all. The identity is the "I" associated with the person body which ceased to exist when it was realized as just a thought.

If an identity is lost, what has responsibilities?

The responsibilities are whatever the person/body continues to do (without the I as a do-er). Whether you call them responsibilities, actions, functioning, etc. it all amounts to the same thing - the person body DOES things - breathing, talking, judging, raising kids, whatever... the person/body is responsible for doing those things.

So, maybe "I" have sufficiently muddled it up again haha!
Thanks,
John

Yes, those responsibilities are whatever that body is doing - whether it is typing, reading, eating, drinking, etc

Ok, let's look at one of those right now.

Let's examine the current 'body' that is here, or BMO if you like.
The body has a responsibility for reading. So currently 'you' are not reading this text on a screen, the 'BMO' is reading the text on the screen.
How exactly is this known?

Yes, the person/body is no longer identified as "I".

By what?

The identity is the "I" associated with the person body which ceased to exist when it was realized as just a thought.

Ok, I think we are getting somewhere now.
What lost this identity?

Is the person body, a 'seperate self'?
If not, why not?
You appear to agree that 'I' only ever appears as a thought.
What about BMO, person body? Is that real or a thought as well?

Xain ♥

Hi Xain,

The body has a responsibility for reading. So currently 'you' are not reading this text on a screen, the 'BMO' is reading the text on the screen.
How exactly is this known?

Reading happens/happened.

Yes, the person/body is no longer identified as "I".
By what?

What no longer identifies the body as "i"? when the i was seen as a thought, there was nothing to identify or be identified.

Ok, I think we are getting somewhere now.
What lost this identity?

There was/is nothing to lose that identity and really no identity to be lost. Don't know how to phrase it. The thought was seen as thought.

Is the person body, a 'seperate self'?
If not, why not?

no because it is not separate from anything.

You appear to agree that 'I' only ever appears as a thought.
What about BMO, person body? Is that real or a thought as well?

As real as anything experienced by the senses.
Thanks!
John

The body has a responsibility for reading.

Ok. Examine the experience right now of reading these words.
Is it clear that the BMO is reading the words?
Or are words just 'being read'?
What do you find reading these words?

Reading happens.

Yes. What is doing it?
It is 'you' - Is it 'BMO'?

Is the person body, a 'seperate self'?
If not, why not?

No because it is not separate from anything.

So it is clear that the 'body/mind/organism' is not separate from the screen with these words on?
There is no distance between the two?
If this is so, how is the body-mind-organism responsible for reading the words, typing, reading, eating, drinking?
In fact, if there is 'no separation' is there even a separate BMO anyway? Could it be just an idea? A thought too? Just like 'I', the separate self?

Xain ♥

Hi Xain,

Ok. Examine the experience right now of reading these words.
Is it clear that the BMO is reading the words?
Or are words just 'being read'?
What do you find reading these words?

Hmmm – the words are being read, so reading happens or the words wouldn’t be read at all. “I” don’t “see” anything reading these words, but the words are being read.

Yes. What is doing it?
It is 'you' - Is it 'BMO'?

Well its definitely not me haha. The words are being read somehow, so the assumption was/is the organism that thinks, breathes, etc also reads.

So it is clear that the 'body/mind/organism' is not separate from the screen with these words on?

It was clear a while back, but is not anymore.

There is no distance between the two?

There wasn’t a few weeks ago, but there appears to be now.

If this is so, how is the body-mind-organism responsible for reading the words, typing, reading, eating, drinking?
In fact, if there is 'no separation' is there even a separate BMO anyway? Could it be just an idea? A thought too? Just like 'I', the separate self?

So, if this body is just a thought/idea too, then how are things experienced like breaking this arm? Confusion reigns now. How does anything happen at all? If there is no body (if its just an idea) to have senses then how can they be experienced? If the body is a thought, thoughts cannot experience, so the experience must not come through the body - but it's the body that houses the senses.
Feeling hopelessly confused and lost now.
Thanks,
John

Feeling hopelessly confused and lost now

Bear with me, John, I think we're making some progress now.

Just out of interest, do you follow or watch Lisa Cairns at all?
I ask this as she often uses the term 'Body Mind Organism' in her talks.

Hmmm – the words are being read, so reading happens or the words wouldn’t be read at all. “I” don’t “see” anything reading these words, but the words are being read.

Yes, words are being read. That is clear.
But can it be seen that what is actually doing it cannot be found in the experience.
If it is said 'I am reading', that's just a thought about it.
If it is said 'Body Mind Organism is reading', that's just a thought too.
We do not find either of these things doing the reading in the experience - Only in thought! Only in an IDEA of what we think is happening. Do you see this?

The words are being read somehow, so the assumption was/is the organism that thinks, breathes, etc also reads.

Ok, good that's fair - It's an assumption.
But what is really going on?
Reading is happening - Is there any form of separate reader to be found?
Is there a separate thinker? Is there a something separate doing the breathing?
Can anything be found other than an IDEA of what is doing it?

So, if this body is just a thought/idea too, then how are things experienced like breaking this arm?

Breaking an arm is experienced. What experienced it?

If I asked you (in normal speaking) pinch the skin on your arm right now - Examine the experience and inquire.

What is 'feeling' that pinch? - The pinch is felt - Is there an 'I' feeling it? Is the body actively feeling it?
Or is there just 'feeling'?
If it helps, close your eyes and examine the experience.

What is doing the pinching? Is there an 'I' controlling the hand? Is there an 'I' causing the two finger to pinch together? Or could all this just 'be happening'?

Can you find a controller? Something making this happen? Something separate that is feeling and seeing?

You seem to realise that 'I' is a thought. Could 'Body Mind Organism' just be a thought too?
Perhaps a useful thought - An useful idea - But just a thought - And that's all it is?

Xain ♥

Hi Xain,

Bear with me, John, I think we're making some progress now.

I tried to answer the questions but my answers made no sense. I spent a few days, but am totally lost and frustrated.

Just out of interest, do you follow or watch Lisa Cairns at all?
I ask this as she often uses the term 'Body Mind Organism' in her talks.

I will have to look her up, but I'm not familiar with her.

Yes, words are being read. That is clear.
But can it be seen that what is actually doing it cannot be found in the experience.
If it is said 'I am reading', that's just a thought about it.
If it is said 'Body Mind Organism is reading', that's just a thought too.
We do not find either of these things doing the reading in the experience - Only in thought! Only in an IDEA of what we think is happening.

reading happens, but it can't happen unless the eyes see the words. I don't know what reads, but they eyes are necessary to see.

Do you see this?

No

Ok, good that's fair - It's an assumption.
But what is really going on?
Reading is happening - Is there any form of separate reader to be found?
Is there a separate thinker? Is there a something separate doing the breathing?

Separate from what?

Can anything be found other than an IDEA of what is doing it?

I don't have any idea what is doing it

What is 'feeling' that pinch? - The pinch is felt - Is there an 'I' feeling it? Is the body actively feeling it?
Or is there just 'feeling'?

a while back, there would have been just feeling. Now the body is feeling it through some type of galvonic skin response.

What is doing the pinching? Is there an 'I' controlling the hand? Is there an 'I' causing the two finger to pinch together? Or could all this just 'be happening'?

nothing controlling the hand, it just happens.

You seem to realise that 'I' is a thought

Yes.

Could 'Body Mind Organism' just be a thought too?

No, having a hard time with that one.
Thanks,
John

Reading happens, but it can't happen unless the eyes see the words. I don't know what reads, but they eyes are necessary to see.

The idea that eyes are needed to see is very important. The idea that a brain processes the images to enable us to see is also important. The idea that the heart is beating to enable oxygen to flow around the eyes and brain is also very important idea.
All these are ideas - Very useful ideas.

But we are not looking for ideas here - We are looking for the actual 'thing' responsible!

Do you actually experience 'a pair of eyes' seeing the screen? Is that really the experience?
Do you experience an 'I', a separate self seeing the screen?
What about a BMO doing it?

Can anything be found that is doing the seeing in the actual experience itself - Other than an idea of something individual and separate that is responsible for it?

Can anything be found other than an IDEA of what is doing it?
I don't have any idea what is doing it

Well you suggested 'eyes' were doing the seeing, and previously 'BMO' was doing the seeing.
There's nothing wrong with these ideas - They can be useful.
But are they anything more than ideas?

If your answer 'I don't know what is doing it' is because it is clear that all the things you can come up with are just ideas - Just say so. We can continue from there. That's where I trying to head for. But be honest.
Yes, this goes against everything we THINK is happening. But you must be honest here.
What do you find?

a while back, there would have been just feeling. Now the body is feeling it through some type of galvonic skin response.

Ok, now the skin is doing it.
Ok - So in the experience, it is clear for you then that there are two definate parts - The feeling itself, and the skin that is doing the feeling, yes? Do the experiment again - Ensure that there are two definite parts.
Is that really what you find in the experience?

Or is 'skin doing the feeling' just an idea - Just as much as 'brain interprets the nerve impulses from the skin' would be? Or 'electrical signal goes from the skin to the brain along a nerve' would be?

Xain ♥

Hi Xain,

But we are not looking for ideas here - We are looking for the actual 'thing' responsible!
Do you actually experience 'a pair of eyes' seeing the screen? Is that really the experience?

In direct experience, something sees. I suppose it could be the idea that eyes see, but when they are closed, they don't see, so it's pretty hard to logically say it is not the eyes seeing the screen, or the heart beating, or etc.

But we are not looking for ideas here - We are looking for the actual 'thing' responsible!

without any of these senses, the body would be dead - honestly don't know if there would be anything experienced after that.

Do you actually experience 'a pair of eyes' seeing the screen? Is that really the experience?

seeing is experienced. Do not actually experience the eyes seeing, but visually, seeing is not experienced when the eyes are closed.

Do you experience an 'I', a separate self seeing the screen?

No.

What about a BMO doing it?

Yes, something sees and without the body/eyes, how can anything be seen?

Can anything be found that is doing the seeing in the actual experience itself - Other than an idea of something individual and separate that is responsible for it?

I don't think I am following very well. The experience is - seeing something, don't know what is responsible for seeing. All I know is seeing happens and when eyes are closed seeing doesn't happen.

Well you suggested 'eyes' were doing the seeing, and previously 'BMO' was doing the seeing.

yes, eyes/BMO/physical sense/whatever - something sees and when eyes are shut, nothing visually sees.

There's nothing wrong with these ideas - They can be useful. But are they anything more than ideas?

I get lost here because it doesn't seem like seeing is an idea. If eyes are open they see, if they are shut they don't. that is what is found in direct experience.

f your answer 'I don't know what is doing it' is because it is clear that all the things you can come up with are just ideas - Just say so.

I don't think that is it - it is not clear they are ideas. I don't know what is doing it, but it doesn't seem like an idea.

We can continue from there. That's where I trying to head for. But be honest.

Trying to be honest - all this physical stuff - in direct experience - Seeing happens, but when eyes are closed it doesn't. hearing happens, but when ears are plugged, no go. etc. Speaking outside of the physical in the realm of thought it is different - there things/concepts whatever are clearly ideas.

Yes, this goes against everything we THINK is happening. But you must be honest here. What do you find?

Doesn't seem like i can get out of this - it is the physical stuff that doesn't seem like an idea, but physical facts.

Ok - So in the experience, it is clear for you then that there are two definate parts - The feeling itself, and the skin that is doing the feeling, yes? Is that really what you find in the experience?

Not clear that there are two parts... there is just the feeling and that feeling originates from the skin.

Or is 'skin doing the feeling' just an idea - Just as much as 'brain interprets the nerve impulses from the skin' would be? Or 'electrical signal goes from the skin to the brain along a nerve' would be?

Just the feeling, and it originates from the skin, if the skin weren't there it doesn't seem like the feeling would be either.
I suppose it could be an assumption that it comes from the skin, just like seeing comes from the eyes - can't figure out anything about it - no eyes, no sight. No skin, no tactile sensation.
thanks,
John

In direct experience, something sees. I suppose it could be the idea that eyes see, but when they are closed, they don't see

So when the eyes are closed, blackness behind the eyeballs isn't seen?

Let's go with what you said anyway.
Close your eyes.

Now consider the phrase 'I can't see'.
What 'I' is there in the experience that no-longer sees? What can be found?

I don't think that is it - it is not clear they are ideas. I don't know what is doing it, but it doesn't seem like an idea.

Ok, Good.
Don't go for 'an idea' of what is doing it.
Actually examine the experience and find what is doing it.
What can be found?

What is the 'I' that now 'can't see' - What exactly is that?

Xain ♥

Hi Xain,

So when the eyes are closed, blackness behind the eyeballs isn't seen?

Yes, blackness is there, but it doesn't seem to be behind the eyes - just eyes seeing the closed eyelids, maybe even phosphenes, but as far as direct experience, it is through the eyes. Note that I am limiting this to what is 'seen' and not what is going on behind the sense of sight.

Now consider the phrase 'I can't see'.
What 'I' is there in the experience that no-longer sees? What can be found?

No "I", just blackness. In experience, the eyes no longer see anything except back of eyelids.

Let's go with what you said anyway.
Close your eyes. Now consider the phrase 'I can't see'.
What 'I' is there in the experience that no-longer sees? What can be found?

No I... eyes can't see - or eyes see blackness.

Don't go for 'an idea' of what is doing it.
Actually examine the experience and find what is doing it. What can be found?

It honestly seems like the eyes are doing the seeing.

What is the 'I' that now 'can't see' - What exactly is that?

There is not an I doing it. There is impersonal seeing or not seeing (seeing blackness). I must be missing something here. There is some experience - if investigation is limited to the sense experiences then whatever is experiencing is getting the experience through the senses which seem to be integrated with whatever is experiencing. I dont know what is experiencing, but there is an experience.
Now if the experience is not limited to the senses and is a thought/idea, then the thought/idea is integrated into whatever is experiencing that - but it is seen as an idea while the sense experience is not seen as an idea, but a physical sensation.
I truly appreciate your time and guidance. I am really trying to be honest here and there is apparently something that is not hitting home!
John
PS - I am sending you a PM.

Hi Xain,
Just checking in, thanks for replying to my PM. I am ready to continue when you are!
Thanks again,
John

Hi Xain,
Are you ok and still around?
John

Hi John

I apologise for the delay.
I will write a full reply tomorrow and be able to continue guiding as normal.

Xain ♥

Hi Xain,
No apology neccessary, your help over the past couple of months precludes any question of your comittment. I am relieved you are well hopefully - the mind predicts all kinds of imaginings :)
take as much time as you need.
Thanks,
John