The Gate

What I meant by not being able to answer from first hand experience is that I can answer the questions In the same way I can answer what it feels like to walk on the moon or to be at total peace - I receive information from other people who have experienced it, see that all the evidence is consistent and then am able to understand theoretically what it's about

Yes... sure you can imagine how an experience might be like... but what I was trying to point out is that this is not at all important. An experience is an experience, no matter if you walk on the moon, sit at your breakfast table or have a sudden dropping away of certain self referential thoughts. Its all just an experience and its all impermanent. There is no value in any of them at all - or maybe rather one does not have a higher value than any other experience. Its only your comparative thinking that values one higher than the other and that is why you chase some and avoid others.
If you would have a "mystical experience" for a few minutes or hours and then revert back to "normal experiencing", what have you gained? Another state that you would like to repeat? Just like chasing any other state of "happiness" or "bliss"..? Bliss, as referred to by some sages, is not a state - it is what IS!

Being at peace all the time is not more than an idea - a story that has been told by some "gurus" that aim at collecting followers who will obviously never "get it" as there is no way of reaching this goal. Even guys like Nisargadatta lost their temper and started shouting in anger... Not very peaceful, right? The important thing is to understand that even anger is not something to avoid, it is your experience at the time and it will pass... You experience and you do this in the realm of duality. Where there is experience there is good and bad, light and dark... It is futile to chase just one side! You can know or realise that your "real self" is not affected by any experience, but this does not remove the experience... it also does not remove conceptual thought about it...

So... what if this moment is already IT and there is absolutely nothing that has to happen to make it any better, more satisfactory, more blissful, more mystical or spiritually pleasing? If this moment is not the right moment for "you" then why not look at this idea that you have of there being a moment that will be better qualified for you "getting it".
Look at what seems to be holding you back right now. Is it the moment, this very experience itself or rather your thoughts, ideas, expectations and stories about the moment? What is in your way of realisation? Is it the moment or are you in your own way? If you come to the conclusion that the moment is innocent and cannot be blamed, then why not look at this "you" that seems to be in the way? What is this I/self that wants things to be a certain way, but definitely not the way things are? You saw that there is no separate entity there at all, just conceptual thought happening... Why not let thought happen and be done with it? Do you have to analyse every moment and compare it with the goal of finding out if it is approaching perfection or if it still is unsatisfactory?

I'll be convinced I know when I'll be able to look without being attached to wanting things to be different, and that this knowing would apply to every situation I encounter

As long as you have to convince a self that every moment is OK, this goal is out of reach... Why? Not because the goal is unreachable, but because there is no such thing as a separate self that could be convinced about anything or that could be attached to something... Sure, there are thoughts about attachment, but do they belong to a self? When a thought shows up "This is a bad time! I hate this moment!"... Does this mean that this moment is any worse than the one before? Does it have any impact on the experience at all? Or is the impact just visible in the next few thoughts that show up, but the experience itself is completely unaffected..?

Sorry for the delayed reply - it's just that I feel there's nothing new to say. Thoughts are noticed, but this does nothing to diminish the belief in an "I", even if this "I" only exists while thought exists. I don't know how there can be an "I" and a "not I" at the same time.

Its only your comparative thinking that values one higher than the other and that is why you chase some and avoid others.

But even self-realised people will seem to chase some and avoid others. Perhaps they are not suffering while doing this, but that is not noticeable from the outside. I can't imagine how one can be "in the game" while at the same time transcending it.

If you would have a "mystical experience" for a few minutes or hours and then revert back to "normal experiencing", what have you gained? Another state that you would like to repeat?

I'm not looking for mystical experience, or any special experience for that matter. I'm looking for acceptance of whatever is. As knowing this is impossible while there's a belief in an "I" thought, I then try to dismantle the "I" which of course doesn't work since thought can't dismantle itself. On the other hand, there is no way I can conceive of accepting things that are unbearable - no matter how deeply I realise that this is what IS and there is nothing else.

You can know or realise that your "real self" is not affected by any experience, but this does not remove the experience... it also does not remove conceptual thought about it...

For that, the "real self" should be seen. There obviously can be no one that sees it, and this no-one is unmoved by experience while at the same time the experience is acted out as a body-mind happening. I don't know if this captures the idea (at least as far as words can) but even if it does, this is something I can't even come close to grasping, Understanding why an "I" can't reach it isn't enough to remove the "I". Thought alone just isn't going to cut it (especially as it's responsible for this mess in the first place).

When a thought shows up "This is a bad time! I hate this moment!"... Does this mean that this moment is any worse than the one before? Does it have any impact on the experience at all?

"The one before" only exists in thought anyway (just like the imagined "one after"), It doesn't seem though that the experience in the moment of sipping margaritas on the beach has quite the same quality as the one in the moment of experiencing a stuck kidney stone. The consistent preference of one over the other suggests they are not equal. Yes, the moment is obviously neutral from the perspective of what is. Things happen regardless of whether there's an I story that believes it is experiencing them or not. It is having this perspective while appearing angry, sad, scared, suffering etc and at the same time knowing you're not those things seems to be far beyond anything I'm even close to understanding.

This rant of mine probably looks quite silly for someone who sees the problem clearly. Heck, it even looks silly to this "me" that thinks it is within the problem - however, it seems like this story is not going away anytime soon.

Thoughts are noticed, but this does nothing to diminish the belief in an "I", even if this "I" only exists while thought exists. I don't know how there can be an "I" and a "not I" at the same time

Yes, it only exists while thought exists... so do other things and objects...
There is no I and not-I at the same time, there is just "That" and a belief of separation on top of it.
When you watch a movie - it is projected on a screen - can there be a movie without the screen? Is the movie separate from the screen?
You see the screen (the not-I) - all the time! - and you see the movie thats projected onto it.
A thought comes up "I see a car!".
You see a car because you recognise and label certain shapes and colours that are projected on to the screen. This does not mean that you don't see the screen, does it? It only means that you have recognised a pattern in the otherwise undifferentiated whole.
Is the "I" any more than a pattern in the whole?

I can't imagine how one can be "in the game" while at the same time transcending it.

You are not in the game. You ARE the game.
Once this is realised there is no question of transcending it.

For that, the "real self" should be seen. There obviously can be no one that sees it

When you look at things, who is looking? If the separate "I/self" is not doing the looking, then who or what? Can you find a separate entity doing the looking?

What if you never see anything but the "real self"? When you look at a cup - You are there. When you look at a tree - You are there. When you look at your feet - You are there...

So... where do you find the relative-I and where do you find the absolute(I/Self)?
Does "the relative-I" exist in pure sensual perception or only in conceptual thought about it?

Sit down a look...
When you look at a thing - e.g. a cup - it is anchored in a certain background... does seeing itself separate the thing from the background? What does?

What makes the cup into a cup? Isn't a cup only a cup based on all the other things around it that are not a cup? If there would be only cups, you couldn't say that its a cup, right? There would be only That... no distinction possible, right?

Imagine you have no label and no concept of what a cup or a desk is... when you look at a cup on a desk would you know its an object separate from the desk? Would you even know that the desk is separate from the wall behind it... maybe its all just a bunch of colours in certain shapes... but this would also mean that you first have to know what a colour is...

I am not saying that there is no such thing as a cup or a desk, what I am saying is that the cup or the desk are what they seem to be because of the concepts that you have about them. Where do these concepts come from?

Where is the difference to this separate I that you believe in? You treat it like an object (or maybe the subject) - at least as something separate from other things... Is this really reflected in direct experience?

Just wanted to note two points prior to answering: The first (just in case it's not obvious) is to clarify that I'm not trying to prove my point of view. That my perspective is incorrect is something I take as a given. Any questions that might seem argumentative are an attempt on my part to get answers that will undermine the foundations of this misguided perspective. The second is just to reiterate my thanks for taking the time to try and illuminate my understanding, which I assume by now you already realise is quite a challenging task :-)

What makes the cup into a cup? Isn't a cup only a cup based on all the other things around it that are not a cup? If there would be only cups, you couldn't say that its a cup, right? There would be only That... no distinction possible, right?

Let's take a baby as an example. This baby does not know what a cup is, nor any other concept for that matter, and so it has not formed any "I" story either. Therefore, it appears that the baby is incapable of suffering. If I define cruelty as needlessly causing another being to suffer, am I to understand that by this definition it is impossible to be cruel to a baby? I'm not saying this implies that it's ok, just clarifying that the baby would not suffer because there is no one there to suffer.

However, if the baby is capable of suffering (which I define as consciously wishing things were otherwise), then where did that baby's "I" come from?

Taking this a bit further, any suffering could be considered unreal (as unreal as the "I" that thinks it is going through it), If so, why why help others diminish it, or for that matter help them realise it isn't real?

The reason I'm bringing this up is that it appears as if discomfort can cause suffering even without it being formulated into thoughts. I could be mistaken, though. On occasion I seem to change perspective and "be the screen" so to speak and for a short while "suffering" (discomfort, worries, anxiety etc.) is noticed as just another movie playing, without this movie happening to a "me" or being a "me" (though I suspect the "I" is still there in a sense because it is still an experience, but even that is noticed as more playing).

You are not in the game. You ARE the game.

If I AM the game (as opposed to some specific expression of it), I'd expect a realised perspective to be able to see all things and all thoughts that appear in this game, but the fact is that every body/mind (realised or not) seems to be limited to knowing only whatever appears in a localised awareness.

Thank you for pointing that out, but don't worry, I am happy to discuss this with you as long as you feel that it is the right thing to do :-)

Let's take a baby as an example. This baby does not know what a cup is, nor any other concept for that matter, and so it has not formed any "I" story either. Therefore, it appears that the baby is incapable of suffering.

True. But what will happen with prolonged mistreatment is that the baby will be conditioned accordingly. It might develop a personality that will be "problematic" based on our standards of society...

If I define cruelty as needlessly causing another being to suffer, am I to understand that by this definition it is impossible to be cruel to a baby? I'm not saying this implies that it's ok, just clarifying that the baby would not suffer because there is no one there to suffer.

Cruelty is a relative term and even the baby can not place it into a specific category it will naturally reject it. It will not suffer in the way you suffer. It won't know that it is suffering as there is no "it", but it will learn that certain things hurt and react accordingly. It will try to avoid the experience just like you avoid putting your hand into the fire...
This does not mean that you can not be cruel to anyone - an act of cruelty is only as cruel as your (and the receivers) concept of cruelty allows it to be.

Taking this a bit further, any suffering could be considered unreal (as unreal as the "I" that thinks it is going through it), If so, why why help others diminish it, or for that matter help them realise it isn't real?

I don't know... maybe because its simply happening... Do you have a choice?
Why does anything happen at all? Its a great mystery... :-)

The reason I'm bringing this up is that it appears as if discomfort can cause suffering even without it being formulated into thoughts

No, it can't.

If I AM the game (as opposed to some specific expression of it), I'd expect a realised perspective to be able to see all things and all thoughts that appear in this game, but the fact is that every body/mind (realised or not) seems to be limited to knowing only whatever appears in a localised awareness.

This expectation arises from the viewpoint of a separate individual person. One separate individual wants to experience unity with ALL and thus expects his/her way of experiencing to change so he now suddenly sees all, feels all, hears all and sees all thoughts... This is not how it works :-)

To see all things is to see that there are no things. To experience from the "realised perspective" is to experience without a perspective (without the belief in a separate I/self).

The problem is that you artificially separate the game/That by introducing the belief of a separate experiencer, a separate self that is standing apart from That. Now you are looking at That as something separate from you and you ask questions from this point of view. Why? Simply because you have learned and now believe that you are only a separate form but not the All. When you look at the world you see borders and limits everywhere, but they only exist in your concepts about reality. They don't exist in any direct sense experience, do they?

The idea that there is someone who could have a "realised perspective" while still hanging on to the personal point of view is just that, an idea. Having no personal point of view does not mean that this conceptualised experience changes in a qualitative way. You still see, hear, think as you did before but you don't take ownership of it. The belief in the separate I is gone - no owner, no separate entity, no separation, no sufferer, no questions... What questions need to be answered if the answer ultimately is always the same.. Just That.

I will be travelling for 2 days - back on Monday.
Have a great weekend!

Thank you, have a good trip :-)

This does not mean that you can not be cruel to anyone - an act of cruelty is only as cruel as your (and the receivers) concept of cruelty allows it to be.

This makes sense. Speaking of which, I assume the term "making sense" itself is only applicable from a point of view of a personality - I mean, how can any question about making sense or not be relevant to what actually Is? and yet, in the attempt to try and map out "what Is" from a dualistic framework, I have to follow only the things that make sense and seem true to this "I", and in this "I"'s point of view there are patterns that seem to be in accordance with "truth" and others that are not. I guess that in the same way a stone will always fall in gravity, compassion will always result when being in truth. As you said, there's not much choice in the matter. Why this is so is beyond me - but then again, so are a lot of things :-)

The idea that there is someone who could have a "realised perspective" while still hanging on to the personal point of view is just that, an idea.

This is yet another issue that I'm stuck on: You're probably aware of the Turing test and the resulting question, i.e if there is no way to distinguish the interaction with a computer than an interaction with a human, does it mean the computer experiences a personality like a human does? Although there's no way I can prove it, I have little doubt the answer is yes. My belief in a different entity experiencing it's own subjective "I" stems from the behaviour of that perceived entity.
Now, wouldn't this same logic that "promoted" a computer to experiencing a personality necessarily "demote" a so called "liberated" being to also having a personality? I follow the "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck" reasoning (just replace "duck" and it's qualities with "personality" and it's qualities).

Another issue about seeking a "realised perspective" is that it seems unnecessary as this "I" will be snuffed out anyway with the death of the physical body, so why worry about it? Even if one believes in reincarnation, it doesn't change anything as this specific fictitious "I" will not survive a rebirth and will just be replaced with a different fictitious "I" - why is it important to realise "no I" before the "I" naturally disintegrates anyway? This isn't going to stop me from trying to realise "no I" and be liberated before it is "forced" on this fictitious "me", but it's another lingering question that will probably become irrelevant once I "get it"...

Hi,
I had an accident and am in hospital right now... Will write when I am back at home. ...and please don't worry it's not life threatening
Alex


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Wow Alex - that threw me off... Hope you're OK. Thank you for letting me know, but just focus on getting better. Wish I could be of more assistance.

Take care,
Amnon

Hi Amnon,

Thank you! I am home now - will take some time to recover, but hey, thats life :-)

I have to follow only the things that make sense and seem true to this "I", and in this "I"'s point of view there are patterns that seem to be in accordance with "truth" and others that are not.

While this is true in a way, the question is if there is an "I" that has a point of view or if there is only the point of view... Is there an entity that has a point of view? Or are there simply thoughts after thoughts seemingly defining a point of view and then transferring ownership of this view to an illusory entity?

What is "truth"? Does life itself, this moment, require truth? Or is this also a dualistic idea, that something could be more true than something else..?

I guess that in the same way a stone will always fall in gravity, compassion will always result when being in truth.

Being in truth simply means rejecting everything that is not absolutely true. This finally results in rejecting all relativity/duality. What remains?

You're probably aware of the Turing test and the resulting question, i.e if there is no way to distinguish the interaction with a computer than an interaction with a human, does it mean the computer experiences a personality like a human does?

Does it even mean that a human experiences a personality?
The question is asked from the personal, the individual perspective... I have a personality, you (the robot) have not! Maybe we should first check if we have a personality ourselves before we try to find it in others...

How would a computer experience his own personality? Simply by running a program (thoughts?) that provide a certain output, stating that "I am XYZ". Then more computation (thoughts) have to follow building on this initial idea... what will be the outcome? A huge house of cards?

Now, wouldn't this same logic that "promoted" a computer to experiencing a personality necessarily "demote" a so called "liberated" being to also having a personality?

No - there is no one there that has a personality. Even you don't have one (liberated or not).
Not because there are no personality traits, but because there is no you that could own them. There are simply thought patterns happening that also state that they belong to someone, but do they?

This does not mean that a "liberated being" (funny term, how could a being be liberated?? has it ever been not free??) does not act in a way that you would classify as a compassionate or angry human being... There is conditioning at work and this is how the organism will act - this does not mean that there is anybody home and in charge :-)

I follow the "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck"

Nice reasoning, but only thought story, right?

Another issue about seeking a "realised perspective" is that it seems unnecessary as this "I" will be snuffed out anyway with the death of the physical body, so why worry about it?

The I never existed in the first place, so it can not be snuffed out. Yes, the belief will be "gone" as it requires a form to reflect it. A mirror reflects many things, but does the mirror die just because there is nothing to reflect anymore?
Who worries about the body dying? Does the body? Does the body see itself as something separate from the "rest of creation"?

This isn't going to stop me from trying to realise "no I" and be liberated before it is "forced" on this fictitious "me", but it's another lingering question that will probably become irrelevant once I "get it"...

Good!

Lets have a look at borders. At entities. At me and others...
Try this first: Close your eyes and feel the physical sensations as they arise. Try to find borders and a separate entity feeling/owning these sensations... Are there any to be found? Or are there only time-less, space-less, meaning-less arisings happening... You experience these sensations, but are you more than the mirror that reflects these arisings as something that is intimately itself, its changing aspect of the unchanging..?
What do you find?

Alex

Hi Alex,

Glad to hear you're back home. Sorry you still need to go through a recovery period but I get the feeling you're not one to complain about fate :-). I'm curious as to what happened and how you're doing but I guess this is not the right forum to discuss that, so I'll just wish you a quick recovery and trust you'll reply only to the extent the correspondance does not inconvenience you.

Is there an entity that has a point of view? Or are there simply thoughts after thoughts seemingly defining a point of view and then transferring ownership of this view to an illusory entity?

Even though my illision seems to be incredibly strong, I don't doubt thoughts create an illusion of an identity that has them. On one hand, there's a strong perception of "me", the one that identifies with likes and dislikes, the one who is conscious of experiences in time, the one that tries to arbitrate between what is true and what isn't - and at the same time on some level I know this is a sham. I try to remember to notice my thoughts as a way to make this understanding less vague and intuitive and more a clear "here and now" unshakeable knowing - not as an experience I can own, but as truth where this "I" does not participate in. The fact that it is so immediately obvious and in plain sight does not make it easily recognizable because it's the illisionary entity that's trying to see it, and if I understand correctly, what you're pointing to is seeing the illusion rather than the impossible task of trying to make the illusion see.

What is "truth"? Does life itself, this moment, require truth? Or is this also a dualistic idea, that something could be more true than something else..?

It is obvious that life itself does not need nor care about truth. It dictates truth by just being. Now go argue with that... :-) From the "I" perspective however, "truth" is that which does not change, which is consistent and repeatable, which you can trust as best describing how things actually are as well as how they will be. Starting from the knowledge that no matter how many times you'll try, putting your hand in the fire will not result in a happy experience, to knowing what it takes to land a probe on a distant planet. None of these would be possible without knowing what is true, i.e what is in accordance with what this fictional "I" experiences as an "external" reality. Another example of practicality of "truth" from an "I" perspective is this very correspondance. This "I" beleives "it" is searching for truth and the criteria for truth is what enables the separation between signal and noise, meaning and nonsense, this correspondance and other possible correspondances.

Being in truth simply means rejecting everything that is not absolutely true. This finally results in rejecting all relativity/duality. What remains?

Just what is. That's the only logical answer and yet it is still an "I" that thinks it is answering :-)

The question is asked from the personal, the individual perspective... I have a personality, you (the robot) have not! Maybe we should first check if we have a personality ourselves before we try to find it in others...

Good point :-) The question that is asked is whether behind the perceived personality there is really someone having the same "I am" conscious experience, but if I understand correctly, since the "I am" experience does not belong to any "I" it is therefore really only an "Am" , and (when filtered through words which will always miss the essence) this "Am" includes me, the robot, and every possible thing/event in existance which are all the same That. Any separate "I am" is a hint at the "Am" which enables the fictitious "I".

Lets have a look at borders. At entities. At me and others...

I'd like to spend more time doing this the next few days. I feel the stumbling block here is the thought of "yes, I see there are no boundaries as long as it doesn't get too unpleasant..." The fact that the situation can change so that the "I" would form again and "want out" is quite a challenge. Still, I'll do what you suggested and report what is found.

Thank you and best wishes,
Amnon

OK, great. Looking forward to your reply.

Hi Alex,

Hope you're feeling better.

I don't really have much new to report - it's like a self fulfilling prophecy: I have expectations about what is going to happen and that is exactly what happens... I try to meditate upon every sensation, notice every thought that accompanies it, including the thought that there is a someone watching it and still the subjective sense of a person persists. Not all the time, but getting to a point where there are only sensations without anyone sensing them takes a great deal of concentration and, seeing as understanding a "no I" should be effortless suggests I'm doing it wrong - which might better be stated as "the Illusion of an I is having an illusion of doing it wrong", but that intellectual understanding does nothing to dissolve the illusion that thinks it understands.

Anyway, I'll keep trying and let you know if anything new occurs. Please let me know if there's anything else you think would be useful other than just continuing to notice thoughts until something clicks.

Thanks,
Amnon

I'm a bit at a loss with regards to what to do next: spend some preallocated time every day meditating upon the things

Hi Amnon,

Yes, thank you, I am recovering very well.

Isn't the only hurdle that seems to be in your way the one that you created yourself when you proclaimed how "no self" should feel like, what kind of thoughts should be allowed to show up and which ones might indicate that you still haven't got it... thoughts show up referencing this I/self stating that "I feel good/bad" or that "I haven't got it.." - so what? You also want to get rid of the "subjective sense of a person"... why? Does it bother you? It shows up as a specific chain of thought - why not simply let it arise and do its thing. It is all only a problem as long as you make it one. This is true for all thoughts.

As far as having a special no-self experience:
What if you never experience anything else but "no separate self"? You, these ego-thoughts, don't like that and thus you invent a story of how no-self has to be experienced to be valid. If its not as expected then its not the real thing, is it?
What if there is ONLY the real thing and nothing could ever take you away from it? Its so simple and direct that every attempt of getting it will only take you away from it (not really, as this is impossible, but in the belief/story that you are invested in thought states that "This is Not It..." - this is only a story!).

What if you simply stop making up stories about why things are wrong right now and about how things should be so they are finally satisfactory. Look at what is. Now. Why would you search for a state or experience and ignore this moment? It doesn't even logically make any sense that there would be something available in the future that is not here now, does it? This moment is all you have and there is nothing missing.

Alex