The Gate

I understand the constraints on your time and attention, and I appreciate your patience and persistence.

I will continue to sit with, and live my everyday life with, these questions, and I will post when I feel shifts, though I will not expect any reply until you feel there is something to be said or explored further.

It doesn't feel that a huge shift has happened, since I still have "I" thoughts all the time, but I am posting anyway, because I have noticed a vast decrease in the sense of urgency and frustration and suffering felt around this topic.

Here's an example. The thought/belief that I was investigating: "I see the fan."

raw experience/verb: seeing. (self-evident. no evidence necessary. experience either is or isn't, and it always "is" when it's looked for, because nothingness isn't an experience)
object of experience: fan (evidence: presence of colors and movement thought-labeled 'fan')
subject of experience: I (evidence: [1] a belief (in other words, the content of a thought that other thoughts take for the truth) that every action has a doer. [2] another thought in the conception-perception stream that says, "I did that!"
Conclusion: If I can't find evidence of an "I" outside of the content of thought, then I have no evidence that there's such a thing. It'd be completely circular to use a thought of a thinker as evidence for a thinker. Thoughts can't think. They can't be believed when they claim to see, either. There is no "I" in the experiencing of the fan.

The experience and the object of experience is readily apparent. Why should the subject be hard to find?

As I go about my everyday life, I very frequently have thoughts like "I see". Usually, though, there's just seeing (not even seeing, really: just experiencing what is seen). When there are thoughts about seeing, sometimes there are thoughts like "I see with my eyes". But it's just a thought. It doesn't have to be believed. Even if it is believed, it’s still just a thought. Believing, not believing... all just thoughts. About another thought. Which has no referent in reality, since there is nobody to believe or not believe anyway!

I don't know if this is moving towards real seeing, since I'm still having "I" thoughts frequently, and there's not always an in-the-moment awareness that "I" doesn't refer to a real thing. But realizing that so much of what I took so seriously is entirely "in my head" so to speak has made it feel much more surmountable.

Hi Gabe,

I understand the constraints on your time and attention, and I appreciate your patience and persistence.

Thank you for your understanding.

As I go about my everyday life, I very frequently have thoughts like "I see". Usually, though, there's just seeing (not even seeing, really: just experiencing what is seen). When there are thoughts about seeing, sometimes there are thoughts like "I see with my eyes". But it's just a thought. It doesn't have to be believed. Even if it is believed, it’s still just a thought. Believing, not believing... all just thoughts. About another thought. Which has no referent in reality, since there is nobody to believe or not believe anyway!

Excellent observations!

I don't know if this is moving towards real seeing, since I'm still having "I" thoughts frequently, and there's not always an in-the-moment awareness that "I" doesn't refer to a real thing.

Here is a big expectation. The presence or the absence of the thought of I has nothing to do with seeing that there is no inherent I. When the self is seen through, thoughts of I won’t disappear. Why should they? There is already no self anywhere, and has never been, yet thoughts of I has been here all the time.

Please let go of the idea that the I-thought should stop appearing. It won’t. Just as Santa doesn’t stop appear at the time of Xmas. But there is a big difference to believe that the appearance of Santa is a real Santa, and seeing that this is just a man dressed up as a Santa. The same is with the I thought.

and there's not always an in-the-moment awareness that "I" doesn't refer to a real thing.

This also won’t happen when the self is seen through. Just over with time. At the beginning there are lots of flip-flopping. Seeing that there is no inherent self is just the beginning, literally just the first step. There are many other beliefs that needs to be seen through…. it’s a long process.

Vivien

When the self is seen through, thoughts of I won’t disappear. Why should they?

Yes! They're a feature, not a bug. They do a great job. "Gabe" can still enjoy the game while knowing it's a game. Today and yesterday during moments of frustration or anxiety, there has been this reflex to stop and LOOK at what is actually going on. The "difficult" emotion doesn't disappear. It just doesn't feel so... personal. It's just happening.

This also won’t happen when the self is seen through. Just over with time. At the beginning there are lots of flip-flopping. Seeing that there is no inherent self is just the beginning, literally just the first step. There are many other beliefs that needs to be seen through…. it’s a long process.

This seemingly urgent drive to protect and build up and vindicate "myself" from harm. It seems so silly right now, but there's a sense of the weight of all the beliefs that hinged on the self-belief and those beliefs' impact on "Gabe"s suffering and confusion. I imagine only imagine when (when!) I finally break through and more clearly see the enormity of that untangling task.

Thank you, Vivien, I will keep looking and update in the event of further progress or realization.

Lately, my answers have kind of condensed on most of the exercises, so I've been going through those and journaling them. They still "feel" true, so I'm going to post them here.

There are still 4 that I need to address. It felt like no progress could be made on them until the others felt more consolidated, because they feel "harder" to see through. One of them ("When there is happiness, I AM happy; when there is suffering, I AM suffering.") I'm actively working on. The others (about life and about the consistency of the narrative of "me") I don't feel like I've gotten anywhere on at all.

I'll update again if something else changes in any of these, or if I make any progress with the other questions, or if there's anything you tell me to look at again/in addition in the meantime.

I am the thinker of thoughts

Usually, these days, there’s just thinking. Sometimes “I” is a part of the construction of the thought, but mostly just as a convention.

Really, it was always that way. Other thoughts just claimed those thoughts when defending/creating the idea of a self. That’s just not happening anymore. There’s never the thought “I thought that.”

But frequently there is the thought “Thoughts just appear and disappear by themselves. No one is directing them or controlling them” And that thought can be quickly backed up by experience. Unlike the “I” thought.

I definitely don’t believe I am the thinker of thoughts anymore.

I am decider and chooser.

There is often the thought “I’m going to__________.” and it’s followed by action by the body. It does feel that there are decisions happening.

But the desire to do whatever it is? It showed up on its own.

The idea to actually do it? It showed up on its own as the content of a thought.

The awareness of how it should be done, specifically? It’s not present. There is no knowledge within thought/concepts/words of how I exactly take a breath or pick up a cup.

If the idea of what has been chosen or decided just appears as the content of a thought, with no direct knowledge of how, and there is known to be no control of thoughts… “I” couldn’t possibly be the decider and chooser.

Today, I picked out a new reusable water bottle. “I” didn’t make the choice. It was a conditioned response.

Before a decision was made, there were thoughts about what “I” liked and what “I” didn’t like. After, there was a thought that “I” made my choice despite social pressures around men and color. And there was another thought that “I” made my choice to bolster and reinforce my own sense of identity. A laugh and a thought that there is no choice that is made free of those influences. Another laugh and a realization that the reason for that is that all choices are conditioned responses, because there was never any “I” to stake a position!

All just thoughts. A story about why a peach water bottle was selected over a blue. The activity of selection happened in real life, as well as in thoughts. Was there preference there? Maybe–a question for later. But there was no “I” there in experience.

Is that awareness present at the time? The answer is still almost always “no” but it all feels so much less urgent and serious.

I am moving the body

There is no knowledge of how to move the fingers to type any more than of how to beat the heart.

There is no knowledge of how decisions are made for the body to do something.

There is no experience of “I” in the movement of the body.

It’s always on automatic. Even though it seems like it’s “mostly” on automatic–because usually things are decided and done without any thoughts about them. Really, it’s still on automatic all the time. Sometimes, there are just thoughts telling a story about them, too.

I definitely no longer believe that “I” move the body.

I feel sensation

As I go about my daily life, there aren’t many “I”-thoughts associated with “passive” touch–like the feeling of clothes against the body. In memory, there weren’t many before, either. Thoughts like “I feel sensation” mostly appeared when thinking about/reinforcing the self-thought.

Now, if I-thoughts appear about sensations, looking (or memory-thoughts about looking) is triggered, and the truth is seen: absolutely not. In direct experience, there is only the sensation itself.

I feel emotions

Identifying/recognizing emotions has never been a strength. It’s easier with more intense emotions, but those aren’t experienced as often as the subtler ones.

When looking, the only thing in direct experience is the emotion. When not looking, emotions are tagged with an “I”-thought basically simultaneously when the emotion is recognized and tagged.

For emotions thought of as positive or neutral, looking has very rarely been triggered. For emotions that are negative or difficult, it’s much more common for there to be a thought-series like:

• I feel irritated.
• Is there a “me” who is irritated, or is there simply irritation?
• I can’t find a “me”, only the experience of irritation.

Often, the sense of irritation was blamed on what someone/something did or didn’t do to “me”. Remembering that, most of the time, what led to the irritation is entirely thought-overlay, very rarely reality. And not just absolute reality–but conventional reality, too!

My toddler throwing her cup on the ground was definitely not done “to me”. Was she thinking about irritating me when she did it? Maybe, but there’s no way of knowing. Is picking up a cup and cleaning the floor inherently irritating? No, because it is often completely neutral.

Usually, the irritation is associated with a thought-story about “me”. How x or y “always” happens to “me,” or how “I” am always having to do z.

The irritation doesn’t disappear, usually. It’s just less personal. It wasn’t done to me. It’s just a feeling. It arises, and sometime later it falls away.

Do I still believe the thought “I feel emotions?” In my daily life, the “I”-thoughts aren’t questioned frequently when it comes to emotions. But it does feel less like emotions are something that happen to “me” and more like just another aspect of living.

I have a body

If the body has an owner, it’s an absentee landlord! Where is the owner of the body in direct experience? Nowhere to be found in reality. “I” only exists within thinking.

How can a thought own anything? “My” fingernails no more belong to me than anyone else’s fingernails belong to me!

I don’t know how “my” heart pumps blood any more than I understand how “my” fingers type these words, or how “my” mind brings thoughts of what to type into existence. It’s all running on automatic.

How can it be mine if it’s not operating under my control? If I’m not even aware of what it’s doing most of the time, much less how it does it?

There are still thoughts about “my” body–that “I” bite “my” fingernails, for example. They’re just thoughts. Sometimes they’re corrected by other thoughts; sometimes they aren’t. But, if “I have a body” is believed, it would only be in the content of other thoughts. Because there’s no one to believe or not believe anyway.

I am somewhere inside the body, behind the skin

This is simply speculation. Just a thought. Currently, my preferred thought-explanation for why this seemed so believable Before is because of how much conscious attention is given to sight. But all that is more thought and speculation, of course.

In direct experience, “I” can’t be found outside of the content of thoughts. Which I “imagine” (another form of thought) to happen inside the head–because I “know” that’s the location of the brain, which I “know” to be the seat of conscious thought.

This idea is laughable at this point.

I experience the world which is out there (outside of the body), and I experience it through the body’s senses.

There are thoughts about “inside” and “outside”. In direct experience, there is no real distinction between inside-body and outside-body experiences. Experience is always the interaction between the “sensor” and the “sensed”. “Inside” and “outside” have absolutely nothing to do with anything.

What is the difference between experiencing pressing a key on my keyboard, or experiencing the keyboard pressing into my finger? There is only the experience of typing.

Is there something fundamentally different between experiencing a stomachache and experiencing a pinch to my gut? Is a stomachache more like the sensation of a full bladder than it is like pushing a trolley? Is pushing a trolley more like a pinch to my gut than it is like a full bladder? All those questions and comparisons are nonsensical.

I see with my eyes.

Within the experience of “seeing” there is no experience of “I” and no experience of “eyes”. Only color and form and motion, later labelled and interpreted in thoughts. I can’t stop seeing from happening when the conditions are present. I can’t make seeing happening when the conditions aren’t present.

I hear with my ears.

Within the experience of “hearing” there is no experience of “I” and no experience of “ears”. Only the sound, later labelled and interpreted in thoughts. I can’t stop hearing from happening when the conditions for hearing are present. I can’t make hearing happen when the conditions aren’t present.

I taste with my tongue.

Within the experience of “tasting”, there is no experience of “I” and no experience of “tongue”. Only the taste, later labelled and interpreted in thoughts. I can’t stop tasting from happening when the conditions are present. I can’t make tasting happen when the conditions aren’t present.

I smell with my nose.

Within the experience of “smelling” there is no experience of “I” and no experience of “nose”. Only the smell, later labelled and interpreted in thoughts. I can’t stop smelling from happening when the conditions are present. I can’t make smelling happen when the conditions aren’t present.

I touch the table with my hands.

Within the experience of “touching” there is no experience of “I” and no experience of “hands”. Only the table (which isn’t experienced as “table" yet, but as “touch”), later labelled and interpreted in thoughts. I can’t stop the perception of touching when the conditions are present. I can’t make the perception of touch happen when the conditions aren’t present.

In conclusion, there is no “I” experiencing “through” the senses. Direct experience is only ever of the things sensed. Sensations are either on/off. Yes/no. Present/absent. And, interestingly, there is no experience of off/no/absent, because that can’t be experienced. As soon as attention is turned to a sense, something is sensed.

But there is no “I” experiencing any of it in reality or controlling it in any way. There is only ever just experience (never divided between inside and outside body in actual experience) and thoughts. Anytime looking happens, that’s all that is ever found. Even the thought that the experiences are “through the body’s senses” is a thought-interpretation and not known directly.

There was never any “I” involved before, either. Just thoughts that showed up later that claimed “I did that!” and “I”-thoughts added as conventions. There are now no claims that “I did that!” (or, only rarely, perhaps, but immediately followed by recognition of the blatant absurdity of the claim), but still lots of conventional “I”-thoughts.

Hi Gabe,

You did an excellent investigation! I can see that you are really looking :)

I wait for you to finish with the remaining topics, and then we can continue together from there.

Vivien

I can see that you are really looking :)

This is a relief to have confirmed, even though I knew some shift had happened, and I'd finally worked out what it meant to look. That probably wasn't supposed to be as hard as it was!

I'm much less confident the quality of looking for these last questions, because they feel very removed from direct experience, and very wrapped up in the contents of thinking--which is so easy for me to get lost in! They feel much more intimately entwined with the "I" belief than the other questions. Nevertheless, this is what comes up, over and over. I hope there's something here to work with.

When there is happiness, I AM happy; when there is suffering, I AM suffering.

As usual, the experience of happiness or of suffering is always labelled with “I” when acknowledged in thought.

As always, there is no finding a “me” in the experience of happiness/suffering, and there is no controlling the appearance or cessation of the happiness/suffering. The “I” is only present in thoughts.

As with other emotions/states, the “positive” ones don’t always trigger an examination, but “negative” ones typically do. The experience of suffering (what minor suffering has been experienced since this investigation has begun) certainly feels less personal than it once did.

Even though this is all thinking, an apt analogy seems to be a blade of grass getting blown around on a windy day. The grass didn’t do anything to deserve the wind, and it can’t do anything about it, and the wind has absolutely nothing at all to do with the blade of grass--it's not blowing to it or for its benefit or because of or in spite of any action the grass has taken. It’s just happening. The grass can’t resist it or permit it or control it or deny it or change it in any way. The wind is just wind-ing and the grass is just grass-ing, and the combination of winding and grassing = blowing around.

Does a driven leaf suffer? It seems more likely than a thought (like an "I") suffering.

Just because this body-mind/Gabe character is, by its nature, being tossed around on a sea of events and emotions and states and whatever else... doesn’t mean it’s happening to anybody. The blade of grass doesn’t become a person/self because it has a unique experience, because it’s responsive to conditions. Neither do “I” become a real thing because thoughts label experiences “joy” and “suffering” and “positive” and “negative”, and because other thoughts claim that those states belong to a "me".

Unlike the blade of grass (probably), the Gabe-organism comes equipped with a label-maker to interpret things consciously, and to react to those interpretations (or, just as often, without interpretation being required at all). The thought “I” seems to be intended to ensure those reactions (in other thoughts, and in actions) are geared towards protection of the organism. Overall, this functions effectively.

All those are thoughts, of course, not looking. When looking, there's just feeling. And there’s nothing the thought/belief/convention “I” can do about any of it. It’s not experiencing it. It’s not reacting to it. It’s not controlling anything. It's not even witnessing it! It’s completely unnecessary to life being lived. “I” can’t even do anything about it if there is the thought/conviction that “I” am suffering. It’s still just a stream of experiences and thoughts that often includes a thought about a “me” and sometimes includes a thought about a “me” suffering.

It’s looser/less sticky, yes. But suffering feels a lot more personal than a sense, like seeing. I don't know if that's a function of a belief that's still active, or if it's just that there's a lot more other yet-to-be-examined beliefs piled on top of "Suffering happens to me" than there are on top of "I am the one seeing."

I have a life.

A thought can’t own or do anything, so “I” don’t have or live a “life”--or anything else, for that matter.

The label “life” refers to... what? To the stream of thoughts and experiences? The things themselves I know aren’t “mine” since I’ve examined that.

The ownership of the whole stream? Also impossible, since there’s only ever what’s going on now. The past and the future are only ever thoughts happening now. So, the "whole" stream isn’t any larger than the thoughts-experiences happening at any given moment. It’s still just thought, even if it’s thoughts about past experiences instead of ongoing ones.

To the body? Well, “I” don’t have a body.

The mind? “I” don’t have that, either.

To a story? Just thoughts “I” didn’t make up anyway.

Something is definitely happening; “life” seems as good a label for it as anything. An “I” is definitely not happening. Much less “having” or "owning" that something happening.

“I” am part of the happening (as the content of a thought)! The happening isn’t part of “me”. How ridiculous! It’s like a clone telling its parent (progenitor?) “I made you everything you are!”

I am the one going to bed in the evening, I am the one dreaming during the night, and I am the one who wakes up in the morning.

This is like... a continuous consciousness = "me".

Or not a continuous consciousness since it’s broken up by periods of unconsciousness... well, not really. It’s inferred that we, say, slept or passed out, from the interpretations of other stuff going on. But bodily unconsciousness is timeless for us. It’s not an experience, if we’re not dreaming... but this is just a distraction.

“I” is an event in that continuous consciousness. A thought-event. Going to bed, dreaming, waking up... all those things happen. And they happen by themselves, with no “me” to do them, and no “me” for them to be done to.

“Continuous consciousness” is just a story that explains a belief that memories accurately represent experiences and thoughts that happened before “now”--but it can’t be tested, because it’s only ever a thought happening now.

It’s just thoughts using other thought as evidence that they’re not only thoughts! When accused by other thoughts of being only thoughts! Hilarious!

Life is happening to me.

“I” have only ever been found as the content of a thought. As a thought-feature within life--not as something in reality that an external “life” happens to.

Thoughts just happen. Not to "me". Sense experiences happen. Not to "me".

On the other hand... so much feels so personal. Traumas that this body and this mind have experienced. Political machinations that threaten my family’s safety and security. These things--thought overlay over reality that they may be--feel like features of life that are so very personal.

This is an area that feels very stuck. A lot of resistance around it.

Hi Gabe,

It’s looser/less sticky, yes. But suffering feels a lot more personal than a sense, like seeing. I don't know if that's a function of a belief that's still active, or if it's just that there's a lot more other yet-to-be-examined beliefs piled on top of "Suffering happens to me" than there are on top of "I am the one seeing."

When there is any form of suffering, it’s not just because there is a belief in a self. Suffering happens when certain stimuli poke or touch our ‘wounds inside’. Those wounds are not a person/self. The self is just an added on narrative.

And the personality stays almost completely intact when the self is seen through. All the conditionings from childhood, all the traumas, all the gathered emotional pains won’t dissolve in an instant just because the self is seen through. These most likely will stay, however, they are much more accessible and easier to work with after seeing through the illusion. This is just the first step, just the beginning, and not the end. The falling away of conditioning can last at the end of the organism.

On the other hand... so much feels so personal. Traumas that this body and this mind have experienced. Political machinations that threaten my family’s safety and security. These things--thought overlay over reality that they may be--feel like features of life that are so very personal.
This is an area that feels very stuck. A lot of resistance around it.

Just notice that if feels personal because the emotions (which are sensations) are giving the reality effect.
So the sensations are real, and the realness of the sensations are proving the reality effect to the story (which is not real).

When the self is seen through, these emotional reactions with their seeming reality effect won’t disappear. These needs to be addressed after the self is seen through.

Since emotions play a big role in the illusion of the self, let’s start to investigate them, and see what they really are.
Bring up an emotion, feel it, and let’s examine what is really going on.

An appearing ‘emotion’ like ‘fear’ or ‘happiness’ has two main ‘components’:

(a) a pure bodily sensation, like contraction or relaxation
(b) a mental label stuck to (layered over) the sensation, like “this is fear” or “this is contraction in the stomach” or “uncomfortable” or “I am happy”

So when an emotion is present, identify the sensation, and investigate:

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘peaceful’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’?
Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, are just mental labels on the pure sensation?
Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?
Is there REALLY ‘sadness’ or ‘sorrow’ or ‘suffering’, or are there only thoughts about ‘sadness’ or ‘suffering’?

So if you look very closely, you’ll see that there is neither sufferer, nor suffering. There are only thoughts ABOUT a sufferer and suffering. Can you see this?

What you have to look at if there is someone whom suffering or emotions happen TO. Is there?
Is there someone experiencing emotions?
Or emotions are just fee-floating without being anchored to anything, without happening to anyone?

Vivien

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘peaceful’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’?
Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, are just mental labels on the pure sensation?
Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?
Is there REALLY ‘sadness’ or ‘sorrow’ or ‘suffering’, or are there only thoughts about ‘sadness’ or ‘suffering’?

Sometimes, I have a hard time accessing/identifying emotions. Fortunately, my family got some news today that made this a lot easier than it might have been for me!

The thought: I am excited!
The sensation: contraction in my belly, mild buzzing sensation throughout my limbs

The sensation is completely neutral! It happened in response to a thought (getting good news), and then other thoughts interpreted the sensation as "excitement." This sensation, in the context of a different story, might very easily also have been called "anxiety."

Out of the thought-story context, there is neither "excitement" or "anxiety"--those are just part of the thick layer of thought that gets pasted over everything in reality.

So if you look very closely, you’ll see that there is neither sufferer, nor suffering. There are only thoughts ABOUT a sufferer and suffering. Can you see this?

Yes. And those thoughts trigger other sensations, which are labeled as other emotions, and those get woven into the story, too.

What you have to look at if there is someone whom suffering or emotions happen TO. Is there?
Is there someone experiencing emotions?
Or emotions are just fee-floating without being anchored to anything, without happening to anyone?

There is no one.

I'm realizing, I think, that the whole story (of, say "excitement" over a "good" development in "Gabe's" "life") doesn't necessarily have to be thrown out with the notion of the self.

Recognizing that something is a story doesn't have to make it less moving. That's another expectation about all this that I should perhaps leave behind.

Hi Gabe,

I'm realizing, I think, that the whole story (of, say "excitement" over a "good" development in "Gabe's" "life") doesn't necessarily have to be thrown out with the notion of the self.
Recognizing that something is a story doesn't have to make it less moving. That's another expectation about all this that I should perhaps leave behind.

Yes, you did a nice investigation.

Please look with these pointers again.

Where is the me, the person in this very moment?
How does the me, the person experienced?
Can the person be experienced, or the person or is it purely in imagination?

Close eyes and investigate:
How is it known that there is a me without referring to thoughts?

Is there anything that is not happening automatically?
Is there anything that needs your doing?

Vivien

I will continue to investigate these questions and update if I find anything to add or change, but I feel quite confident in my responses, because once I finally figured out how to LOOK, investigating usually feels pretty straightforward and answers are clear.

Where is the me, the person in this very moment?

At this very moment, "I" is in the content of thinking, and only there. As soon as attention is turned elsewhere--other thoughts, other sensations--it disappears without a trace, as always.

How does the me, the person experienced?
Can the person be experienced, or the person or is it purely in imagination?

It is only experienced in imagination--in the story that thoughts are always telling.

How is it known that there is a me without referring to thoughts?

It isn't. Something is--and thoughts appear that claim that something (anything that is happening, basically, plus anything within thought) for a "me". Either "I" did it or felt it, or it happened to "me".

Is there anything that is not happening automatically?

Nothing whatsoever that I have found. Thoughts automatically appear about a "me" "doing" things that are just happening, just as they always did. But that's all they ever were before, too--just thoughts.

Is there anything that needs your doing?

If there is, then it's shit out of luck, because there's nothing I can do about anything, and no me to do it!

Hi Gabe,

I will continue to investigate these questions and update if I find anything to add or change, but I feel quite confident in my responses, because once I finally figured out how to LOOK, investigating usually feels pretty straightforward and answers are clear.

So, what have you discovered?

Is there any experience of separation?
Is there anything standing apart from experience, having the experience?

Vivien

So, what have you discovered?

Is there any experience of separation?
Is there anything standing apart from experience, having the experience?

The whole notion of there being an outside perspective on experience is impossible. "Awareness of experience" is fascinating, sure, but it doesn't imply anything outside of experience. When "awareness of experience" happens, it's just another experience for thought-labels to be placed over!

I'm not sure how well I'm expressing myself. "Awareness of awareness" creates the illusion of there being something separate, being "self-conscious"--but it's still just awareness. It doesn't need anything extra to be aware of itself.

The belief that it does rests entirely on there being a doer for every doing. Which rests on the belief that there is a separation between subject and object--between "me" and "not-me". Which is fine on the everyday human-level, but it's not an actual description of reality. Whether "I" look or not, reality is right there, completely unaffected by the huge mountains of thoughts and conventions layered over and over raw experience.

I think I said something about a clone, whose entire existence is dependent on (and is made up of) its progenitor. But the clone announces that it made the very thing that made it! It's deeply, absurdly funny, once you get the joke.

So, what have you discovered?

I thought of another way of saying it that I hope might make more sense.

In raw experience, there is only the thing that is experienced.

"I touch the table with my hand" is one of the best examples, for me. Looking into that direct experience, what's there is a fuzzy vibration.

Everything else--the "I" and the "hand" and the "table" and even calling that particular kind of fuzzy vibration "touch" is all thought. Each of those thought-concepts can be more or less directly related to the raw experience. "Touch" and "table" are the closest, because they describe aspects of the direct experience. "Hand" is next closest, but the "hand" isn't actually experienced in the "touch" at all--only in the seeing of the hand, or in the thinking/knowing that the hand is on the table, and that the nerve-endings in the hand are the input of the touch-sensation. "I" is the furthest from reality, because it is only based in thought.

But, in direct experience without adding any thought-overlay: there is just the presence of a fuzzy vibration. That's all that there is in reality. "Separation" and "me" and so on are all just conventions that are more or less useful in various human contexts.

Hi Gabe,

Thank you for your responses.

Can you say that there has been a shift from an intellectual understanding of there being no separate self other than an idea, to an experience recognition of it as a fact of reality?

Is there any doubt?

If there has been a shift, can you point to the moment when the shift happened?

How did the shift itself felt?

Is there anything that is not super clear and you would like to look at?

Vivien

Can you say that there has been a shift from an intellectual understanding of there being no separate self other than an idea, to an experience recognition of it as a fact of reality?

Yes, absolutely.

Is there any doubt?

About the self being found nowhere except in the content of thinking? No doubt whatsoever.

If there has been a shift, can you point to the moment when the shift happened?

I'm not sure that this was "The" shift, but the biggest shift I felt was when investigating "I touch the table with my hand." I had looked and, as usual, there was no experience of "I" in the sensation. But when it suddenly occurred to me that the "hand" that felt like such an integral part of the touch-experience wasn't actually there in direct experience, I really understood how pervasive thoughts/concepts/beliefs can be. How real and obvious they can seem in the absence of investigating.

The "feeling of reality" that thought-interpretations can create can be incredibly convincing, but being convincing doesn't make anything more real. Seeing that in stark relief with "hand" (something that does exist in reality, just not in the pure sensation of touching something else) really highlighted how empty the "I" thought is in reality.

How did the shift itself felt?

Like when you're at the optometrist getting your prescription adjusted, and things are a bit blurry, but you can still make them out, and then SUDDENLY a lens with the right prescription falls into place. Reading the lines is effortless with the right prescription, but no amount of squeezing your extraocular muscles will let you see it clearly until the right prescription lens is in place.

Is there anything that is not super clear and you would like to look at?

There are lots of questions to explore, but they are mostly intellectual questions about existing on the "human-level" with the knowledge of no-self. Conditioning falling away, motivation/passion/habit breaking and formation with the awareness that everything is happening automatically. That sort of thing.

As far as knowing how to look at reality, and seeing clearly that there is not and has never been and could never be an "I" in direct experience, outside of the content of thinking? I don't think so. When I do have questions, I know how to look to find the answer.