The Gate

Hi Donald! There are some guides still reading this topic. Meanwhile, could you try answering the 6 questions again, from your gut, using everyday common language, like if you were talking with a 10 years old? We would like to read your own words and feelings regarding seeing the illusion.
Take your time, no need to rush.
Take care,
S

The six questions are already answered explicitly, extensively, from the gut, in my own words, about as simply as currently possible.

Have the answers perhaps gotten lost with the quotes I followed them with? They are there.

The quotes were simply to demonstrate that all these sources are talking about the same thing. It's possible that the mass of them clouded the original answers.

Bit busy right now, so will try to get back to you in due course.

A question from other guide: is seeking still going on?

What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

Can you write an example or two of how this is seen?

A question from other guide: is seeking still going on?

Short answer: no.

The label "seeking" would no longer be appropriate to any of the processes arising and passing.

The conceptual dichotomy of "seeking" or "not seeking" can tend to reify confusions that need not exist in the absence of that conceptual construct.

There is an understanding of why and how the confusion regarding "seeking" or "cessation of the search" exists.

Its due in part to the mistaking of language and conceptual constructs as being true and objective, when they are more like crude and limited tools, alike to pastry cutters or stencils.

When I'm away from home and have to type on the phone instead of keyboard there is typically less inclination to get involved with expressing in relation to topics that I actually love.

Its like wanting to knit a jumper when you only have two pins instead of knitting needles.

I am also quite busy with duties helping out at a meditation centre right now. Lucky me!

If the time and inclination arises, I will be back with fuller answers.

The opportunity to answer the six questions again is appreciated, and I would like to engage under the best available circumstances.

This may mean that it won't be for at least a few days when there is a proper keyboard and time available.

Let's see what happens. :)

Conversation with friend last night.

Thank you for your posts Donald!

I'll try to explain what is going on with some of the guides at the moment.
Some of them wonder if you see what we are pointing to or if you have an intellectual understanding.
So, what we would like you to do is to describe how do you see a self is an illusion here and now, using your own words.

In other words, what do you see when you look? How would you describe what can be seen right now that lets you know a self is an illusion?

Thank you for your posts Donald!

I'll try to explain what is going on with some of the guides at the moment.
Some of them wonder if you see what we are pointing to or if you have an intellectual understanding.
So, what we would like you to do is to describe how do you see a self is an illusion here and now, using your own words.

In other words, what do you see when you look? How would you describe what can be seen right now that lets you know a self is an illusion?

Don't you agree from reading the thread yourself, that what is being asked for is already there?

It seems a little confusing from this perspective, considering that what is being asked for has already been delivered repeatedly.

IF it has not, then please explain what you are looking for as clearly as possible, with examples.

Admittedly "my" words could be lost in the sea of quotes, but it is there very clearly and plainly from this vantage.

The words, phrases, concepts and examples that have been used all seem satisfactory, some even relatively original considering the nature of words and concepts.

The realisation has been broken down into direct bytes of experience:

There is perception X
There is process A
etc...

Its been conceptually explained and elaborated on in several modalities.

Including being described from the understanding that there is no separate identity other than as an idea, conceptual construct, or appearance, within what is arising.

In defining our terms, in the way I've explained the use of the concepts of "real" and "true", identity is real as a phenomenon, it just has no truth or validity. Its an imputation, reification, or appearance.

Perhaps we are talking about different understandings of how things exist.

Perhaps we simply communicate using different styles or modalities.

From here, there is no need for validation or questions. It really is just a big cosmic joke, and the identity has been seen to be the punchline.

This realisation is very simple; there is nothing but what is in its totality and the "identity" (a word that suits the way things exist much better than "self") is not separate from the totality.

Some call it adveita, some call it non-duality, some call it Zen, some call it mahamudra, some dzogchen, some Vipassana, some arahantship, some kabbalah, some gnosis, some call it nothing, because its just what is.

Nothing sensible can really be said about it in words that can't be inverted if the inclination arises.

Identity is a conceptualised construct, and it has existence as exactly that; only when it is imagined to exist. Its not the doer, or the knower, but it is a " tool" or interface or aspect of the reality as a whole.

Identity does exist. Its just not a separate or intrinsic feature to what is arising. It may be there or not.

Identity is an interpretation within arising phenomenon; an interpretation that imputes an overlay within what is arising, that functions as a temporal and apparently separate interface that functions as a toolbox to communicate, interact, etc within the totality of arising.

The way that semantics corrupt the actuality of experience makes it tricky to communicate with any kind of accuracy on this subject.

What is is.

What else need be seen?

I will try to dig out the extra tasty chunky crayons, but in the meantime could you provide examples of what is supposedly missing please?

Thanks!

If what you are looking for is the fact that things are just things; processes are just processes; what is arising is just what is arising; then yes, this is seen.

What is is.

Isis.

It is however inaccurate to make any further statements on what is.

Soon as you say it is "not this", you have defined it and made is something other than what is.

" I" do not consider it accurate to say there "is no self", nor to say " there is self". Therefore, "I" don't say it.

"Self"(and the polarity not-self) is an invalid and leading and misleading conceptual construct. Best realised as such. No need to engage with it.

More likely, as you have witnessed, the statement would be made that there was no separate valid permanent or consistent identity in the totality of what is arising and passing.

I will try to dig out the extra tasty chunky crayons, but in the meantime could you provide examples of what is supposedly missing please?

You are very good expressing the conceptual view but LU is about the seeing of the illusion - and, the seeing happens when we notice what is going on here and now the way it is.

So, lets see, an example... If I want to explain, in terms of my immediate experience, why I know a self is an illusion, I may say something (weird) like this:

When I look, I can see the hands banging on a black keyboard. I can hear a voice at my left side. I can feel the heat in the body. When I move the head I sense the hair moving from side to side. I can see colors, shapes, lights and shadows that are translated by "the mind commentator" as being objects, persons, a bright sunny day outside. If I look for a self, I can see this body isn't such a thing. When a thought pops up, I can see there is no one thinking the thought. When an emotion is felt and a contraction is felt in the body, I can see there is no me behind it all. If I look for a self inside the body, it is obvious there is none. If I look for a self outside the body, it is obvious there is none. So, I can see that a self, an entity that is an I, isn't part of this allness that is always on.

Hope this helps!

It does, and that's roughly what I thought you might be looking for. Its back on page five.

You ask me for a cup of tea with two sugars.

I bring you a cup of tea with two sugars.

You then ask me again for a cup of tea with two sugars.

There is a cup of tea with two sugars right there.

Hence the slight confusion on this end.

No worries. I find the exercise very useful, and I should be back home with my beloved keyboard soon.

Thanks for the clarification! :)

what is it that knows it is no one

there being no personal permanent identity or self means that none of the identities that arise are true or you.

there are self-identified clusters of experience that arise and pass.

that is what is being experienced.

that is what is happening.

liberation is in seeing they are impermanent, impersonal, and incomplete.

there is no true personal identity.

identities are conditioned constructs.

archetypes.

memes.

parasite ideas.

clicked mouse
light in form of body and room and screen
what is arising is arising
there is nothing else to it