Seeking guidance through the gateless gate

[Xain]

I have not taken the time to thank you in each of my postings, Xain, but I want you to know how deeply I appreciate our continued dialogue.

You are very welcome, and I am genuinely pleased for you - Especially as the last few hurdles seemed a little frustrating for us both. You got there (and nobody did) :-)

Your initial question was 'Did I do anything in the past'

?
No. It is just a thought appearing.

What I was getting at was that ANY reference to the past is via thought.
Suggesting that there was an 'I' in the past that failed to do something . . . is only an idea.
Thought is quite 'all encompassing'. Grasping this will help you with further realisations.

It seems that thoughts give rise to emotions, feelings. Thus, yesterday’s thought “I did a good job” gave rise to a feeling of pride and satisfaction.

There are two ways of looking at this (which I'm sure you already grasp).
As purely a description of what appears to be happening, that's understandable.
If you are referring to thoughts literally creating emotions, that's something else.

Positive or negative feelings and emotions aren't something we directly address in this guidance. It is for further examination.
It is enough to grasp that there is no inherent self having feelings or emotions. That would include the belief that the body as a separate inherent entity is having them. I can give you some pointers after this guidance on how to look further into these things.

Also, the thought that (1) caused (2), which caused (3), …which caused (7). (I am dubious that causation really exists.)

Well again, we have the same consideration.
As purely a description of what appears to be happening, I grasp what you are saying.
But if you are suggesting it is literally the case that one causes the other, then that's something that can be investigated (and shown not to be so).

Determinism is a perfectly valid theory, just like the word 'I' is a perfectly valid reference for a person or self.
Investigating both of these shows that they both lack inherent truth.

The euphoria experienced Friday night is gone. No problem.

Recognise that any pleasant feeling is simply a by-product of a realisation. You may have many more moments of this occurring. It is caused (we can say) by a relaxation in the constant selfing process which itself is a cause of subtle tension and frustration.

After the insight gained Friday night, I no longer believe in a real “I,” seeing it as a false concept created from a conglomeration of thoughts. I see this insight as only the first step in what may be a long process.

Yes. Depending on your interest, there are MANY more things to examine.

I expect that I will continue for some time to habitually speak, act, and behave as if there were a real inherent “I.” That is, it will take some time for this insight to manifest. (Xain: I would appreciate your comment here.)

Again, you are right - And your understanding is admirable and clear.

Speaking as purely an appearance, we could say that there is a person here who has had many years of conditioning with the belief that 'I' pointed to a real entity. Such conditioning that was never questioned and was always automatically assumed to be correct. It would be unwise to expect this conditioning to disappear overnight.
The Buddhists refer to this as 'stream-entry' which is a nice analogy.
Sit in a stream and you'll be there sat in the stream. Nothing changes initially. But the water running past you over time slowly dissolves you away.

There are a further six questions I ask as part of this process. I'll ask them next once you have read and replied to this post.

Xain ♥

[alorac]

There are a further six questions I ask as part of this process. I'll ask them next once you have read and replied to this post.

Please proceed, Xain

[Xain]

Here are the first three of the six questions:

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form (other than in the content of thoughts of course)? Was there ever?

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience and understanding. Describe it fully as you see it now.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference (if anything) between now and before you started the guidance?

Xain ♥

[alorac]

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form (other than in the content of thoughts of course)? Was there ever?

No. No.

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience and understanding. Describe it fully as you see it now.

The separate self, which does not exist, is the recipient of experience. For example, if I hear a bird, the separate self is the ‘I’ that did the hearing. In fact, there is only the hearing; no separate entity heard it. (It would be fascinating to discuss the existence or non-existence of the bird, a topic not relevant to the current question.) The notion of a separate self probably starts in early childhood. This notion pervades our culture, and is reflected by, and perhaps caused by, our language, as in the sentence “I heard the bird.” (In my opinion, the word “I,” although the grammatical subject of the sentence, actually serves as an adverb describing the verb "heard," to distinguish it from “you heard” or “he heard” etc.)

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference (if anything) between now and before you started the guidance?

Before starting this guidance, I wanted to believe that there was no inherent self—no real “I.’ I wanted to believe it because all the nonduality books stated it, but I had this strong sense of a real “I,” which conflicted with this so-called belief. Now, I no longer believe in a real “I,” seeing it as a false concept created from a conglomeration of thoughts. When I stop and think about it, as in now, I still have a sense of a real “I,” but I know this sense is illusory, just as I can have a sense of water in a desert, but know that the water is illusory. (This analogy is imperfect because the water is a visually-based illusion, while the separate self is thought-based.)

Before this guidance, I felt conflicted between my sense of an inner self and the notion that no such inner self existed. During the course of this dialogue, the tension increased until it suddenly vanished when I had the realization that no inner self exists. I can still have a sense of an inner self, but I am optimistic that this sense will decrease and eventually vanish over time. I suspect that this realization is the first step of a fascinating ongoing process

[Xain]

The separate self, which does not exist, is the recipient of experience.

I'm not quite sure you meant the sentence like that.
Perhaps you could re-write it?

You are describing two things 1) The experience and 2) That which receives it.
Are there these two things (outside of thought)?
How can something (an inherent self) which does not exist receive anything?

I can still have a sense of an inner self

How do you mean?
Is there a clear boundary? (Inner and Outer?)

Xain ♥

[alorac]

I'm not quite sure you meant the sentence like that.
Perhaps you could re-write it?

I meant this as a definition of term “separate self,” as I would define “Santa Claus” to be “a bearded old man who delivers gifts by sleigh on Christmas Eve.” I should have said, “The illusion of the separate self is the illusion that there is a recipient of experience, separate from experience.

You are describing two things 1) The experience and 2) That which receives it. Are there these two things (outside of thought)? How can something (an inherent self) which does not exist receive anything?

There is only one thing: the experience. The separate self is illusory.

How do you mean?

When I am busy working on my computer, there is only the screen (and keyboard), no separate self. On the other hand, when you ask me about the separate self, there SEEMS to be one viewing the screen. That’s why I assert that the separate self is illusory, a product of thought.

Is there a clear boundary? (Inner and Outer?)

This is an amazingly powerful question, Xain, in that it forces me to look carefully. There is no clear boundary. When I look for a boundary, the illusion of the separate self vanishes. No separate self, not even an illusory one.

--Alorac

[Xain]

Excellent - Thank you for clearing those points up.

Here are the final three questions:

4) Was there something specific you looked into or something that was mentioned that made you fully realise? - Was there a specific moment where you 'tipped over' into realising 'no self'?

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control as you understand it now. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for? Please give examples from experience if you can, and explain what you have realised.

6) Do you have anything further you would like to add?

Xain ♥

[alorac]

4) Was there something specific you looked into or something that was mentioned that made you fully realise? - Was there a specific moment where you 'tipped over' into realising 'no self'?

Page 241 of "Liberation Unleashed" contains the question, "Is it [the sense of self] constantly here or does it come and go?" That question tipped me over. At that moment, I realized that when involved in my normal daily activities, I don't feel any sense of self, nor do I feel an absence of sense of self, but I only have this sense of self when I think about it. That realization led to the insight that the sense of self is only the result of thought. This entire dialogue placed the notion of a separate self on the precipice ready to fall when that question tipped it over.

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control as you understand it now. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for? Please give examples from experience if you can, and explain what you have realised.

These questions seem difficult to answer. Even before this dialogue, I was aware that “I” had no control over my thoughts.
A decision is only a thought; there is no decider. Intention is also only a thought; no entity really intends anything. Choice, like decision, is only a thought; there is no chooser. With regard to free will, whose will are we talking about? There is no “I” to will anything. There SEEM to be choice and free will. Life might be very dull without the belief in the reality of choice and free will. The same for control.

In summary: decision, intention, free will, choice, and control are all illusory, but for now I will pretend they are real. I have no idea what makes things happen, nor how things work. I doubt that anything makes things happen. (Xain, there is much confusion here. I would appreciate some words from you to help me see clearly.)

6) Do you have anything further you would like to add?

Yes. Four items:
(1) Can you lead me out of the confusion stated above? Perhaps things will become clearer in time.
(2) Earlier, you said,

It is enough to grasp that there is no inherent self having feelings or emotions. That would include the belief that the body as a separate inherent entity is having them. I can give you some pointers after this guidance on how to look further into these things.

Please give me the pointers.
(3) Thank you.
(4) I will make a contribution to Liberation Unleashed.

--Alorac

[Xain]

Life might be very dull without the belief in the reality of choice and free will.

Life for whom?
Dull for whom?

This seems a very strange thing for you to say from what you have realised.
Is choice and free-will a reality? Or an interesting idea?

With regard to free will, whose will are we talking about? There is no “I” to will anything.

No inherent self, yes.

In summary: decision, intention, free will, choice, and control are all illusory, but for now I will pretend they are real.

Who or what is pretending?

The idea that there is a person here who has choice and control is fine. But is it anything MORE than an idea?

Xain ♥

[alorac]

Is choice and free-will a reality? Or an interesting idea?

Choice and free-will are interesting ideas.

Who or what is pretending?

As I said earlier, it may take some time for my realization to manifest. In the meantime, I may make nonsensical statements, such as this one. Any pretending would just consist of thoughts, and these thoughts have no controller. So nobody is pretending.

The idea that there is a person here who has choice and control is fine. But is it anything MORE than an idea?

No. Just an idea.

--Alorac

[Xain]

Can the 'I' thought choose to do things? Can a thought decide?

Xain ♥

[alorac]

Can the 'I' thought choose to do things?

No, the 'I' thought cannot choose to do things.

Can a thought decide?

No. A decision is just another thought and a thought cannot think.

--Alorac

[Xain]

Hi once again Alorac

You seem confident you have 'seen', and the other guides here feel the same way.
This marks the end of this guidance.
Congratulations! You are through the gate (and no-one is) :-)

Of course, this could be only the very first realisation of many. There are many more things to be examined if you have the interest, and many more realisations to be had.
If you are on Facebook, there are groups for new arrivals, general chat and further looking. Send me your facebook name or page link as a private message, and I will get you added to them (click the red name 'Xain' and choose 'Send Private Message').

Of course, if anything crops up in the future, please feel free to message me on here or Facebook and I'll try and assist.

All the very best for the future
Xain ♥