The Gate

How does this imaginary world come into being?

It is coming into being again and again in every moment, as another story is coming into being. It is the reflection of the current story, and is seen through the story's eyes.

How exactly does the I story emerge and develop?

I'm not sure that I understand the question. I guess it first emerges in early age, with the beginning of the learning of language. A baby first learn the words - me, mine, you, yours, this, it. As to how it develops in day-to-day, It is just one layer, which tries to protect the one layer (story) beneath it, which tries to protect the story beneath it and so on forever. I don't know what makes it to appear at first time - in the end, it is just a thought.

What happens to the I story once it has been seen to be a story?

Nothing happens to the story. The story is still there, but is seen 2b as a story, a game, not a reality.

In what way is there a separation between objects and subjects in this imaginary world?

It is an "experience" seperation. A subject experiences an object. There are 3 parts to that equation - the subject who is me, the experience and the object that I experiences. Looking deeply, we see that the subject (I) is the action (experience) is the object. Non exist in a seperately - all is one, manifests itself in different forms.

But joking aside, I want the confirmation to come from you. I want you to be one hundred percent clear that the illusion of separation has been seen through. From your last answers it would certainly seem so.

I'm sure that it has been seen through. It is gentle, I may not know everything now, It is not yet stable enough. But, there is no turning back from here, It can never be unseen again.

Well, you're certainly giving all the right answers, Ido. Thanks for taking the time!!!

Still, I'd like to keep going for a bit to see what comes up, allright?

I'm sure that it has been seen through. It is gentle, I may not know everything now, It is not yet stable enough.

This grabs my attention. "Not yet stable enough". What is not yet stable enough and how would it become more stable?

When you've taken a look at that, I'd like to propose something different.

Let's change roles here.

I'll be an interested seeker.
You be the guide.
Ok?

I'll write in a different colour to identify the seeker's voice.

This grabs my attention. "Not yet stable enough". What is not yet stable enough and how would it become more stable?

Oops, that grabs my attention too ! :-)
Totally forget about it, it is what it is. "It has 2b more stable" is just a few more stories wrapped up in a 6 word sentence.

Let's change roles here.

I'll be an interested seeker.
You be the guide.
Ok?

I love it!

So Ido, what's the big deal here? What's all the fuss about? What's there to see?

No big deal at all at all, Damon.
"What's there 2c?" is a good question - well, what do u c, NOW?

Oops, that grabs my attention too ! :-)
Totally forget about it, it is what it is. "It has 2b more stable" is just a few more stories wrapped up in a 6 word sentence.

Can you be more specific? Of course it's a story, but that's an easy answer.

We're trying to see if a perceptual shift has occured and you say it has, yet it is not yet stable. So I'm interested to learn what you mean by this...

"What's there 2c?" is a good question - well, what do u c, NOW?

What do I see now? Uh, I see my computer screen, the keyboard, my fingers typing on the keyboard. I see the clouds outside my house. I hear my son playing in the room next door. I have a bit of a headache because I didn't have my coffee yet. Nothing special, just the normal stuff. What's that got to do with anything? I thought you were gonna show me how to become liberated. I don't think this is working, Ido.

We're trying to see if a perceptual shift has occured and you say it has, yet it is not yet stable. So I'm interested to learn what you mean by this...

I meant to say that most of the time, the knowing that "it is just a story" is hidden by the thoughts that takes me away. Only at certain times, while there is a "looking" into this, the story is seen.
Well, that was what I was thinking while writing this at first place.
It is all just another story, saying that "I" have to experience this knowing all the time. That there is a certain "it" (liberation) that has tobe experienced in a certain way in order to become valid and so on..

What's that got to do with anything? I thought you were gonna show me how to become liberated. I don't think this is working, Ido.

What is it that doesn't work? What do u think should happen in order for you to become liberated? Liberated from what?

What do I see now? Uh, I see my computer screen, the keyboard, my fingers typing on the keyboard. I see the clouds outside my house. I hear my son playing in the room next door. I have a bit of a headache because I didn't have my coffee yet. Nothing special, just the normal stuff.

"my.. my... my..." - can you look at the present moment and tell me who is it, that own things? Can you find this guy in the present moment and tell me what u c?

Sorry for the delay, was busy during the weekend.

I meant to say that most of the time, the knowing that "it is just a story" is hidden by the thoughts that takes me away. Only at certain times, while there is a "looking" into this, the story is seen.

The looking has to be so direct, so honest that it is deeply and fully seen that there is no self.

I'd like you to go back to looking at thoughts and thought itself. What exactly is thought in the first place? Where do thoughts come from? What do they do? And departing from that- what is a story, a belief exactly? What is distraction? What is ignorance? What is knowledge?

Back to our roleplaying session...

What is it that doesn't work? What do u think should happen in order for you to become liberated? Liberated from what?

Well, the claim here is that the self is not real, right? That it's just an illusion. That I can become liberated from the self. That's what I want because I'm suffering, Ido. I'm suffering all the time.It takes up some much energy to live as a self in this world.

"my.. my... my..." - can you look at the present moment and tell me who is it, that own things?

Who it is that owns things? Well, me, obviously. This body-mind complex that my parents told me was "me". This organism.

Can you find this guy in the present moment and tell me what u c?

Yes, this guy right here. This individual, this organism sitting right here. This body and mind, the totality of this body and mind and emotions and memory. That has a sort of structural integrity, a coherence, an individuality. That is me. Not you, but me. Simple, obvious.

What exactly is thought in the first place? Where do thoughts come from? What do they do?

A thought is a mix of words that are ordered in a "logic" way. (Man, this is the best answer I could come up with for the first question :-)). They come from void and go back back to void, this is seen as there is a void between each two, and I can't see beyond that void. As for themselves, they do not do anything. Sometimes, after a thought passes, there is a reaction. The thought itself doesn't do it.

And departing from that- what is a story, a belief exactly? What is distraction? What is ignorance? What is knowledge?

A story, a belief, is just a thought that was labeled "right". That's it. In order to be distracted, we first have 2b "attentive". Attention begins when there is a thought - "I'm not here enough", than there is an experience of attention to the present moment. A distraction begins when a new thought arises, any thought, and the attention is gone.
ignorance and knokwedge - it is the "right" and "wrong" labels again.

Well, the claim here is that the self is not real, right? That it's just an illusion. That I can become liberated from the self. That's what I want because I'm suffering, Ido. I'm suffering all the time.It takes up some much energy to live as a self in this world.

It does takes lots of energy to live as self in this world. But in order to become liberated from it, you will have to forget all the stories for a while, and just look at your present experience. "I can become liberated from the self" - in the present moment, Which "I" want to become liberated from what "self"? Are there really two of them? Or maybe just one? Or maybe, no one at all here? Look, now.

Who it is that owns things? Well, me, obviously. This body-mind complex that my parents told me was "me". This organism.

Again Damon, let's forget the stories and just look, now. This body-mind complex, let's assume that it exists as a complex (we will further look into it later), is it really "you"? I mean, we can definately c this body-mind happening now, but can u also c "you"? Or maybe this "you" is just a story, a thougt in your mind? Isn't it just a thought that "your parents" told u? Is it possible to point at it, now? Is there a "someone" in there?

Yes, this guy right here. This individual, this organism sitting right here. This body and mind, the totality of this body and mind and emotions and memory. That has a sort of structural integrity, a coherence, an individuality. That is me. Not you, but me. Simple, obvious.

Again Damon, this structure (assumind only for now that it is a differentiated structure), can u NOW find a "me" behind it? Or is it just an idea?

It does takes lots of energy to live as self in this world. But in order to become liberated from it, you will have to forget all the stories for a while, and just look at your present experience. "I can become liberated from the self" - in the present moment, Which "I" want to become liberated from what "self"? Are there really two of them? Or maybe just one? Or maybe, no one at all here? Look, now.

Well, the I that wants to be free is clearly distinct from the self that is wants to be free of, absolutely. The small self I want to get rid of is the fearful, violent, frightened story-of-me, the one that needs to be defended all the time. The self that would get free is the pure subject. The open, empty spacious self. The transcendental self.

Again Damon, let's forget the stories and just look, now. This body-mind complex, let's assume that it exists as a complex (we will further look into it later), is it really "you"? I mean, we can definately c this body-mind happening now, but can u also c "you"? Or maybe this "you" is just a story, a thougt in your mind? Isn't it just a thought that "your parents" told u? Is it possible to point at it, now? Is there a "someone" in there?

No, of course I can't see "me", because that me is doing the looking itself. Just as the eye cannot see itself directly, I cannot see my I directly. It is transcendental. It is what enables experience. But just because I can't point to it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Again Damon, this structure (assumind only for now that it is a differentiated structure), can u NOW find a "me" behind it? Or is it just an idea?

No, it's not just an idea- it's what makes all of this possible at all. How could any of this be happening if I didn't exist?

Well, the I that wants to be free is clearly distinct from the self that is wants to be free of, absolutely. The small self I want to get rid of is the fearful, violent, frightened story-of-me, the one that needs to be defended all the time. The self that would get free is the pure subject. The open, empty spacious self. The transcendental self.

"... is clearly distinct..." - Can you describe this distinction? what is its nature? what kind of distinction is it?

No, of course I can't see "me", because that me is doing the looking itself. Just as the eye cannot see itself directly, I cannot see my I directly. It is transcendental. It is what enables experience. But just because I can't point to it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Let's have a look ONLY at the present moment, and try to forget everything that we think we know or learned about anything. Doing so, what would be a more precised way to describe it - "me is doing all the looking itself" (as you said) OR "There is a looking"?
Isn't this me just a story that you've added to the looking that can be seen happening in the present moment?

No, it's not just an idea- it's what makes all of this possible at all. How could any of this be happening if I didn't exist?

Just as before - let's describe the present moment once again and see what is a more precise way of doing so - "I exist therefor anything happens" (which is what you've just said) OR "There is an existence"?
Can u c that once again this "I" was added as an assumption?

"... is clearly distinct..." - Can you describe this distinction? what is its nature? what kind of distinction is it?

Well, the transcendental subject, the pure self, the big Self is open, spacious, luminous and radiant. It is the space in which everything is happening and appearing. The small self is a story appearing in that space. That's a clear distinction, isn't it?

Let's have a look ONLY at the present moment, and try to forget everything that we think we know or learned about anything. Doing so, what would be a more precised way to describe it - "me is doing all the looking itself" (as you said) OR "There is a looking"?
Isn't this me just a story that you've added to the looking that can be seen happening in the present moment?

Well, the most precise way to describe it would be "there is a looking", that's true. Yet, someone has to be doing the looking, right? I mean, how does it even make sense to say "there is a looking" when there is nobody doing the looking? How is that even possible?

Just as before - let's describe the present moment once again and see what is a more precise way of doing so - "I exist therefor anything happens" (which is what you've just said) OR "There is an existence"?
Can u c that once again this "I" was added as an assumption?

Same as with the looking really. Someone or something has to exist, doesn't it?

Well, the transcendental subject, the pure self, the big Self is open, spacious, luminous and radiant. It is the space in which everything is happening and appearing. The small self is a story appearing in that space. That's a clear distinction, isn't it?

Yes, It is a clear distinction to the eyes of the seperation assumption. There are also sounds, light, feels, smells and tastes. In the eyes of this assumption, they are all differentiated, distinct.
So, let's have a look into this distinction. Can you point at where this distinction begins and where does it end? Can you find the boarders of seperation between 'different' things?

Well, the most precise way to describe it would be "there is a looking", that's true. Yet, someone has to be doing the looking, right? I mean, how does it even make sense to say "there is a looking" when there is nobody doing the looking? How is that even possible?

Same as with the looking really. Someone or something has to exist, doesn't it?

It doesn't make sense Damon. Our logical way of thought is a very sophisticated one. It has many rules, many things could make sense or not.
Yet, what we are trying to do here is to look at the present moment and see beyond those set of thoughts.
So, this having said, can you find the one who is looking? Can he be pointed at? In the present moment, is there anyone out there at all, that can be seen?

Yes, It is a clear distinction to the eyes of the seperation assumption. There are also sounds, light, feels, smells and tastes. In the eyes of this assumption, they are all differentiated, distinct.
So, let's have a look into this distinction. Can you point at where this distinction begins and where does it end? Can you find the boarders of seperation between 'different' things?

Can I find the borders of separation between different things? Yes, the computer screen in front of me is distinct from the table, which is distinct from the space between the table and the screen. I am distinct from both the screen and the table. Both of them appear to me, in me. Isn't that completely obvious? My colleague is sitting behind his desk next to me, typing on his keyboard as well, he seems to be quite busy and absorbed by his work. I am distinct from him. The thoughts he thinks, I don't think. The feelings he feels, I don't feel. There is me here and him over there. Hell, there is me here and you over there. You are asking questions, I am asking them. What could be more obvious than that?

It doesn't make sense Damon. Our logical way of thought is a very sophisticated one. It has many rules, many things could make sense or not.
Yet, what we are trying to do here is to look at the present moment and see beyond those set of thoughts.
So, this having said, can you find the one who is looking? Can he be pointed at? In the present moment, is there anyone out there at all, that can be seen?

Like I said, the self can't be seen, because the self is the one doing the seeing. That's common sense. Why deny that simple and obvious fact? Just because I can't point to it or see it, does that necessarily mean it doesn't exist? What kind of simple, stupid thinking is that? Just because we can't see or point to electricity doesn't mean it doesn't exist, right? Same with the self.

...I am distinct from both the screen and the table. Both of them appear to me, in me. Isn't that completely obvious? My colleague is sitting behind his desk next to me, typing on his keyboard as well, he seems to be quite busy and absorbed by his work. I am distinct from him.

All is in you, and your colleague is distinct from you? What does it mean?
His thoughts are not your thoughts, so how can he be a part of the whole mighty YOU? Or, not a part of you because you are distinct? What is going on?

Like I said, the self can't be seen, because the self is the one doing the seeing. That's common sense.

What is a common sense actually?
The self, who is doing the seeing. What does he do exactly? How does he do that? And where is the seperation between the seer (self) and the seeing? How does it work, this seperation? What brings it to life?

All is in you, and your colleague is distinct from you? What does it mean?
His thoughts are not your thoughts, so how can he be a part of the whole mighty YOU? Or, not a part of you because you are distinct? What is going on?

Oh, yes I see what you mean In the absolute sense, everything is ME. In the relative sense, there are distinct things, such as me and you and this computer and my colleague. So I am everything. I am the totality.

What is a common sense actually?
The self, who is doing the seeing. What does he do exactly? How does he do that? And where is the seperation between the seer (self) and the seeing? How does it work, this seperation? What brings it to life?

Common sense? Just seeing what is obviously the case.
The self is doing the seeing as a watcher, like a camera, it sees everything happening.
The separation is visible in the space in and as which all things are seen. Like a container, the space, the emptiness, the void in which everything happens. That is what I am. That is me. Things need space to exist. I am that space.