The Gate

Hi Brett,

In daily life, often the I isn’t overt in the sense that it is in the foreground. It’s more like this: when awareness to question or look for the self is happening, it’s clear, but when that awareness or questioning or looking isn’t happening for some time, it’s as though it’s non-existence is forgotten and the self is subtly presumed to be there, and then at some point full-on selfing happens. It causes me to wonder, in order to complete the shift is it best to just make looking happening all the time?

It would be good if you could completely forget about a shift. Since it can easily become a goal to achieve, and the whole point of looking is lost with trying to achieve a goal or a state.

It’s not about achieving or getting to a shift, rather to see what is happening here now, in this moment.
The simplicity of what IS, and what has always been.

Is there a permanent state? A final feeling? The last insight?
Or this is ever fresh and spontaneous?
Is it ok to dive into a story or that should not be happening?

Is there any control either of 'sleeping' (believing in the illusion of self) or 'waking' (seeing that there is no self, and never was)?

Is there a 'self that creeps' back in? Or more of a temporary dream that that's what's happening?

Vivien

Good Morning, Vivien,

It would be good if you could completely forget about a shift. Since it can easily become a goal to achieve, and the whole point of looking is lost with trying to achieve a goal or a state.

Thank you for this reminder. A lot of relaxation occurs.

It’s not about achieving or getting to a shift, rather to see what is happening here now, in this moment.
The simplicity of what IS, and what has always been.

Relief.

Is there a permanent state? A final feeling? The last insight?

There is no permanent state or final feeling. Looking at experience, states, feelings, insights come, and then go. Continuously. And often for no discernible "reason".

Or this is ever fresh and spontaneous?

Yes, fresh and spontaneous.

Is it ok to dive into a story or that should not be happening?

Diving into story just seems to happen. This may be a hidden expectation you've identified. There's a belief that it shouldn't be happening if the self is experientially known to not exist. Is that true? At the beginning of our dialogue you said "Just because the self is seen through, it doesn’t mean that the illusion will be seen through 24/7. Not even close. Many people have the belief that seeing through the self means that the illusion will be seen as an illusion all the time, or at least most of the time. But this is not how it is."

Is there any control either of 'sleeping' (believing in the illusion of self) or 'waking' (seeing that there is no self, and never was)?

Wow, this is another hidden expectation or assumption. There is an illusion of control happening here - a belief. I can feel that intellectualizing wants to happen. I will just share a couple of the thoughts that this is built on: If there is no control of this, then what are you and I doing? How does a not self engage in a process to see what's true, without believing it has a degree of control over whether sleeping or waking happens.
Aghh! Feeling confused.

Is there a 'self that creeps' back in? Or more of a temporary dream that that's what's happening?

Looking at this, it's a dream that that's what's happening, the "self that creeps back in" is a story, an interpretation of what's being experienced. Also noticing: there are subtle sensations and beliefs present.... of fear that it's not temporary. Or that it won't be temporary. It must be remembered. It's not being remembered at all times, so...there is a fear of loss of the recognition. A shift did happen in our process, and the experience that arose with it didn't remain, and there's this desire to "get it back", fear of losing it, forever...

Wow.

Brett

Hi Brett,

This may be a hidden expectation you've identified. There's a belief that it shouldn't be happening if the self is experientially known to not exist.

HOW do you know that that diving into the story shouldn’t happen?

And more importantly, WHO has the problem with diving into the story?
Does the character of Brett has a problem of diving into the story?

Is there a Brett outside of the story?
Who sometimes stays outside observing it but other times dives into the story?

I will just share a couple of the thoughts that this is built on: If there is no control of this, then what are you and I doing? How does a not self engage in a process to see what's true, without believing it has a degree of control over whether sleeping or waking happens.

Is not-self an entity that could engage in the process?
And this not-self is sometimes believing and other times not believe in the control over ‘waking and sleeping’?

Also noticing: there are subtle sensations and beliefs present.... of fear that it's not temporary. Or that it won't be temporary. It must be remembered. It's not being remembered at all times, so...there is a fear of loss of the recognition. A shift did happen in our process, and the experience that arose with it didn't remain, and there's this desire to "get it back", fear of losing it, forever...

But WHO is afraid? Is the Brett character afraid of losing it?

And WHO has to remember? The character?

WHO/what is behind the wheel controlling the on and off switch of remembering and not remembering?

Vivien

Hello Vivien,

HOW do you know that that diving into the story shouldn’t happen?

I certainly don’t know that it shouldn’t happen. It's just a story - a set of thoughts.

And more importantly, WHO has the problem with diving into the story?

The Who can’t be found. Looking for the who, all that is found is sensations and thoughts.

Does the character of Brett have a problem of diving into the story?

You could say that is the story. But that character isn’t here, can’t be found. Just thoughts and sensations (emotions).
The noticing of that either happens, or doesn’t, until it does again.

Is there a Brett outside of the story?

No

Who sometimes stays outside observing it but other times dives into the story?

This is difficult to ascertain. There’s no Who that can be found. But what’s the distinction between recognizing that it’s a story happening (a bunch of thoughts and sensations) or not, in any given moment? There’s no recognizer to be found, but there does seem to be a difference between when things (arisings) are seen clearly and when they’re taken as true, real, a story, etc.

I will just share a couple of the thoughts that this is built on: If there is no control of this, then what are you and I doing? How does a not self engage in a process to see what's true, without believing it has a degree of control over whether sleeping or waking happens.
V: Is not-self an entity that could engage in the process?

No, it’s not an entity. There’s no physical entity that can be found.

And this not-self is sometimes believing and other times not believe in the control over ‘waking and sleeping’?

No; it appears that thoughts and sensations are being perceived as real and true, as though there’s a me in control. But looking, there’s no such me. It’s more thoughts.

Also noticing: there are subtle sensations and beliefs present.... of fear that it's not temporary. Or that it won't be temporary. It must be remembered. It's not being remembered at all times, so...there is a fear of loss of the recognition. A shift did happen in our process, and the experience that arose with it didn't remain, and there's this desire to "get it back", fear of losing it, forever...
V: But WHO is afraid? Is the Brett character afraid of losing it?

Again with looking it’s clear that there is no Who, no Brett, that’s afraid. There are just sensations and thoughts and some images that are being called “me”, “afraid”. It’s another story.

And WHO has to remember? The character?

This is a set of thoughts and sensations, happening together into a story. It’s all a big story.

WHO/what is behind the wheel controlling the on and off switch of remembering and not remembering?

I have no idea how remembering and not remembering happen, but it’s not a who or a what behind it. Remembering, or not, just seems to happen. There’s a lack of control over this, even though the story says differently. There are thoughts and sensations that could be labeled an attempt to control, an attempt to keep remembering, a desire to keep remembering.

The questions posed lead to looking. Looking finds nothing but thoughts and sensations and images and sounds. And sometimes smells. It’s seen that these have been taken as a “me”, with some associated story based on those thoughts and feelings.
Without looking, remembering, or recognition, may or may not be happening in any given moment.

Brett

Hi Brett,

But what’s the distinction between recognizing that it’s a story happening (a bunch of thoughts and sensations) or not, in any given moment?

And who has the problem with the story? The character Brett in the story has the problem with the story?

And who is making that distinction? Brett?

Is there any actual distinction between the two? Or just in one moment the story is ABOUT believing in the story, and in the next moment the story changes to seeing the thoughts and sensations for what they are?

Notice that thoughts come one at a time, one after another. They tell a story. And then there is a story about believing thoughts or believer of thoughts.
Isn’t believing just another story?

There’s a lack of control over this, even though the story says differently. There are thoughts and sensations that could be labeled an attempt to control, an attempt to keep remembering, a desire to keep remembering.

But isn’t remember, controlling, labelled just the part of the story? Just a different story told?

What is here underneath all thoughts?

The questions posed lead to looking. Looking finds nothing but thoughts and sensations and images and sounds. And sometimes smells. It’s seen that these have been taken as a “me”, with some associated story based on those thoughts and feelings.
Without looking, remembering, or recognition, may or may not be happening in any given moment.

So where do these glimpses leave the 'self'?

What does the ‘separate self’ made of?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,
I'm traveling tomorrow through Sunday. There's a lot to contemplate here and I don't want to rush a reply. Would it be okay if I respond early next week?
Brett

Yes, of course.

Just be thorough :)

Have a nice travel,
Vivien

Hello Vivien,

I'm back!

But what’s the distinction between recognizing that it’s a story happening (a bunch of thoughts and sensations) or not, in any given moment? And who has the problem with the story? The character Brett in the story has the problem with the story?

I don’t have an answer to this one. I can’t find a Who, and it’s all story. The “problem” is just in believing that there’ll never be an experience of lost in thought, of believing the story. That’s an expectation which is false. It’s going to happen.

And who is making that distinction? Brett?

Gosh this just seems like layers to a story, circling back on themselves.

Is there any actual distinction between the two? Or just in one moment the story is ABOUT believing in the story, and in the next moment the story changes to seeing the thoughts and sensations for what they are?

Exactly, this is what I mean above about layers. It's all just a form of believing a story.

Notice that thoughts come one at a time, one after another. They tell a story. And then there is a story about believing thoughts or believer of thoughts.
Isn’t believing just another story?

Yes, it’s believing another story. It’s forgetting what’s true, and believing the story.

There’s a lack of control over this, even though the story says differently. There are thoughts and sensations that could be labeled an attempt to control, an attempt to keep remembering, a desire to keep remembering.
But isn’t remember, controlling, labelled just the part of the story? Just a different story told?

Darnit, YES! It's just another layer of the story, another "chapter".

What is here underneath all thoughts?

Sensations, emotions – these preced the stories and story-making.

The questions posed lead to looking. Looking finds nothing but thoughts and sensations and images and sounds. And sometimes smells. It’s seen that these have been taken as a “me”, with some associated story based on those thoughts and feelings. Without looking, remembering, or recognition, may or may not be happening in any given moment.
V: So where do these glimpses leave the 'self'?

There’s no self, just that devious “sense” of self, which comes and goes from time to time. But there’s never any self in actuality.

What does the ‘separate self’ made of?

It’s made of selfing, of story-believing, in other words the misperception of sensations, thoughts, images, sounds.

Brett

Hi Brett,

I can’t find a Who, and it’s all story. The “problem” is just in believing that there’ll never be an experience of lost in thought, of believing the story. That’s an expectation which is false. It’s going to happen.

So if there is an expectation to see this for 24/7, can you check, is there any other time than now?

There is nowhere else to look and see but here now.

Can you fall out from now?
What is happening, when thoughts talk about future, does that mean that now is lost?
Is being aware lost, when thoughts talk about what is not happening here and now?

Vivien

Hello Vivien,

So if there is an expectation to see this for 24/7, can you check, is there any other time than now?

Ok, yes, there is only now, no other time.

There is nowhere else to look and see but here now.
Can you fall out from now?

No. This is clear. There’s only ever now.

What is happening, when thoughts talk about future, does that mean that now is lost?

No, it only means that thoughts are referencing other thoughts. However, it all is happening now.

Is being aware lost, when thoughts talk about what is not happening here and now?

No, its not lost. It seems that it's just moved into thoughts/thinking vs being more still.

Thanks Vivien,
Brett

Hi Brett,

It seems that it's just moved into thoughts/thinking vs being more still.

What is it that is moving between two states, the state of thinking and the state of being? The character Brett? Or something else?

Look, is the me-character the creator or the created? What is that creates?
Is the character in the story creating what happens in the story or the story about the character creates itself, one thought at a time?
Is the me character thinking?
Or are thoughts coming up by themselves?
What do you do in order to think?
Is there a thinker?
Can a thought think?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

What is it that is moving between two states, the state of thinking and the state of being? The character Brett? Or something else?

No, it’s not Brett. I can’t find any thing that’s moving between two states.

Look, is the me-character the creator or the created? What is that creates?

The me character is the created, for sure. What creates it? The flow of life. There’s no creator that I can find.

Is the character in the story creating what happens in the story or the story about the character creates itself, one thought at a time?

It’s the latter – the story creates itself.

Is the me character thinking?

No, it’s a thought. Thinking is just happening.

Or are thoughts coming up by themselves?

Yes. Thoughts are coming up by themselves.

What do you do in order to think?

Nothing – thinking is happening. There’s no doing involved with it. Autopilot.

Is there a thinker?

Definitely not.

Can a thought think?

Fascinating question! No!

:-)
Brett

Hi Brett,

You did a nice looking. Let’s dance around this topic a bit more to make sure that everything is super clear experientially. There might be some repetition, but that’s the aim. To see the same thing again and again.

So, habitual thought will still occur, and it's fine.
If it's clearly seen that there's no one for the story to appear to, then is the story problematic?

And to whom does that "story" belong?
Is there a creator of story, separate from the story itself?

Do you notice that the ideas that appear as thoughts are not the same as direct sense experience? That they are something extra that is added on to the immediate experience?

Vivien

Hello Vivien,

If it's clearly seen that there's no one for the story to appear to, then is the story problematic?

Not intrinsically, no. The story can’t be a problem if there’s no one for it to be a problem to.

And to whom does that "story" belong?

It doesn’t belong to anyone. It is just happening.

Is there a creator of story, separate from the story itself?

No, there’s no creator, just stories happening.

Do you notice that the ideas that appear as thoughts are not the same as direct sense experience? That they are something extra that is added on to the immediate experience?

I’m not 100% certain what you’re asking here…Ideas are thoughts, but they are not a sense experience. There is immediate sense experience + thoughts.

Also Vivien, I am traveling again tomorrow and Saturday. I can reply to your next post on Sunday or Monday.

Best,
Brett

Hi Brett,

V: Do you notice that the ideas that appear as thoughts are not the same as direct sense experience? That they are something extra that is added on to the immediate experience?

B: I’m not 100% certain what you’re asking here…Ideas are thoughts, but they are not a sense experience. There is immediate sense experience + thoughts.

Yes, this is what I was trying to point at. So thoughts are almost constantly narrating experience. But the narration is not equal to the raw experience itself, it's added. It's just a conceptual overlay.

And can you see that the me-thought is not different for any other ideas/concepts? That the me-thought is also just an added extra (by thoughts) overlaying (on top of) the immediate experience?
That the ‘me’ is just a thought narration? Nothing more?
Is there any doubt that it might be otherwise?

Vivien