The Gate

Hi V,

Here's your thread.

I take it you’re ok with the ‘ground rules’ this direct pointing.

Could you give me a bit of description of where you are with the 'process' and also outline what your expectations and feelings are regarding awakening/liberation/stream entry/seeing through the self-view. What do you hope to get from what we're going to be doing here?

T.

Hi T thanks for taking me on.

I take it you’re ok with the ‘ground rules’ this direct pointing.

Yes I'm happy to follow them.

Could you give me a bit of description of where you are with the 'process' and also outline what your expectations and feelings are regarding awakening/liberation/stream entry/seeing through the self-view. What do you hope to get from what we're going to be doing here?

My general background you already know. Over the last 3 or 4 years my practice has included constant elements of staying with direct experience & confirming directly the 3 lakshanas, a lot of Daniel Ingram's influence, but i also practice saddhana & the mula yogas.

On the one hand I am sure there is nothing I can find in my experience that can be called a self. Awareness never finds a self. On the other hand certain feelings that arise would seem to indicate that the belief of self is well & alive, lurking beneath the surface as it were. For example (this is just an example) currently, somehow triggered off by the trip to India, an astonishing degree lack of confidence has surfaced - whatever this belief in self is - in part at least, it believes itself to be rather despicable. As you will have seen in the previous thread fear/anxiety is another strong emotion that seems tied in with sense of self. Unawareness seems to be the refuge of self.

These sort things are just streams of conditioning (probably "mummy didn't love me" & that kind of stuff). Whatever happens here I'm not expecting them to magically disappear, but I believe that if they become disentangled from a false sense of self they will loose their power to cause so much trouble & suffering. Whatever liberation is, I understand that that it is irreversible.

One fear I have about the process here on LU is that the belief in self is "too clever", is too adept in hiding itself and that you won't be able to lay it bare. So i suppose my hope must be that you will be able to trigger off a deeper seeing through self that hasn't arisen without this help.

Is that enough to get you started?

with all best wishes V

Hi V,

That’s plenty to get us started!

On the one hand I am sure there is nothing I can find in my experience that can be called a self. Awareness never finds a self. On the other hand certain feelings that arise would seem to indicate that the belief of self is well & alive, lurking beneath the surface as it were. For example (this is just an example) currently, somehow triggered off by the trip to India, an astonishing degree lack of confidence has surfaced - whatever this belief in self is - in part at least, it believes itself to be rather despicable. As you will have seen in the previous thread fear/anxiety is another strong emotion that seems tied in with sense of self. Unawareness seems to be the refuge of self.

“Awareness never finds a self” … “certain feelings … seem to indicate that the belief in self is well & alive”.

So what this suggests is that in direct experience, a self isn’t found, but in mental activities a belief in a ‘self’ remains.

What is the solid basis for this belief?

Lack of confidence arises (in dependence on certain conditions). Is this something ‘you’ would deliberately do ‘to yourself’ if ‘you’ had any choice in the matter?

“fear/anxiety is another strong emotion that seems tied in with sense of self”. Yes, true, fear and anxiety are often linked in with the sense of self. So it’s clear that there’s a sense of self still there. But does a sense of self amount to the existence of a self? Is there a self ‘deciding’ to ‘have’ these emotions? Or are they simply arising ‘automatically’ in dependence on various self-less conditions?

Look at the way these emotions arise. Is there any sense of volition around them (in the sense of a decision to ‘have’ them)?

Look at them in direct experience – assuming they are actually there of course – and describe as clearly as possible what the direct experience is – what are the sensations and the mental activities that constitute them? How do they arise? How do they perpetuate themselves or continue?

These sort things are just streams of conditioning (probably "mummy didn't love me" & that kind of stuff). Whatever happens here I'm not expecting them to magically disappear, but I believe that if they become disentangled from a false sense of self they will loose their power to cause so much trouble & suffering. Whatever liberation is, I understand that that it is irreversible.

In terms of expectations, that seems pretty reasonable to me, particularly “Whatever happens here I'm not expecting them to magically disappear, but I believe that if they become disentangled from a false sense of self they will loose their power to cause so much trouble & suffering”.

‘Liberation’ primarily means liberation from the view or belief in a solid substantial entity – in fact in any solid, substantial entity in any sense at all, but particularly one to which terms such as ‘me’, ‘I’ and ‘myself’ etc refer. It’s irreversible in exactly the sense of the Santa Claus analogy – once seen not to exist, even though ‘Santa’ may occasionally appear to appear in the shopping mall and briefly be bought into again, he’s fundamentally seen through as a story.

This is important. In my experience, the main sticking point for people is the belief that things ‘ought’ to be a certain way ‘after the gate’. Particularly the belief that buying into apparent ‘selfing’ behaviour shouldn’t be happening any more. It does happen, but it’s usually over relatively rapidly and not felt to be a big deal, or even a ‘deal’ at all.

One fear I have about the process here on LU is that the belief in self is "too clever", is too adept in hiding itself and that you won't be able to lay it bare. So i suppose my hope must be that you will be able to trigger off a deeper seeing through self that hasn't arisen without this help.

The belief in self is simply an erroneous belief. It can be seen through quite readily once the simplicity of what is being pointed to is appreciated in direct experience. This maybe makes it sound like it’s a mainly conceptual thing, but of course it isn’t. If it was just a conceptual thing, it would be fully seen-through just by thinking about it, and as you well know, this is not the case. It is a question of looking in the right direction, though. So this direct pointing is about ‘pointing’ in the right direction – if you look in that direction, then you’ll see. I’m speaking metaphorically, of course!

So one bit of pointing regarding what you wrote there: “One fear I have about the process here on LU is that the belief in self is "too clever", is too adept in hiding itself and that you won't be able to lay it bare.” The self-view is not clever, it’s utterly dumb – very much a one trick pony. Well, to change the metaphor, it’s like a computer virus that does one thing – changes all the 0’s to 1’s or something. That obviously creates chaos BUT if the ‘simple mistake’ is clearly seen, the ‘damage’ starts clearing up spontaneously. (I know, that doesn’t happen with real computers!)

What you do have to be aware of is that apparent ‘selfing’ will still be happening, as mentioned above, even when the self-view is seen through. The fact that ‘selfing’ happens is not ‘evidence’ that the self-view has not been seen through – it’s just ‘evidence’ that all the ‘habit energies’ that constitute selfing have not yet run out of steam. Seeing through the self-view is like cutting the tap root – the ‘plant’ may appear to flourish still, but its days are numbered.

Anyway, that’s some more theoretical stuff, but please go back to the questions at the beginning of this post and give them as full attention and focus as you can. Focus is what does it.

T.

Anyway, that’s some more theoretical stuff, but please go back to the questions at the beginning of this post and give them as full attention and focus as you can. Focus is what does it.

All that theory sounds fine. No problems there.

“Awareness never finds a self” … “certain feelings … seem to indicate that the belief in self is well & alive”.
So what this suggests is that in direct experience, a self isn’t found, but in mental activities a belief in a ‘self’ remains.
What is the solid basis for this belief?

Well, a little bit of analysis shows its not very solid. When such feelings arise, if there is enough awareness, simply saying "this is not 'mine' it is not 'me' " is often enough to loosen them up. It is just a very strong habitual way of being.

Lack of confidence arises (in dependence on certain conditions). Is this something ‘you’ would deliberately do ‘to yourself’ if ‘you’ had any choice in the matter?

Obviously not!

“fear/anxiety is another strong emotion that seems tied in with sense of self”. Yes, true, fear and anxiety are often linked in with the sense of self. So it’s clear that there’s a sense of self still there. But does a sense of self amount to the existence of a self?

No. The sense of something can be mistaken.

Is there a self ‘deciding’ to ‘have’ these emotions? Or are they simply arising ‘automatically’ in dependence on various self-less conditions?

They arise on their own... and then other parts of what makes up "me" would prefer to not have them around.

Look at the way these emotions arise. Is there any sense of volition around them (in the sense of a decision to ‘have’ them)?

Perhaps this needs more observation, but my first response is that they just arise under certain conditions and any sense of volition associated with them is either the desire to not have them or to practice staying with them & accepting them into experience.

Look at them in direct experience – assuming they are actually there of course – and describe as clearly as possible what the direct experience is – what are the sensations and the mental activities that constitute them? How do they arise? How do they perpetuate themselves or continue?

Of course they have inconveniently dissipated :-) I'll print out this question & leave it lying about to prompt me to investigate. Will probably get back to you in the morning.

-

good :) night!

Look at them in direct experience – assuming they are actually there of course – and describe as clearly as possible what the direct experience is – what are the sensations and the mental activities that constitute them?

Well, the intention to take a good look at them seems to have made them disappear... it least compared with the last couple of weeks. But little flashes of fear/ anxiety did arise. Spent some time watching experience lying in bed, having tea & then the 1st part of my meditation.

The best I can say is that actual sensation of fear/ anxiety is an empty feeling in the pit of the stomach accompanied by certain thoughts.

How do they arise?

The flashes of fear/ anxiety seem to be preceded by a thought, or a mental image or an outside noise.

How do they perpetuate themselves or continue?

I'm not sure. There seems to be an inner dialogue, perhaps something like "I am like this". Little whirlpools of thought?

Spent some time thinking about the Santa analogy. (A good analogy is always open to being expanded some more)

Before I stopped believing in Santa I had some hard evidence for his existence... the presents at the end of my bed on Xmas day. The belief in Santa was never something i questioned too deeply... perhaps unconsciously i didn't want to know in case the presents no longer came. Once i'd spotted my parents sneaking into my bedroom late at night then i had a rather more prosaic explanation for the arrival of the toys and they didn't stop coming!

The equivalent "hard evidence" for self is the psychological "stuff" that happens. So I guess I need to spot where it is really coming from. If I don't like some of the "stuff" that comes along there is no point in writing to Santa c/o The North Pole because there is no one to take the letter. So what is the equivalent to my parents? Something ordinary and rather prosaic I suppose. Habit energies? Repeated patterns of thought? I guess I need to keep awake at night until Santa comes & I can see who he really is.

-

Hi V,

Look at them in direct experience – assuming they are actually there of course – and describe as clearly as possible what the direct experience is – what are the sensations and the mental activities that constitute them?

Well, the intention to take a good look at them seems to have made them disappear... it least compared with the last couple of weeks. But little flashes of fear/ anxiety did arise. …

It’s worth taking note of the usefulness of what you’ve observed there, i.e. that ‘looking’ at thinking tends to make it disappear. For one thing, it’s an effective way of quietening the mind so ‘looking’ is more focussed. Another is to note very clearly the tremendous insubstantiality of thoughts, despite their tendency to ‘present’ themselves as very substantial.

Can you get a sense of this insubstantiality and explore further? E.g. is thinking / mental activity anything ‘more’ than other sense arisings? I mean, as an experienced phenomenon, does it warrant the ‘central’ role it tends to attribute to itself (including, of course, the role of ‘I’ / ‘me’ / ‘self’)?

The best I can say is that actual sensation of fear/ anxiety is an empty feeling in the pit of the stomach accompanied by certain thoughts.

That’s a fairly clear / objective assessment.

This was good:

The equivalent "hard evidence" for self is the psychological "stuff" that happens. So I guess I need to spot where it is really coming from. If I don't like some of the "stuff" that comes along there is no point in writing to Santa c/o The North Pole because there is no one to take the letter. So what is the equivalent to my parents? Something ordinary and rather prosaic I suppose. Habit energies? Repeated patterns of thought? I guess I need to keep awake at night until Santa comes & I can see who he really is.

Well, at least keep awake to this investigating! When ‘selfing’ arises, can you find anything other than thinking / conceptualising that turns this psychological stuff or habit energies into ‘self’?

T.

Hi again.

Can you get a sense of this insubstantiality and explore further? E.g. is thinking / mental activity anything ‘more’ than other sense arisings? I mean, as an experienced phenomenon, does it warrant the ‘central’ role it tends to attribute to itself (including, of course, the role of ‘I’ / ‘me’ / ‘self’)?

My 1st response was "surely sensorial experience is more substantial than thought", but it is true that thought can sometimes dominate experience so that you are not aware of the immediate experience of the senses.

But I'll take this question & the next one to bed with me again & see what I come up with in the morning.

When ‘selfing’ arises, can you find anything other than thinking / conceptualising that turns this psychological stuff or habit energies into ‘self’?

Buenas noches!
.

Can you get a sense of this insubstantiality and explore further? E.g. is thinking / mental activity anything ‘more’ than other sense arisings? I mean, as an experienced phenomenon, does it warrant the ‘central’ role it tends to attribute to itself (including, of course, the role of ‘I’ / ‘me’ / ‘self’)?

Often the thoughts are just churning away in the background all by themselves and awareness dissipates them. Trying to look at them does seem to make them evaporate.

There seems to be a 2nd kind of thought, lets call it "lucid thought" - it is associated with awareness & is deliberate - but it is even more insubstantial & momentary & has none of the churning, selfing of background thought.

So the question arose... what is the looking? the awareness?
It seems to be lucid, intelligent, not associated with "I". When the "ego" tries to appropriate it, that is really horrible - gives me an instant headache that is difficult to relax out of.

When ‘selfing’ arises, can you find anything other than thinking / conceptualising that turns this psychological stuff or habit energies into ‘self’?

Certain experiences arising in the physical body can easily get hooked on to an idea of self... physical discomfort of different kinds, sexual desire...

Laziness / despondency arose - is this just physical tiredness associated with an idea of self I wonder?

Hope you are well & happy.

.

Been observing the arising of fear/anxiety in the midst of everyday activities. With awareness can look into the empty space where there "ought" to be a "me". Where does it come from? So mysterious.

But the bigger question is... why, when there isn't awareness, does "me-ing" get caught up in it all?

.

Hi V,

Sorry for delay – setting up for retreat and rather snowed-in still.

Often the thoughts are just churning away in the background all by themselves and awareness dissipates them. Trying to look at them does seem to make them evaporate.

There seems to be a 2nd kind of thought, lets call it "lucid thought" - it is associated with awareness & is deliberate - but it is even more insubstantial & momentary & has none of the churning, selfing of background thought.

So is it clear in direct experience that all kinds of thought / thinking are arising self-lessly?

Is there an entity that ‘thinks the thought’? What’s the process whereby the ‘entity’ (‘I’) is imputed or projected?

So the question arose... what is the looking? the awareness?
It seems to be lucid, intelligent, not associated with "I". When the "ego" tries to appropriate it, that is really horrible - gives me an instant headache that is difficult to relax out of.

What do you mean by ‘intelligent’ and ‘ego’ in this case? Could you describe in a bit more detail what happens when “ego” tries to appropriate – i.e. what sensations, what kinds of mental activity, what comes first and what follows?

Been observing the arising of fear/anxiety in the midst of everyday activities. With awareness can look into the empty space where there "ought" to be a "me". Where does it come from? So mysterious.

Do you mean where does the sense of ‘me’ come from? Could just say it comes from all the conditions that have ever arisen … which of course is not a satisfactory ‘answer’, so ‘mysterious’ / ‘don’t know’ is probably a good space to remain in, so to speak.

But the bigger question is... why, when there isn't awareness, does "me-ing" get caught up in it all?

‘When there isn’t awareness’ – but is there ever non-awareness. How is it ‘known’ that getting caught up happens?

In direct experience, notice that there are ‘nows’ when awareness so to speak narrows down and ‘enjoys’ getting into what the mind likes to label as ‘distraction’, or ‘non-awareness’, and there are nows when it ‘enjoys’ becoming spacious and open. Just ignore the slight anthropomorphising of ‘awareness’ there – it’s getting at something that happens spontaneously and without agency.

From the point of view of awareness, nothing that arises is a problem. Like you said, it’s lucid – it ‘knows’ whatever arises just as it is, and it’s not evaluating or judging. Hence, rather like a mirror and its reflections. So awareness (without reifying it as any-thing) simply ‘allows’ – spaciousness happens, a thought follows ‘that was awareness’, focus happens, a thought follows ‘that was ‘me-ing’.

Look at this experientially – can ‘you’ actually find a ‘me’ doing any of it, ever?

T.

Sorry for delay – setting up for retreat and rather snowed-in still.

I must confess I did miss not hearing from you yesterday! Kept checking the forum. Very keen to continue and I'm very grateful that you are willing to give the time & energy to guide me.

So is it clear in direct experience that all kinds of thought / thinking are arising self-lessly?
Is there an entity that ‘thinks the thought’?

That does seem to be clear. Thought just happens. A lot of the time rather out of control - apparently just mad neurological processes that just keep firing over & over again.

What’s the process whereby the ‘entity’ (‘I’) is imputed or projected?

That is the big question! Still looking. Feels like it is something "under the surface", but all I can say for the moment is I don't know.

What do you mean by ‘intelligent’ and ‘ego’ in this case?

Ah ‘intelligent’ could be v ambiguous... I don't mean "clever", I mean more like "intelligent life on another planet" - conscious, lucid - not a dead impersonal force. (At the same time obviously not personal in terms of "belonging to me".)
‘Ego’ I mean just the same as "I", "me" etc.

‘When there isn’t awareness’ – but is there ever non-awareness. How is it ‘known’ that getting caught up happens?
In direct experience, notice that there are ‘nows’ when awareness so to speak narrows down and ‘enjoys’ getting into what the mind likes to label as ‘distraction’, or ‘non-awareness’, and there are nows when it ‘enjoys’ becoming spacious and open. Just ignore the slight anthropomorphising of ‘awareness’ there – it’s getting at something that happens spontaneously and without agency.

Ok. I can work with that way of analysing it - it seems more accurate. When I said "unawareness" it would be more correct to say "extremely narrow awareness" & when I said "awareness" lets say "broad all inclusive awareness"... or something like that.

Could you describe in a bit more detail what happens when “ego” tries to appropriate – i.e. what sensations, what kinds of mental activity, what comes first and what follows?

Basically this happens in meditation. It is like this... seeing the advantages of broad awareness an excessively "self-power" approach takes over and tries to "do" awareness. I think this tends to occur after a broader awareness has arisen anyway and "self" tries to grab onto it. Hmm... self... should I say "unhelpful habitual ways of meditating from the past" there?
What follows is tightness in the forehead, headache.
A way out of it is to turn around completely, drop all "self-power" & open to "other-power". Instead of thinking of "my awareness" surrender completely and allow (for example) the Love of Amitabha to flood experience.

In fact, exploring all this this morning I wondered if one could simply substitute the word "Love" for "awareness". Love is a kind, 'intelligent' interest in whatever arises in experience. The word "awareness" can sound cold, distant, uninvolved.

Been observing the arising of fear/anxiety in the midst of everyday activities. With awareness can look into the empty space where there "ought" to be a "me". Where does it come from? So mysterious.
Do you mean where does the sense of ‘me’ come from? Could just say it comes from all the conditions that have ever arisen … which of course is not a satisfactory ‘answer’, so ‘mysterious’ / ‘don’t know’ is probably a good space to remain in, so to speak.

Actually I meant the fear/anxiety rather than a "me".

Look at this experientially – can ‘you’ actually find a ‘me’ doing any of it, ever?

Ever since I began seriously investigating the laksanas in my experience about 3 years ago I have never been able to find anything within the processes that arise that could be called a self. In meditation, most of the time, that is clear. At the beginning particularly, I took a "sceptical" approach - trying to prove the Buddha wrong as it were. But nothing in my fully aware experience works as a "self" - everything is evanescent, coming into being & disappearing... mental processes, thoughts, feelings, sense experience...

But in everyday life, or at other times in meditation too, awareness gets narrowed down. Habitual "me" centred mental states predominate. There may still be a vague recollection that there is another perspective but there is this rigid clinging onto a narrow "me" - a very limited field of mental events - that takes over & wrecks havoc. Afterwards it is possible to look back & say there was no "me" there, but when it is happening the belief in self seems to drag everything down. Sometimes it is an arrogant self, sometimes a "miserable little worm" self.

Yesterday I had an interesting experience in a gym that I was trying out for the 1st time.

On seeing an attractive guy a thought arose something like "he is gorgeous" & the desire to possess him began to arise too. Quickly awareness noted that this desire & thought are not "mine". They are just processes. (Although with a lot of psychic energy behind them!) Related to that came recollection of the suffering mental states that can be associated with allowing such desire to "take over". Then, remembering past experience of similar desire it was suddenly clear that all those years ago there was no self either, even though back then "I" thought "I" was tormented by desire. It made sense to me why, on this forum, you ask such things as "has there ever been a self?" Later on I lost it completely & fell into severe distraction on the internet.

So whatever the nature of this residual sense of self is - it feels quite subtle & is still eluding awareness. There is something that I'm not spotting.

-

Hi V,

What’s the process whereby the ‘entity’ (‘I’) is imputed or projected?

That is the big question! Still looking. Feels like it is something "under the surface", but all I can say for the moment is I don't know.

Ok, the ‘answer’ is in the whole investigation, so leave that to one side for now.

When I said "unawareness" it would be more correct to say "extremely narrow awareness" & when I said "awareness" lets say "broad all inclusive awareness"... or something like that

Try looking in direct experience at this: is it (yet) more correct to observe that it’s not awareness that is ‘broad-inclusive’ or ‘narrow’ but the objects of awareness (so to speak)?

For instance, in terms of sight, say you blindfold yourself and sit in a windowless room at midnight on a moonless night(!), it might appear that ‘visual awareness’ is somewhat limited, whereas if you emerge into the full light of day, it might appear very broad open and inclusive. But is there any difference from the ‘point of view’ of awareness? There is just ‘being aware’ of what presents itself.

Could you describe in a bit more detail what happens when “ego” tries to appropriate – i.e. what sensations, what kinds of mental activity, what comes first and what follows?

Basically this happens in meditation. It is like this... seeing the advantages of broad awareness an excessively "self-power" approach takes over and tries to "do" awareness. I think this tends to occur after a broader awareness has arisen anyway and "self" tries to grab onto it. Hmm... self... should I say "unhelpful habitual ways of meditating from the past" there?

Is there ever any control over whether awareness is ‘broad’ or ‘limited’ (to go on using that kind of terminology)?

If the objects of awareness right now are looping thoughts, one of which is ‘I must get back to broad awareness’, does that necessarily happen? We’re getting at there being no controlling self-entity. Obsessive thinking is usually unpleasant, spaciousness pleasant – both are objects arising in awareness, which has no preferences, views or judgments and simply ‘allows’.

A way out of it is to turn around completely, drop all "self-power" & open to "other-power". Instead of thinking of "my awareness" surrender completely and allow (for example) the Love of Amitabha to flood experience.

In fact, exploring all this this morning I wondered if one could simply substitute the word "Love" for "awareness". Love is a kind, 'intelligent' interest in whatever arises in experience. The word "awareness" can sound cold, distant, uninvolved.

Been observing the arising of fear/anxiety in the midst of everyday activities. With awareness can look into the empty space where there "ought" to be a "me". Where does it come from? So mysterious.

Love is another word for awareness. But notice how ‘pointing’ words do make a difference. Notice the different quality if it’s pointed to as ‘awareness’, ‘love’, ‘compassion’, ‘equanimity’, ‘clarity’, ‘emptiness’, ‘suchness’, ‘no-thing’ and so on. All of these are pointing to the same ‘this-ness’ (as is ‘this-ness’)!

I’ll post some more responses in a bit, but you might want to look at this part now.

T.

Thanks for that. It feels significant. Will get back when some kind of clear response emerges. This seems to challenge something directly.

Hi V,

Responding to the rest of your last post.

But in everyday life, or at other times in meditation too, awareness gets narrowed down. Habitual "me" centred mental states predominate. There may still be a vague recollection that there is another perspective but there is this rigid clinging onto a narrow "me" - a very limited field of mental events - that takes over & wrecks havoc. Afterwards it is possible to look back & say there was no "me" there, but when it is happening the belief in self seems to drag everything down. Sometimes it is an arrogant self, sometimes a "miserable little worm" self.

Take into account the question about whether it’s ‘awareness narrowing’ or more a different kind of object appearing in awareness. Habitual “me” centred states (= what I refer to as ‘selfing’) arise out of conditions (not from a self) and don’t affect awareness one iota. The recognition or seeing-knowing of that is the gate, but this sort of habitual arising continues after the gate. In other words, after the self-view has been seen through (together with any beliefs or doubts that upheld it), these habit-energies still run BUT the principal source of their fuel – the self-view – has been cut off.

If you’re expecting these habitual ‘me’ states to stop, there’s an unexamined belief, i.e. that the ‘gate’ cannot have been passed until they stop happening. You’re looking for the wrong evidence, so to speak. The situation you’re describing in the quote above is one that happens after the gate. The proviso is that once the gate is known to be ‘passed’, well you could say that a major different conditioning-factor has arisen that tends to ‘unbinding’.

Re your observations at the gym:

Quickly awareness noted that this desire & thought are not "mine". They are just processes. (Although with a lot of psychic energy behind them!) Related to that came recollection of the suffering mental states that can be associated with allowing such desire to "take over". Then, remembering past experience of similar desire it was suddenly clear that all those years ago there was no self either, even though back then "I" thought "I" was tormented by desire.

These observations are characteristic of ‘unbinding’ – particularly those in italics. Could you explore the possibility that ‘you’ have seen through the self-view, that certain conceptions (doubts, beliefs) are holding back full acceptance of this but that nevertheless certain ‘fruits’ of this mitigated seeing-through are already manifesting?

T.