The Gate

From K...

Hi John

I have been devouring LU for several days and am more and more desperate to rid 'myself' of the nonexistent 'I' and be done with it.  The only scary thing is that I have been 'here' and done that many a time in the last 30 years, or so.  Like countless others, I 'see', but I don't 'feel' this concept.  Or rather, I guess I must not 'feel', since the observer (which is how I have separated from the 'me' until now) still has traces of a 'me'.  I cannot consistently 'get' that the observer is also a story.  And, then there are a couple of stories that make me borderline rude with a few petty tyrants (Toltec - for those who push your buttons and trigger extreme reactions!) which really brings home that I am still rooted in identifying with the darned "I".  

I also have this 'fear' of 'letting it out', which stymies any attempts to share with others and benefit from this internet phenomenon which has the potential to talk about it and really bring it home...  I do see this "I" as separate and non existent (maybe that is where the issue lies - the subtle difference between 'separate' and 'non-existent'!), but it doesn't go anywhere from there...  :(

Anyways, this intellectualizing could go on forever...  I have also been devouring your website and truly appreciate your 'exercises' and everything else.  I have a hard time with 'direct experience', but do convince myself that I 'understand' it!  I was also drawn by your references to Advaita and Toltec (don Miguel Ruiz - The Four Agreements/Allan Hardman), both of which have 'spoken' to me and helped me move majorly forward, but haven't
resulted in the direct experience that is critical for the crossover (or, realizing that there is no crossover!!)...  Ideally, I would have asked if you would be willing to guide me 'privately' (email) and then once the gate
had been crashed to 'put' it anywhere you liked!  But, I think I need to get 'over it', so just guiding me on the LU guiding area would suffice.  I don't know what the future will hold and if I will get past those silly bars I have placed around that gate, but I really, really would like to make it through.  

I would have put quotation marks on all the "I's" in this email, but it was too cumbersome and maybe (even) harder to read.  

As Rumi ( I think) said, "I have lived on the lip of insanity, wanting to know reasons, knocking on a door. It opens. I've been knocking from the inside."  Door, gate, or not, I (the one who thinks she exists) want to be done!

So, would you guide me?  Although it felt good to see references to Toltec, angel of death, Mooji in your blog, I have to admit that I have stayed away from all, since I have been reading LU, so part of the agreement is already
met.  :)  so if you would...  :)  if you would not, that is fine, too.  :)

I may never send this, so I am...

love and blessings
K

From s-p-a-c-e...

Hi K,

Thank you for your email.

By the way, seeing won't stop you being a pain in the ass from time to time. :)

I've stopped taking on new clients on LU at the moment, just continuing with the one's I was working with.

However, if you're willing to work on email for a while - there are no guarantees, and there may or may not be some time between emails.

We can work to the same LU contract/disclaimer as seen here:

http://www.liberationunleashed.com/

If you could confirm you have seen all the above and would like me to be your guide - then we shall begin.

With best wishes,
John

K wrote...

Oh joy!  or, some such thing,  But, many thanks.  No worries for working around your schedule.  I have read the faqs, disclaimer, and other rules and I accept them to believe in and abide by...
 
I am okay being an occasional pain in the ass.  In fact,  that would be welcomed!  I grew up with stern Irish Catholic nuns in school and "pain in the ass" was not an option.  Strict parents (not harsh, just strong expectations) made up the home front.  :)  
 
What worries me most about the reactions to a close relative, is the charge behind the emotions.  some powerful stories behind them.   so.... there is 'pain in the ass', and there is downright rudeness and hostility!  :(  I am hoping this and other stories will be seen for what they are - nothing, once that silly illusory veil is lifted.
 
So, may starting happen...
 
all the best to you
K

s-p-a-c-e wrote:

Hi K,

Ok, great.

"once that silly illusory veil is lifted"

This is a good place to start, because the better the map, the easier to see.

Something is illusory, only if we mistake X for Y.  In the case of "me", we are mistaking "me" for me.

If you bring "me", "I", self - whatever you want to call it - into the here&now, what is it made of?

Sometime people are very vague and fluffy about it, so it's good to get as clear as possible: what is this "me"?

In your reply, could you list out what comes up as being a component of "me" showing up.

For example:

Are there specific feelings of "me"?
If so, what are they?  Where in the body?  Do they vary in strength?  Always there, or come and go?

Are there any thoughts associated with being "me"?  Maybe internal dialogue?  If so, in who's voice?

Are there any beliefs/ideas around being "me"?  Is it believed to be true or untrue, real or fiction?
What is the evidence for the belief?

Is "me" ever not there in experience?  Why not?

Does "me" need ALL the components to be complete?  What happens if this or that one is dropped?

ALSO

If you had any resistance to seeing that seeing is happening without a seer, who would you be after dropping all resistance?

Speak soon,
John

K wrote:

Hi John
 
I don't know if this helps...  But, here it is:
 
For example:
 

Are there specific feelings of "me"?
If so, what are they?  Where in the body?  Do they vary in strength?  Always there, or come and go?

I sat looking for these feelings. 

First, there was the physical awareness of me.  Noticing my arms, legs, feeling the bottom making the connection with the chair, wiggle of toes.

Then, the train of thoughts started saying ‘you should go and see if everything is ok downstairs’, followed by ‘stop making excuses, do this DE thing, you know you want to be done’, followed by ‘okay let me write this down, then’, which was then ‘given in’ to.  The action thoughts seem a little denser, unlike the other ones that seem more like a conversation going on somewhere in the head ‘region’. 
 
I am a very good conversationalist in my head.  So, it sounds like a loud pub (yes, complete with the alcohol!)…  I have worked hard (successfully) at setting all the voices (thoughts?) apart, so now, there are these thoughts, and these other personalities, some of whom insist there is no “me”.  Very confusing.  So, thoughts – always there, period.
 

Are there any thoughts associated with being "me"?  Maybe internal dialogue?  If so, in who's voice?

Ah, voices…  I tend to do the Toltec ‘voices’ (that is not how Ruiz puts it – it is my personalization of the method).  I can distinguish between the Judge, the Warrior, and the Inner Child, who are constantly battling it out.  Increasingly, the Warrior wins out (i.e. the old story or filter is a lie), although there are sufficient situations where the Judge still berates the IC for a ‘wrong’ decision made.
 

Are there any beliefs/ideas around being "me"?  Is it believed to be true or untrue, real or fiction?
What is the evidence for the belief?

I am not sure if this how you meant it – but, a huge belief is that the me should be good and kind, caring, compassionate, looking out for others, loving, loyal,…

In a different way, the “me” feels like the million thoughts that parade through the system, one of which is trying to convince someone (who the heck?) that there is no ‘me’ sitting around playing conductor to this finely tuned (sometimes, not) orchestra that is, K.

I understand that there is no evidence for the belief (more, a feeling) that there is a little girl that can be pinpointed to, or pinched to see if real, that can stand up and claim to be “ME”, but it is not felt in the ‘bones’, so to speak.  
 

Is "me" ever not there in experience?  Why not?

Because there is no “me”.  However, there is that “flibbertijibbet, will – o’-the-wisp, moonbeam-in-your-hand’ feeling that lingers, claiming to be the “me” that is still hard to get rid of.  It also sometimes feels like that idiotic observer ‘person’ that I have worked on for so long, too.
 

Does "me" need ALL the components to be complete?  What happens if this or that one is dropped?

The thought ‘you’re right, see, there is no one here’.  Thought: ‘let it go, it’s all ‘pretend’’.  But, why do I still feel the presence of that ‘hmm, there, you did good’.  Another thought…  I don’t even know what I am supposed to “feel”.  Ugh.
 
ALSO
 

If you had any resistance to seeing that seeing is happening without a seer, who would you be after dropping all resistance?

I don’t know.  Fear (lose a loyal friend), stops that ‘seeing’.  Still working on it…
 
Thank you!
K

s-p-a-c-e wrote...

Hi K,

Are there specific feelings of "me"?
If so, what are they? Where in the body? Do they vary in strength? Always there, or come and go?

I sat looking for these feelings.
First, there was the physical awareness of me. Noticing my arms, legs, feeling the bottom making the connection with the chair, wiggle of toes.
Then, the train of thoughts started saying ‘you should go and see if everything is ok downstairs’, followed by ‘stop making excuses, do this DE thing, you know you want to be done’, followed by ‘okay let me write this down, then’, which was then ‘given in’ to. The action thoughts seem a little denser, unlike the other ones that seem more like a conversation going on somewhere in the head ‘region’.

Ok, go back to this and notice the one being "given in to", the one that seems to be the source of thoughts.

Just naturally notice this "one".

When you have that sense of this "one", look straight into its heart and ask, "Is this really me?"

I am a very good conversationalist in my head. So, it sounds like a loud pub (yes, complete with the alcohol!)… I have worked hard (successfully) at setting all the voices (thoughts?) apart, so now, there are these thoughts, and these other personalities, some of whom insist there is no “me”. Very confusing. So, thoughts – always there, period.

Thoughts are ok. They are not really of any concern. But as thoughts show up, notice not the thoughts, but the sense of ownership, them being "my" thoughts, and notice the one who appears to own them.

You'll know you have it when there there is the feeling: ah yes, this is me, right here.

I am not sure if this how you meant it – but, a huge belief is that the me should be good and kind, caring, compassionate, looking out for others, loving, loyal,…

In a different way, the “me” feels like the million thoughts that parade through the system, one of which is trying to convince someone (who the heck?) that there is no ‘me’ sitting around playing conductor to this finely tuned (sometimes, not) orchestra that is, K.

I understand that there is no evidence for the belief (more, a feeling) that there is a little girl that can be pinpointed to, or pinched to see if real, that can stand up and claim to be “ME”, but it is not felt in the ‘bones’, so to speak.

Beliefs are not our concern either - they are just habitual thoughts that have become "laid down" in the mind's view of ourselves and the world. Like the water in a fish bowl. :)

Because there is no “me”. However, there is that “flibbertijibbet, will – o’-the-wisp, moonbeam-in-your-hand’ feeling that lingers, claiming to be the “me” that is still hard to get rid of. It also sometimes feels like that idiotic observer ‘person’ that I have worked on for so long, too.

Ah, great - the moonbeam-in-your-hand - that's the one.

Now, let's be clear first of all what this "one" actually is - because it can seem to "claim to be me", "have thoughts", "want me to…".

In a nutshell, the experience and perception of this "one" is that it is me.

This is the illusion, right here - mistaking X for Y, this "one" for me.

By the way, don't worry about Direct Experience. It's holding this "one" in the net of awareness, like a caught fish, and looking at it for real.

Have a good look and get a good feel for it. There's a lightness and intent curiosity about this "fish". What is it? Really.

You'll notice two things:

1. the sensations of being this "one".

2. the beliefs about what it is: it is "me", that is true and real - etc.

Put the two together and you have a tidy little fabrication that feels like "me".

And, of course, being convinced of that, we ACT AS IF it is me. :D

So, take a fascinating long look at this "fish", the one being called "me", the moonbeam - look at it directly in the eye, fearlessly.

Does "me" need ALL the components to be complete? What happens if this or that one is dropped?

The thought ‘you’re right, see, there is no one here’. Thought: ‘let it go, it’s all ‘pretend’’. But, why do I still feel the presence of that ‘hmm, there, you did good’. Another thought… I don’t even know what I am supposed to “feel”. Ugh.

You're doing great - that presence is the one we're looking at. We're not pushing the presence away, removing it, or anything like that. Only seeing it for what it really is and isn't. It's a gentle seeing, nothing to be forced.

If you had any resistance to seeing that seeing is happening without a seer, who would you be after dropping all resistance?

I don’t know. Fear (lose a loyal friend), stops that ‘seeing’. Still working on it…

Whilst "me" is an identified with perspective, that doesn't stop overnight the habit of a lifetime of it feeling like me. :)

Give the work a lightness, there is already a firm intent. We're basically making the space for grace. :) Kind of laying out an invitation.

With best wishes,
John

K wrote:

John, thanks for the direction and the pointers...  I thought my response would be ready by now, but it will take a little longer - so, just a heads up, I'm working on it.
 
Thanks for your patience!
 
Take care
K

Hi K,

Really no rush.  Enjoy the investigation.

Best wishes,
John

K wrote:

Hi John
 
I am reminded of a Toltec friend, Allan Hardman, who says "No rush, and not a moment to lose".  :)
 
here goes:
 

Ok, go back to this and notice the one being "given in to", the one that seems to be the source of thoughts.
 
Just naturally notice this "one".
 
When you have that sense of this "one", look straight into its heart and ask, "Is this really me?"

 
The one I ‘chose’ to ‘give in to’ (start writing – last email), and the one I ‘gave in to’ because the phone rang...  One was a thought that was ‘succumbed’ to, the other was an external stimulus.  Probably also a thought, ‘answer the phone’.  Neither had a real ‘doer’, they were just ‘done’.  I can ‘see’ that, but I still feel a sensation of a somebody who is introducing the thought ‘now go do it’.  How ridiculous is that – and, frustrating.   As if there is “Me” (a proper noun, as in K) who is a slave to the thoughts – some more than others.
 

Thoughts are ok.  They are not really of any concern.  But as thoughts show up, notice not the thoughts, buy the sense of ownership, them being "my" thoughts, and notice the one who appears to own them.
 
You'll know you have it when there there is the feeling: ah yes, this is me, right here.
I cannot find a “me” that owns any of these thoughts.  It seems to be yet another thought.
 
Beliefs are not our concern either - they are just habitual thoughts that have become "laid down" in the mind's view of ourselves and the world.  Like the water in a fish bowl. :)
 
Ah, great - the moonbeam-in-your-hand - that's the one.
 
Now, let's be clear first of all what this "one" actually is - because it can seem to "claim to be me", "have thoughts", "want me to…".
 
In a nutshell, the experience and perception of this "one" is that it is me.
 
I don’t know about the experience, but certainly the perception.  
 
This is the illusion, right here - mistaking X for Y, this "one" for me.

This seems to make a little more sense.  It’s like looking for a hammer to pound something with; finding a heavy object that will have the same effect, and for all practical purposes (and, for posterity), this heavy object may now be labeled a ‘hammer’ – to always be available for a  pounding’ action.

So, if I am not the myriad of thoughts (easy part!), then is there a name (or, is there even such a “one”) for the ‘one/thing’ that glues this human creation (K) together through all her experiences?  Do I need to go through a process of elimination to get rid of this “I” perception?  To get to the “neti neti” (not this, not that) of the Upanishads…

Also, I was driving today, noticing that driving was happening.  Initially, I was somewhat apprehensive leaving such a fine tuned action to ‘just happening’!  Then, I realized that again it was an orchestra playing.  The eyes were doing their thing, seeing/scanning the road; the hands were doing their thing, steering; the feet were doing their thing, moving between the accelerator and the brake pedal.  The ears could also have been playing their part, but I wanted the quiet… Although, I did think that there was some sort of communication between the role of the eyes and the feet – scanning happening and based on that data, foot kicking into action on the accelerator or brake.  Cannot tell if there is an analogy (or, a budding perception) there, just a thought floated by.
 
I have a plan to start taking vitamins, and such.  I keep forgetting to take them and have been considering identifying a specific time of day to take them, etc.  So, first I was, “who is forgetting”?  I guess ‘forgetting is just happening’ – based on some underlying story/thought that prevents ‘remembering’?  Is that what it is?
 

By the way, don't worry about Direct Experience.  It's holding this "one" in the net of awareness, like a caught fish, and looking at it for real.
Have a good look and get a good feel for it.  There's a lightness and intent curiosity about this "fish".  What is it?  Really.
 
You'll notice two things:
 
1. the sensations of being this "one".
 
2. the beliefs about what it is: it is "me", that is true and real - etc.
 
Put the two together and you have a tidy little fabrication that feels like "me".
 
And, of course, being convinced of that, we ACT AS IF it is me. :D
 
So, take a fascinating long look at this "fish", the one being called "me", the moonbeam - look at it directly in the eye, fearlessly.

 
Wow!  I ‘see’, in the net, a scared little K (that Inner Child Toltec concept).  Thoughts, “its okay, K, that’s not you – it’s another story”; “there is no you”; “get over it, there is no you, to whom it was done or who is doing the doing”.  A constriction in the chest and then the eyes opened.
 

You're doing great - that presence is the one we're looking at.  We're not pushing the presence away, removing it, or anything like that.  Only seeing it for what it really is and isn't.  It's a gentle seeing, nothing to be forced.

 
Thank you for the reminder.  Just recognizing that ‘presence’ for what it is, then?  A myth?
 

Whilst "me" is an identified with perspective, that doesn't stop overnight the habit of a lifetime of it feeling like me. :)
 
Give the work a lightness, there is already a firm intent.  We're basically making the space for grace. :)  Kind of laying out an invitation.

 
Reminds me of a paraphrased Susan Gregg (another Toltec teacher) saying, ‘If something is in your life, it is because you have invited it in.  If something is not there, it is because you have not sent out an invitation’.  So, lay out the invitation for the ‘seer’ or the ‘non-seer’ – to just be, without acknowledgment or dissent? Sorta like the Santa Claus ‘story’…
 
I apologize if I take long to do the ‘seeing’.  I promise to be back every time, until you give up on me, or the seer gives up, and is done – whichever comes first.  Thank you!
 
Many blessings
K

s-p-a-c-e wrote:

Hi K,

The one I ‘chose’ to ‘give in to’ (start writing – last email), and the one I ‘gave in to’ because the phone rang...  One was a thought that was ‘succumbed’ to, the other was an external stimulus.  Probably also a thought, ‘answer the phone’.  Neither had a real ‘doer’, they were just ‘done’.  I can ‘see’ that, but I still feel a sensation of a somebody who is introducing the thought ‘now go do it’.  How ridiculous is that – and, frustrating.

That sensation-of-a-somebody is important to recognise.  You see, the sensation-of-a-somebody experience tends to be FUSED with the belief that "this sensation is me". Hence CON-FUSION. :)  They have habitually become entangled.  But that's ok, they don't really need entangling, just seen for what it is.

- a physical sensation that has been around for a long time
- the mind calls this sensation "me"
- the mind believes it
- this apparent "I" then acts accordingly

Now, of course, you mention feeling the sensation-of-a-somebody.  To feel, is to be aware of it.  To be aware of it is to not be that thing/sensation. How can you be the sensation that there is awareness of?

Next time, drop back into the awareness in which this sensation is only a passing appearance.

Essentially, we tend to notice the sensation and then step forward onto the stage claiming, "Hey, this is me." :) and start to perform.

But there is a space in which all this occurs, the water in which the fish swims.  We hadn't noticed it before because it's always been there, like an old chair in the corner of the room.

Always been there.

For 5 minutes, step back into that space of awareness and notice the sensation-of-a-somebody do it's dance and smile as you watch it - knowing it's not you.  Check your heart and ask it, in all honesty, is this sensation me?

You'll know you have it when there there is the feeling: ah yes, this is me, right here.

I cannot find a “me” that owns any of these thoughts.  It seems to be yet another thought.

Good.  You won't.  One can be fabricated in a second by the mind.  But no, thoughts come and go in response to life and are of life.

Also, I was driving today, noticing that driving was happening.  Initially, I was somewhat apprehensive leaving such a fine tuned action to ‘just happening’!  Then, I realized that again it was an orchestra playing.  The eyes were doing their thing, seeing/scanning the road; the hands were doing their thing, steering; the feet were doing their thing, moving between the accelerator and the brake pedal.  The ears could also have been playing their part, but I wanted the quiet… Although, I did think that there was some sort of communication between the role of the eyes and the feet – scanning happening and based on that data, foot kicking into action on the accelerator or brake.  Cannot tell if there is an analogy (or, a budding perception) there, just a thought floated by.

 

Driving is often a fun place to see the process of life happening without anyone doing it.

So, take a fascinating long look at this "fish", the one being called "me", the moonbeam - look at it directly in the eye, fearlessly.
 

Wow!  I ‘see’, in the net, a scared little K (that Inner Child Toltec concept).  Thoughts, “its okay, K, that’s not you – it’s another story”; “there is no you”; “get over it, there is no you, to whom it was done or who is doing the doing”.  A constriction in the chest and then the eyes opened.

 

Great.  You are akin to that which is seeing this expression, the little K.  Showing that childlike innocence and fear.  Be gentle with all these expressions.  Even "there is no you", speak it gently and sensitively and powerfully - a gentle, respectful, loving power.

I apologize if I take long to do the ‘seeing’.  I promise to be back every time, until you give up on me, or the seer gives up, and is done – whichever comes first.  Thank you!

We're just taking a walk together. :)

Speak soon,
John

K wrote:

Interesting early morning...
 
Got a little late waking up this morning.  I woke up feeling 'good', but slightly hurried.  A whole bunch of little family incidents grabbed the attention! So... I first 'felt' a flash of annoyance somewhere in my body.  Then, I was reminded by a thought that it (flash of annoyance) was just a thought.  Not a "me" or an "I" doing, or being, "annoyed".  "Annoyance is happening".  Okay, "don't like it".  Bummer, "not-liking happening".  "no-one not liking it".  Started laughing, but a sense of 'feeling annoyed' was still noticed.  "Don't like this feeling of 'feeling annoyed'".  Ugh, there we go again, "who doesn't like?"  Like a hamster on its wheel - only way to get off, is get off.  Dance with it, smile with it, as long as there is a separation from the "feeling annoyed"?  Accept it, like 'looking' at the 'cup' sitting on the 'table'?
 
Random, and 'feel not-so-random' thoughts to share.  :)
 
Thanks for listening, John! 
 
Take care
K

s-p-a-c-e wrote:

Hi K,

Nice observing.  Yes, the mind is a dream of it's own making, projected out into the world.

When annoyance happens, this is a simple emotional reaction to the perception of the world - usually a judgement, this is not as it should be, why me etc.

The perception and the reaction cycle round and round.  Habits of the mind.

So well done for observing that.

Notice the judgements we may then have about this kind of reaction - oh, I should be feeling this, it's not me after all.

Also, there is no-one to accept and acceptance can occur.

But really, how can what is happening not be accepted?  Like we have a choice in the matter. :)  We are part of what is happening, no?  So are we accepting ourselves accepting?

Like Byron Katie might say, "You can't fight with the wind."  But the mind does fight with itself.  It has a dream made up of lots of stories of a "you" and "others".  We live in that dream.

So, you're observing is nice, starting to see the nature of the dream.  Now again, we are not going - good or bad - only to gently see the nature of things.  The hands are seen as not ours.  The body is not "mine".  "K" over around the world doing this and that, seeing things this and that way.

There is both the SEEING of life and the BEING of life happening at the same time.

There's no rush to see this.  We see a little bit more each minute, a little shift here, a little shift there.

There is no me and yet I am here.

Play with this phrase though the day.  Hold it gently.  No need to wonder what me and I refer to.  But that presence is what is here.  No force, just a lightness and intent noticing.

There is no me and yet I am here.
There is no me and yet I am here.
There is no me and yet I am here.

Speak soon,
John

K wrote:

Hi John
 

Play with this phrase though the day.  Hold it gently.  No need to wonder what me and I refer to.  But that presence is what is here.  No force, just a lightness and intent noticing.

There is no me and yet I am here.
There is no me and yet I am here.
There is no me and yet I am here.

 
I am stuck.  The mind works overtime trying to 'figure' out the process.  I sat trying to 'just feel' - without labels.  Holding phone in hand.  Felt the cold of the plastic/metal for an instant before it felt warm, resting in 'fingers' not falling down.  Boom, unrelated thoughts came flooding in and the moment was gone.  I just noticed the word "gently" in your earlier response.  will keep working on it.  
 
I feel I am wasting your time.  And, that this I (this amalgam of the biological body that life-s independently encumbered by thoughts and other myths that is known to the world as K) is 'beyond hope'.  I also 'know' that the label 'beyond hope' will beget 'beyond hope'.  Get out your mind, K.  :(
 
Just wanted to let you know that I am here, focused on this all day and night - spinning around in circles.
 
I will focus on only the above exercise and report back.
 
Thanks!
 
Much blessings
K

K wrote:

Hi John
 
There is no me and yet I am here.
There is no me and yet I am here.
There is no me and yet I am here.
 
I look around the room saying this, and nothing.  I close my eyes, take some deep breaths, and repeat them and I am transported back to my old sanctuary, a hut in the foothills of some mountains.  I used to see an image of Shiva sometimes, which now appears and says, "Yes, there is no you.  You've always known that.  Just like there is no me."  I feel a calm, and open my eyes.  Very nice experience!  Thank you!
 
I realize that I have always lived in my mind.  I have never been spontaneous in my reactions, always thought out (implicitly) - what is 'right', what is 'appropriate' ,etc.  So, allowing the feelings and letting the senses 'sense' seems very difficult for me.  Looking around the room trying to remove labels, brings about more labels! 
 
So, using baby steps, I am allowing my senses to emerge.  Walking barefoot and feeling the floor as I walk on the wood, the rug, and the tile.  Sitting on a leather couch and a fabric chair.  Touching a smooth cup, and one with an uneven pattern.  I am hoping this will raise the awareness of felt sensations, as distinct from the constant flow of thoughts.  I 'know' these thoughts are not me, but cannot separate the "me" from the thought as yet.  I sooo want to, though!
 
Thank you, again!
 
Blessings
K

K wrote:

Hi John

So, the goal is not to get rid of the perception of “I”, just to see it as 'false', because there is no "I".   Aha!
How are my thoughts connected to my feelings?  I want to talk to someone; it makes me happy.  The same ‘talk’ with someone else makes me ‘angry’.  Same talk happening; different thoughts/stores gives arise to different feelings/emotions.  Thoughts are constantly running around in what feels like the mind.  They come from a huge past conditioning.  What the toltecs call ‘domestication’.   X resulted in Y in the past.  So, if I want more of X, I better keep doing Y.  So now, whenever there is the X situation, the response is Y.  for eg. If you speak your mind and tell ‘your truth’, you get into trouble and no one will love you.  So, if you want to be loved and accepted, don’t speak your truth.  This becomes a strategy forever – don’t speak your truth if you want people to love and accept you. 

But, all these thoughts have no owner – so, why bother?  Guilt, shame, fear, resistance, lack of self worth, are all stories generated from past memories/assumptions, all thoughts that have the “I” fantasizing it is all about “it”!  How funny!  IT thinks it is so important that everything revolves around this feeling of “I”.

While I 'know' there is no separate entity "me" to whom life happens, I am unsure what this would (or, even if it should) 'feel' like.  I guess, it just IS.  Feelings are just the product of the many senses.  There is no feeling about what does not exist.  Hmmm?  Sounds good, but.

I think I can see that there is nothing going on - just life moving along doing its own thing.  No good things and bad things, just things.  There is nothing in control.  The thought (story) has no-one to attach itself to.  If there is no "me", there is no story!  It just is.  Just heard an audio from LU where a lady was asked to "bring the anger closer, and look at it".  She couldn't.  It was then suggested that "it is not there".  The lady said it was probably because she was not feeling the situation, that had brought up the anger, right now, but she could place herself in the original situation and re-create it partially.  it was then pointed out (paraphrased), that there is 'no I feeling the anger.  There is the thought, anger comes up, gets attached to the "I" = I am feeling the anger OR (worse!), I am angry.' (paraphrase cont'd), 'I feel the anger because of a thought about a situation that happened, or there is a thought that it may happen'.  If I may add to that - or, if it was assumed it happened. 

So, the thoughts will keep coming.  The "I" has nothing to do with it.  If it is not "my" thought then I don't have to catch it and dwell on it.  Watch it mosey-ing along.  Dance with it, smile with it, and say 'bye-bye'!  ( I think you had said..)  Onto the next thought when it decided to pop up.  Still don’t like the content of those thoughts, but they are not "mine" because there is no "me". 

I look back at the 4 Toltec personalities (Judge, parasite, Inner Child, Warrior) I would 'chat' (in my head) with, and see they are all different ways to identify the thought with a version of "me".  While they helped in separating from the thought (the presumption of 'it' happening to the IC (another version of "me")), they still persisted in a clinging of the thought of "me".  If the assumed story did not happen to anyone, then maybe the story will be 'seen' for what it is - a non-story, or not.   It won't matter.  It will be a cloud going by, a car passing by...  Big cloud, small cloud, red car, blue car.. but, just passing by. 

Am I still thinking too much??!!

Thought arises, John will get a headache if he reads this and thinks 'K' is nuts.  Then, that passes by, too.  Teehee!
Hope you are well.

Thanks for allowing me to ramble on...   Excitement building, from the thought that final 'seeing' may be nigh.  Then, eeek - there goes another thought.  whatever... feel the excitement - let that thought float on by...
 
Blessings
K